On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:02:43PM -0700, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Sat, 5/31/08, Hal Duston hald@kc.rr.com wrote:
At various times up to and including May 31, 2008 many people wrote:
Many things that I have snipped.
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the difference between copyrights and patents. If I implement an idea and it is found to be sufficiently similiar to a pre-existing patent, then I am in violation of that patent even if I am unware of its existence. If I create a work that is found to be similar to a pre-existing copyrighted work, my ignorance of that work is a perfect defense, as I am not violating the other creator's copyright even if my created work is found to be identical.
I suspect that your hypothesis here isn't accurate. If "my ignorance of that other work is a perfect defense...even if my created work is found to be identical", then there is nothing illegal with taking an existing work, erasing all traces of the previous author, making some superficial changes, and then passing off the entire work as my own. Moreover, if there was no penalty for this behavior, I would also be allowed to make money off "my own song single 'Imagine (This)', hauntingly identical to John Lennon's 'Imagine', though mine has the background tuba", despite current copyright law not permitting this behavior.
"Fair Use" is in there so that you can take a *portion* of someone else's work for use in your own work, not take their entire work and claim it as your own. Collage artists and sampling DJs walk a fine line with current copyright law.
That is not my hypothesis, but rather the actual law as it currently stands. The examples you provide above are all of a party reproducing a second party's copyrighted works. The example I provided did not involve any actual reproduction of a copyrighted work, but rather an independently created work that is not derived from another party's work. That is not and infringing act under copyright law. This is a one of the key differences between copyright law and patent law. Patents protect a specific implementation of an idea, or concept. A work infringes the patent of it is described by that patent regardless of the creator's knowledge or awareness of that patent. A copyright protects a particular expression of an idea or concept. If another author INDEPENDENTLY creates a second work that happens to be identical, the fact of that independence causes the work to be non-infringing. Again this is not my hypothesis, but rather what the law actually says. Again, since there is no copying taking place there is no copyright violation.
http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/is_independent_creation_a_defe.php
Thanks, -- Hal