The Logic Of Copyright

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

Copying another's work is not 'expression' unless it is using parts of another's work for research or other such purposes as covered in 'fair use'.

Just sharing other people's creations is not showing any creativity at all, nor expressing who they are.

You say potato, I say potatoe.

Above is a copyrighted quote from dusky rose that I used to express myself with, adding a reference to an american pop song for comical effect. The reference was not needed for the expression to take place however.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You say potato, I say potatoe.

Above is a copyrighted quote from dusky rose that I used to express myself with, adding a reference to an american pop song for comical effect. The reference was not needed for the expression to take place however.

Which is allowed by fair use, and as you added to it to express your opinion.

The reference to an a pop song's Title isn't violating anyone's Copyright. Titles are within fair use.

If you'd uploaded the whole song, in mp3 format, I'm sure that TPTB for MobileRead would have had it removed if it was still under Copyright. But you ddn't need to post the whole thing to express yourself, did you?

No one is talking about fair use quotes, or titles, or forum discussions, but the copying of whole works such as books.

You're comparing apples and oranges and trying to tell us it's really lemonade.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

Copying another's work is not 'expression'

Hmm interesting, I think that's a very good point. Your not adding or detracting from the work, in essence its unchanged. However quoting someone to express an opinion you're holding yourself doesn't change or add to the work.

In terms of just the definition, I think your very close to being correct, especially in terms of whole works being copied. But whole works of forbidden authors have been copied with litterature against dictatorships etc, as a means of people to express themselves.

Maybe it'd be closer to say, that copying someones work might be a way of expressing yourself, but so is walking up to someone you don't like and punching him in the face. Not all ways of expressing yourself is valid? I don't know, just found that sentence above to hit a key, but I can't figure out why.


Ps.

Btw. I'd argue that fair use is hideously restrictive, which is obvious by some of the blatant and somewhat ridiculous lawsuits we're seeing, but thats not the discussion here

[Giggleton]

Existence is expression.

If we have to take a length of a copy into account before determining if the copying is fair, well we have already run into intractable problems, you say a paragraph is enough, I will say the entire text along with all references back to the beginning of recorded history is required in order to fully understand the work.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Existence is expression.

If we have to take a length of a copy into account before determining if the copying is fair, well we have already run into intractable problems, you say a paragraph is enough, I will say the entire text along with all references back to the beginning of recorded history is required in order to fully understand the work.

There is no right to fully understand the work. And you might never really understand it, even if you have read it in its entirety.

[Giggleton]

But for educational purposes I need a copy of every document ever created on my ereader, that's just how I roll.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But for educational purposes I need a copy of every document ever created on my ereader, that's just how I roll.

You mean you will have a lot of time to read when you will be sitting in your jail cell for so many years?

[DiapDealer]

You're going to have to perfect Human 2.0 before you ever have a shot at putting a dent in all that source material.

[Giggleton]

Still, it does not change the fact that I need those texts for educational purposes, to tell me otherwise would be to tell me that you are more capable of educating me than myself, which is just absurd, then we simply extend that absurdity to copyright in general.

Also, if you subscribe to the theories of the new era, which I do, Then copying a work changes a work. Whether or not that change is significant is in the mind of the beholder, I see all change as significant.

Just a little sidenote, why is caching and serving of images by google not considered a copyright violation but copying and serving images by individuals is? It's especially interesting that google serves ads along with those images, whereas the individual serving images would not. Google is profiting off of the exploitation of another's art, their property. This is done for the public good? Who is the public, and who determines what is good?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Still, it does not change the fact that I need those texts for educational purposes, to tell me otherwise would be to tell me that you are more capable of educating me than myself, which is just absurd, then we simply extend that absurdity to copyright in general.

Also, if you subscribe to the theories of the new era, which I do, Then copying a work changes a work. Whether or not that change is significant is in the mind of the beholder, I see all change as significant.

Just a little sidenote, why is caching and serving of images by google not considered a copyright violation but copying and serving images by individuals is? It's especially interesting that google serves ads along with those images, whereas the individual serving images would not. Google is profiting off of the exploitation of another's art, their property. This is done for the public good? Who is the public, and who determines what is good?

Google is sharing ad revenue with the copyright holders. The copyright holders get a specific percentage of the revenue created by ads next to the text, picture, or whatever. Same as for Youtube.

Glad to hear that you are working so hard to bring about the new era of total immersion in advertising. That is what the end of copyright would bring us. A "googlification" of the ebook market. Are you a shareholder?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Google is sharing ad revenue with the copyright holders. The copyright holders get a specific percentage of the revenue created by ads next to the text, picture, or whatever. Same as for Youtube.

Are you telling me that every time I run a search on google images, the copyright holders are given a little bit of the advertising revenue from the banner ads at the top of the image search results page? I don't think that is the case, especially since google continuously informs me that those images may be subject to copyright as it copies them for me

If google can do it, so can you.

[Shimarenda]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Still, it does not change the fact that I need those texts for educational purposes, to tell me otherwise would be to tell me that you are more capable of educating me than myself, which is just absurd, then we simply extend that absurdity to copyright in general.

Also, if you subscribe to the theories of the new era, which I do, Then copying a work changes a work. Whether or not that change is significant is in the mind of the beholder, I see all change as significant.

Each Giggleton post is like a matryoshka doll. To answer any one of them would require a thread all its own. It's impressive as well as depressing. But I know I'm not up to the task, so carry on.

[Leyor]

Why depressing? I might disagree with alot of what he thinks and says, but noones forcing anyone to engage him in conversation. We while away our time on this forum, and if this elicits a reaction, its part of what makes engages us

I like that he thinks out of the box , heck he makes the box out of tinfoil and puts it on his head sometimes