Copywrong

[PatrickG]

In its ruling today against peer-to-peer file-sharing software makers Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court said companies may be liable for copyright infringement conducted by their customers.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David Souter wrote in the unanimous decision.

The decision suggests that honesty may not be the best policy for companies that make hardware and software capable of copying copyrighted content.

-- THOMAS CLABURN
InformationWeek.com
June 27, 2005

So...

How long until they go after Xerox?

Theoretically, companies who make word processors or even ink pens could be targeted.

Now, here's a thought. Tracing/coloring books: THREAT OR MENACE?

[Tadhg Adams]

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David Souter wrote in the unanimous decision.

[PatrickG]

Right. And nothing is stopping word processor manufacturers or ink pen makers from doing just that. And you can't say that Xerox machines don't serve that function.

But the real menace here:

Coloring books.

Consider that coloring books encourage people to create art of lisenced characters. Coloring in and of itself is an artistic act. And that in exchange, users of coloring books are rewarded, often with prominent refrigerator placement.

Of course, coloring book generally AREN'T piratical works in and of themselves. It's the crayons that make them so.

In turn, crayons facillitate copyright infringement by allowing users to take a liscenced coloring book and in turn allow the user to emulate art found in other media which requires a separate liscence. The user (or legal guardians thereof) presumably bought black and white art. Instead of buying a colored version for separate display, the trademark holder is denied profit by use of these "crayons" to simulate a colored product.

The use of crayons cuts into sale of full-color books by patrons who only own the uncolored page.

[Tadhg Adams]

Right. And nothing is stopping word processor manufacturers or ink pen makers from doing just that. And you can't say that Xerox machines don't serve that function.


Really? When's the last time Xerox promoted their stuff with "Hey kids! Tired of buying all those expensive text books? Don't worry! Now you can just copy them and get them for nearly free!"

That's what the part I bolded means, Grokster actively promoted their service as a way to infringe copyright.

[Puma]

Right. And nothing is stopping word processor manufacturers or ink pen makers from doing just that. And you can't say that Xerox machines don't serve that function.


you're discounting the "fair use" portion of copyright law

Section 107's four-factor fair use test takes a fundamentally different approach: whether a use is fair by considering the character of the use, the nature of the work to be used, the amount used in proportion to the whole and the impact on the market for the work.

[MKTerra]

So... what do y'all think about the Google making-books-searchable issue? Fair use or no? I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how the legalities go.

[Tadhg Adams]

So... what do y'all think about the Google making-books-searchable issue? Fair use or no? I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how the legalities go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4146488.stm

[MKTerra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4146488.stmMore recent news is that they've been sued... :/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4266586.stm

[Spike-X]

Right. And nothing is stopping word processor manufacturers or ink pen makers from doing just that. And you can't say that Xerox machines don't serve that function.

But the real menace here:

Coloring books.

Consider that coloring books encourage people to create art of lisenced characters. Coloring in and of itself is an artistic act. And that in exchange, users of coloring books are rewarded, often with prominent refrigerator placement.

Of course, coloring book generally AREN'T piratical works in and of themselves. It's the crayons that make them so.

In turn, crayons facillitate copyright infringement by allowing users to take a liscenced coloring book and in turn allow the user to emulate art found in other media which requires a separate liscence. The user (or legal guardians thereof) presumably bought black and white art. Instead of buying a colored version for separate display, the trademark holder is denied profit by use of these "crayons" to simulate a colored product.

The use of crayons cuts into sale of full-color books by patrons who only own the uncolored page.
Instead of coming up with moronic arguments like this, perhaps our time could be better served arguing against stuff like expensive, worthless copy protection on CDs that impedes people from listening to music they've paid for on the device of their own, rather than the record companies', choice.

[Ronald Bryan]

Instead of coming up with moronic arguments like this, perhaps our time could be better served arguing against stuff like expensive, worthless copy protection on CDs that impedes people from listening to music they've paid for on the device of their own, rather than the record companies', choice.
Stupid Velvet Revolver CD.