[linux-elitists] Re: pho: Tonight on Disney
Karsten M. Self
Mon Oct 22 16:22:52 PDT 2001
on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Greg KH (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:57:29PM -0400, Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:
> > <<Hey, I've always thought that people swaping copyrighted files on
> > Napster was illegal.>>
> > Why?
> > I can lend you my book....
> > give you a copy of my tape.
> /me sighs
> Ok, what I should have said was:
> "I've always thought that people swapping files on Napster against the
> copyright holder's wishes was illegal."
1: 17 USC 107. AKA Fair Use.
2: Wind Done Gone ruling:
As of the 1909 Act, an author had "state common law protection
[that] persisted until the moment of general publication." Estate of
Martin Luther King, Jr. v. CBS, Inc., 194 F.3d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir.
1999). After the work was published, the author was entitled to
federal statutory copyright protection if she had complied with
certain federal requirements (i.e. publication with notice). If not,
the work was released into the public domain. Id. The system
illustrates that the author's ownership is in the copyright, and not
in the work itself, for if the author had an ownership interest in
the work itself, she would not lose that right if she published the
book without complying with federal statutory copyright
requirements. Compliance with the copyright law results in the
guarantee of copyright to the author for a limited time, but the
author never owns the work itself. § 202 ("Ownership of a copyright,
or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct
from ownership of any material object in which the work is
Copyright gives a copyright holder certain enumerated rights to
copyright. These are not manifest as ownership of the work, but of the
copyright, under the 11th Circuit's ruling, highlighted for emphasis:
The system illustrates that the author's ownership is in the
copyright, and not in the work itself, for if the author had an
ownership interest in the work itself, she would not lose that right
if she published the book without complying with federal statutory
copyright requirements....[T]he author never owns the work itself.
Unlawful swapping of content, I'll bite. The rest, no.
Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20011022/ff97d1a9/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists