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

[Hal Duston]

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:02:43PM -0700, Leo Mauler wrote:
> --- 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.

That is not my hypothesis, but rather the actual law as it
currently stands.  The examples you provide above are all of
a party reproducing a second party's copyrighted works.  The
example I provided did not involve any actual reproduction of
a copyrighted work, but rather an independently created work
that is not derived from another party's work.  That is not
and infringing act under copyright law.  This is a one of the
key differences between copyright law and patent law.  Patents
protect a specific implementation of an idea, or concept.  A
work infringes the patent of it is described by that patent
regardless of the creator's knowledge or awareness of that
patent.  A copyright protects a particular expression of an
idea or concept.  If another author INDEPENDENTLY creates a
second work that happens to be identical, the fact of that
independence causes the work to be non-infringing.  Again
this is not my hypothesis, but rather what the law actually
says.  Again, since there is no copying taking place there
is no copyright violation.

http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/is_independent_creation_a_defe.php


Thanks,
--
Hal