179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Frank Deutschmann
To:
*molly* ,
Date:
Wed, 7 May 1997 14:32:46 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) RE: Copyright infringement
Msg-Id:
<970507143247.ZM14551@dev41.bfm.com>
In-Reply-To:
<mollfrey@MIT.EDU>
Mbox:
idm.9705.gz
On May 7, 1:21pm, *molly* wrote:
quoted 3 lines Chris Fahey <chris@wanderlust.com> wrote:> Chris Fahey <chris@wanderlust.com> wrote: > >But as any copyright lawyer will tell you, its the > >*contents* which are copyrighted, not the medium.
quoted 3 lines Wow...someone should let Compuserve know. If this is actually true,> Wow...someone should let Compuserve know. If this is actually true, > then how is it that Compuserve can collect royalties for using the > .gif image format? That seems like medium and not content to me.
First, I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to deal extensively with compyright issues and copyright lawyers (mostly in the context of computer software). Also, what follows should in no way be construed as legal advice!!! Anyway, the GIF file format is a totally seperate issue; the issue there is a patent licensing issue for the technology (specifically: compression and storage of images). Although patents are similar to copyrights (they're both intellectual property), they are in some ways very different. As far as duplicating copyright-protected works, a "plain english" interpretation of the law (which Adam Weitzman already provided) is that you are basicly free to duplicate protected works for your own non-comercial use -- backups, use in your car, singing in the shower, tunes for your kids' birthday parties, etc. However, once you get into distribution and/or public performance, you are in commercial territory, regardless whether you charge a fee for your service, regardless if you turn a profit, and also regardless of whether you are an organized business or not. So, giving away 10,000 copies of _Thriller_ or giving one copy to a friend both constitute copyright violation (the only difference is scale); keeping a spare copy of _Thriller_ in your safe deposit box, OTOH, would not. The reason for this is that in both cases there is an asset transfer involved -- you are transferring real property (intellectual counts as real) from one person/entity to another. In the personal use (backup) case, there is no property transfer, and thus no possible commercial interest. (Note dying might be one way to distribute copyright-protected work without infringing: if you made 10,000 copies of _Thriller_, bequeathed each to a different person, then died, your heirs would get a free copy of _Thriller_, though they might owe probate tax on it....) -frank