[asterisk-biz] Copyright (was: Re: Ribbit.com ?)

[Matthew Rubenstein]

> Another of the 4 is the commercial use of the work, this is generally
> what gives school teachers the ability to xerox copyrighted passages of
> books for use in the classroom.  While its not an absolute exception, it
> does generally give a lot more liberty.

	Actually, the exception to copyright teachers photocopying copyrighted
passages is not because it's "noncommercial" (isn't a private university
"commercial"?) Copyright (in the US) is itself an exception to our right
to press freedom. Copyright is justified (in the Constitution itself) on
the basis of "to promote science and the useful arts". US law describes
"fair use" cases where the copyright exception to press freedom does not
constrain copying, which includes "personal use".

	Teachers straddle the line, because their "personal use" in making
copies rather than buying them isn't really personal when other persons
are using the copies. But the publishers have long recognized that their
copyright exception would piss off teachers who are a great market for
them, so they allow it.

	They did appear to draw the line, though, with the "Kinko's rule",
which prohibits anyone but the owner of the book to photocopy it. So a
teacher can't drop it off with a Kinko's employee (or a grad student) to
photocopy; the teacher has to photocopy it themself. This rule is still
hard to enforce, so it often isn't, but it's the rule.

	I expect teachers will no longer get away with any copying sometime
soon. The paper publishers are so desperate for customers that they're
not pushing it, but new laws (that frankly, in my view, violate the
Constitution) for electronic/digital publishing (including the eBooks
the CE industry has pushed to no effect for years) reduce or entirely
ignore "fair use" rights. DRM will cut into our rights, probably propped
up by unlawful, but intimidating (and probably usually upheld)
contracts. Part of the reason publishers are getting away with
infringing the public's rights is that the public is almost entirely
ignorant of how copyright relates to actual rights, while publishers'
lawyers and lobbyists are all too aware. 


On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 22:38 +0100, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 22:57 +0200, Zoa wrote:
> > Yes, if they keep that inside the company yes, as soon as it leaves the 
> > company (customers for example) it changes the situation
> 
> I really get off JIAX here, and more into the base laws, from a US
> perspective.  Because the GPL relies on a certain base of law to be
> effectual it may or may not be the same in all jurisdictions.  As a
> result YMMV.
> 
> But only to those customers, they have no obligation to release.  There
> are also ways of using gpl stuff and mixing it with gpl incompatible
> stuff such that it does not violate the license, even if distributed.
> This is something that new gpl variant tries to address.
> 
> If you connect over a socket then the gpl does not infect the program
> that is at the other end of that socket.  This kinda has to be since you
> cant enforce gpl licensing over sockets, think of a web browser/server
> situation.  You could provide enough logic in the gpl side to just talk
> to the non gpl stuff.  Then if it does get distributed it doesnt matter
> because the important stuff is sequestered.
> 
> Now in all fairness, this isnt just a deceitful trick, freeswitch.org
> uses this to talk to spandsp (GPL only).  Steve fully understands the
> limits and benefits of the gpl so he doesnt argue that its unfair, and
> is fully aware that we do this and has contributed verbally (although
> does not contribute code) to the project.  This enables freeswitch (MPL
> 1.1) to use spandsp (GPL) and everyone is happy.
> 
> There are those that claim that you cannot mix gpl *compatible* software
> with their gpl product, and will argue tooth and nail that a bsd module
> for example cannot be mixed, when it would only matter at distribution
> time.
> 
> There are also other factors, the GPLs parasitic license infection (it
> propagates like a virus why not refer to it like one?) only applies if
> there is a combined work distributed (at which point it takes over
> entirely and completely while the works are distributed together, once
> separated or if never distributed it has no effect.  It also only works
> on copyrighted works, and the 'derived' part of it is based in copyright
> law.  
> 
> The GPL can only protect that which is copyrightable, so lets look at
> what that means as well 
> http://www.uspto.gov/go/com/doc/ipnii/ipnii.doc
> >From this provision, the courts have derived three basic requirements
> for copyright protection -- originality, creativity and fixation.50
> 
>       The requirements of originality and creativity are derived from
> the statutory qualification that copyright protection extends only to
> "original works of authorship."51  To be original, a work merely must be
> one of independent creation -- i.e., not copied from another.  There is
> no requirement that the work be novel (as in patent law), unique or
> ingenious.  To be creative, there must only be a modicum of creativity.
> The level required is exceedingly low; "even a slight amount will
> suffice."52
> 
> 
> According to http://www.uspto.gov/smallbusiness/copyrights/faq.html#5
> copyright isnt international, and the gpl is just a use license that
> says that you can use the copyrighted work, however if the copyright is
> invalid then there is a potential argument that the license is not
> valid, without a valid copyright the person is free to do with it how
> they see fit.  Although resending that new work back to its place or
> origin (or somewhere that has a treaty) may result in potential
> problems, although in the case of open source software its hard to show
> a loss by someone else using it in this way, which in America at least
> makes it harder to sue.  Now if you dual license you can easily show a
> loss.
> 
> I also got bored writing this, and decided that I would search no
> further for a cite, but I do know that there are 4 criteria used in the
> US to classify something as derived, one of them is the substantial
> amount of included original copyrighted work.  This is something the FSF
> does not want you to know about.  They want you to think that if you
> include anything, say 1 line of code, then the entire program becomes
> GPLed (that is in their FAQ) but the USPTO claims that courts in the US
> have ruled differently.  This would include the quantity of code
> compared to say a library (especially if the lib is stripped down to be
> only what you need, making it proportionally smaller) as well as include
> files.  If its not a substantial amount then it doesnt matter, and
> generally in any non-trivial program, including a header file would not
> be enough, again YMMV.  This is totally contrary to what the FSF claims
> but it is what the courts claim, and when an action happens, it may
> happen in teh court of the FSF (where zealots DDoS your site for
> example, which has happened in the past) as well as the court of law.
> 
> Another of the 4 is the commercial use of the work, this is generally
> what gives school teachers the ability to xerox copyrighted passages of
> books for use in the classroom.  While its not an absolute exception, it
> does generally give a lot more liberty.
> 
-- 

(C) Matthew Rubenstein