[kwlug disc.] Linux Magazine

Insurance Squared Inc. gcooke at insurancesquared.com
Tue Mar 20 06:59:03 EST 2007


I'd be interested in that course if you manage to dig up the details.



Cedric Puddy wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Comments inline...
>
> On 19-Mar-07, at 1:53 PM, Insurance Squared Inc. wrote:
>
>> Cedric, that's an interesting concept, one that I've actually chewed 
>> over myself without a good resolution.  If a work is out of copyright 
>> due to it's age, you can duplicate/distribute the work.  But you're 
>> saying that this secondary distribution can't then be copied directly?
>
> Exactly.  The key concept use to keep copyright straight in my head is 
> this "It's all about the **expression** of the idea/data".  This is 
> why the example I gave of the University Courseware situation is so 
> nice an illustration.  The re-assembly & re-creation of the work is a 
> protectable act, since it creates a new instance (expression) of the 
> work, and thus each instance gets a fresh time frame of protection.
>
> Where it gets a little bit more interesting for me is things like 
> animated characters - the *idea* of having a story line with a bird 
> and a cat duking it out is just that -- an idea that *anyone* can 
> use.  What you can't do is draw something that looks *just like" 
> Tweety-Bird, even though you made the drawing yourself, it is a fresh 
> instance, etc.  The reason, as best I can figure, is that the means of 
> making the copy doesn't matter.  You can make the copy with a camera, 
> photocopier, or a pen, but if it is essentially an exact copy, it 
> invokes copyright concerns.
>
> That's why just sitting down with a pen, and writing out a copy of 
> Harry Potter in long-hand is still a violation of copyright, despite 
> the fact that it looks quite different, and is a lot of work -- it's 
> still fundamentally an exact copy.  (You might get off if your 
> handwriting is so bad that only you can read it...).  It's when you 
> start making *creative* changes to a pre-existing work that you can 
> gain the right to re-use a work that is protected (this is not always 
> easy, especially if you want to try this work *owned by* someone who 
> has money & lawyers - note that much of the copyright material we 
> consume in the mainstream these days is owned by people *who did not 
> actually create the work in question*.  FLOSS Software, self-produced 
> Youtube videos, Lulu.com books, is a *radical* change in the copyright 
> landscape, no question!)
>
> The thing that makes Google Books so interesting is their position 
> that their scanning the books is the creation of a new original work - 
> -- in their database, no-where is the contiguous book represented  - 
> it's represented as part of a databased slurry of all the other books, 
> and can be reassembled in bits and pieces by the search software, so 
> as to give the user snippits of text, and information about what text 
> is in which book.  Google says that their databaseed representation of 
> that information is anything but a literal copy, and is in fact almost 
> completely transformative.
> (In copyright, you can even use a whole copyrighted work, if your new 
> work is deemed to be sufficiently transformative/original.  The idea 
> is that a judge can come up with a percentage by which the original 
> and the new work differ -- As best I can tell, Google is humbly 
> suggesting that the Judge come up with a number, say, around ... oh... 
> 100% different.  We'll see... :)
>
> My copyright legal-beagle is Steph (some of you may have met her at 
> meetings, etc) -- she used to do copyright clearances, and has more 
> formal background in it than I, though we both follow developments in 
> copyright as closely as time allows.  There is a ~$50 course in 
> Canadian copyright that is generally available as well, which I could 
> find details on if someone on list was interested in a guided, paid, 
> tour through the ins-and-outs of the Act.
>
>> You'll have noticed some threads here recently by me about scanning.  
>> I buy up antique books on various topics that are out of copyright.
>
> Very cool.  Mad props from me.  :)
>
>> I scan them and make them available online.  While the intent is to 
>> allow (almost) everyone unfettered access to them I suspect at some 
>> point some nefarious scraper sites will scrape all my hard work, and 
>> republish it with advertising (hard work being defined as many, many 
>> hours scanning books in, buying scanners, ocr software, hand building 
>> web pages of tables of contents, etc).
>
> Completely agreed.  And that's where your right to protect all that 
> hard work with copyright because really valuable -- you can absolutely 
> apply a Creative Commons license of your choice, the GPL, etc, to the 
> version that you make publicly available.  You can license a copy to 
> Project Gutenberg on terms amiable to their use.  You can cut a 
> license to a for-profit use, should such a thing come your way.
>
> I Am Not A Lawyer, of course, and since you're going to invest 1000's 
> of hours of blood & sweat into this thing, it might be worth 
> cross-checking with a real Lawyer.  (the "3 hours in the library can 
> frequently save 3 months in the lab" sort of thinking :)
>
> I've got some materials that may well be of interest for scanning -- 
> we can talk off list if you want to talk about that.
>
>     All the Best,
>
>     -Cedric
>
>> Cedric Puddy wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> My understanding of the GPL is that individual distros may well free 
>>> and clear, but that simply ripping the CD as whole might in some 
>>> small, but valid, way violate LM's copyright (let's say, for 
>>> example, that they wrote a README and put it in the root of the 
>>> disk, in which they discussed the pros-and-cons of the various 
>>> distros).
>>>
>>> They would be within their rights (though, perhaps arguably not 
>>> their senses) to say "All Rights Reserved" with respect to that bit, 
>>> and bitwise copying the whole CD would then be blocked.
>>>
>>> If there is no value-add whatsoever, and it's just 11 directories 
>>> with 11 different GPL'd/FLOSS distros in vanilla form, then it is 
>>> still possible that a court might consider the bundling together of 
>>> the various materials to be sufficient to form a copyrightable 
>>> expression.  Certainly in the world of books, the simple act of 
>>> collection, flowing it through a layout program and hitting "Print" 
>>> is enough to constitute a fully projectable expression of a work.
>>>
>>> For an analogy, consider the phone book -- the content is explicitly 
>>> *not* covered by copyright.  However, the **expression** of that 
>>> content (the size and shape of the book, the layout, font, etc,) 
>>> is.  The idea is that if you take non-copyright material, do a 
>>> butt-load-o-work, and come up with a novel expression, more useful 
>>> expression, etc, then you still get to protect it from willy-nilly 
>>> copying.  (Same thing with Westlaw -- the case texts are public 
>>> domain, but the compensation for a company to visit every court in 
>>> the country, get copies, digitize them all, index them, etc, is that 
>>> they get to claim copyright to their particular publications, and 
>>> charge for access.)
>>>
>>> In a University setting, imagine you are an English Prof, and you 
>>> want to use a snippit of Shakespeare in your official courseware.  
>>> Under Cancopy, the courseware people have to go a find the exact 
>>> book you took that snippit from, and if that *particular* source is 
>>> still under copyright, then tada - royalties due in full to the 
>>> publisher.  If you were an experienced Prof or cared for the poor 
>>> beaten pocketbooks of your students, you would probably chose a 
>>> dusty old copy from 1919, and nope, no royalty dues required.
>>>
>>> What LM has done here is probably more on the "lifted a pinky 
>>> finger" end of the Effort-Expended-Scale (as opposed to the 
>>> "butt-load-o-work" end), but the safest thing to do would still be 
>>> to copy the individual FLOSS distros off the DVD individually, or 
>>> even better, use it as a conceptual idea for building the LUGs even 
>>> better Disk of Distros, and download fresh copies from the internet, 
>>> and make copies available on more idealistic terms (License Terms 
>>> like: "Make Lots of Copies.  Go wild.  Put your own LUG's name on 
>>> it!  Run Linux!  Enjoy!")
>>>
>>>     -Cedric
>>>
>>> On 19-Mar-07, at 1:14 AM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is what Richard Weait <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org> said
>>>> about "Re: [kwlug disc.] Linux Magazine" on 18 Mar 2007 at 5:39
>>>>
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Does anyone happen to know if (where) Linux Magazine can be 
>>>>>>> purchased
>>>>>>> from local retailers (in Ontario)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The magazine has a website at http://www.linux-magazine.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> KW Bookstore is worth a look.  Lots of Linux-related magazines last
>>>>> time I was there.  Also it is a chance to shop locally without the
>>>>> bookstore cartel.
>>>>
>>>> KW Bookstore http://www.kwbookstore.on.ca/ definitely does carry 
>>>> Linux Pro Magazine
>>>> http://linux-magazine.ca .  If they're out it's because I just 
>>>> bought the last copy of the
>>>> March issue this week.
>>>>
>>>> It came with a DVD of 11 small Linux distributions.   I'm thinking 
>>>> this would be nice-to-copy
>>>> for the LUG, but the magazine claims "No material may be reproduced 
>>>> in any form whatsoever in
>>>> whole or in part without the written permission of the 
>>>> publishers."  Does that comply with
>>>> the various GNU licences that the distros are based on?
>>>>
>>>> Irony alert:  Have I violated the publisher's rights by quoting 
>>>> their statement on violating
>>>> their rights?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Bob.
>>>>
>>>> -- -- -- --
>>>> Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>         http://sobac.com/sobac/
>>>> SOBAC Microcomputer Services              Voice: +1-519-669-0388
>>>> 6 James Street, Elmira ON  Canada  N3B 1L5  Cel: +1-519-635-9413
>>>> Networking   --   Office & Business Automation   --   Consulting
>>>> PGP:0xAE33E989 Fingrprnt:9FAF A6AC B567 BC10 8973 7CF0 CB27 0317
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
>>>> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
>>>> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>>>
>>> |  CCj/ClearLine - Unix/NT Administration and TCP/IP Network Services
>>> |  118 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5M3, 519-489-0478
>>> \________________________________________________________
>>>    Cedric Puddy, IS Director            cedric at thinkers.org
>>>      PGP Key Available at:              http://www.thinkers.org/cedric
>>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFF/suLDyIPjFXt1HcRAlbVAJ9ziMx5dEvPa3GExQFThJAesUfvsgCeLhUq
>>> KpmQzFx6TFx5OvsXub05/mQ=
>>> =yLDq
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
>>> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
>>> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
>> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
>> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>
> |  CCj/ClearLine - Unix/NT Administration and TCP/IP Network Services
> |  118 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5M3, 519-489-0478
> \________________________________________________________
>    Cedric Puddy, IS Director            cedric at thinkers.org
>      PGP Key Available at:              http://www.thinkers.org/cedric
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFF/1jXDyIPjFXt1HcRAhKiAKC0Nygqfns0ICokFaJGeT5kFN9PVgCfaXiq
> bnx3/RXEVQxFiNH2/DvJ93s=
> =FZjL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>


More information about the KWLUG-Disc mailing list