Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Sat, 5/31/08, Hal Duston <hald at kc.rr.com> wrote:

> At various times up to and including May 31, 2008 many
> people wrote:
> > Many things that I have snipped.
> 
> There appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the
> difference between copyrights and patents.  If I implement 
> an idea and it is found to be sufficiently similiar to a 
> pre-existing patent, then I am in violation of that patent 
> even if I am unware of its existence.  If I create a work 
> that is found to be similar to a pre-existing copyrighted 
> work, my ignorance of that work is a perfect defense, as I 
> am not violating the other creator's copyright even if my 
> created work is found to be identical.

I suspect that your hypothesis here isn't accurate.  If "my ignorance of that other work is a perfect defense...even if my created work is found to be identical", then there is nothing illegal with taking an existing work, erasing all traces of the previous author, making some superficial changes, and then passing off the entire work as my own.  Moreover, if there was no penalty for this behavior, I would also be allowed to make money off "my own song single 'Imagine (This)', hauntingly identical to John Lennon's 'Imagine', though mine has the background tuba", despite current copyright law not permitting this behavior.

"Fair Use" is in there so that you can take a *portion* of someone else's work for use in your own work, not take their entire work and claim it as your own.  Collage artists and sampling DJs walk a fine line with current copyright law.