No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't create a derrivitive work. If you take the part Anthony quoted out of context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the orignal work was taken (see the superman/wonderman case, or the fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that is clearly not the case anymore.
You're missing the phrase "in some form". Copyright does not cover only text. Copyright covers the story itself, and in some cases has been ruled to cover even the characters. And as was said earlier, you can't copyright non-fictional characters.
Another way to look at it, copyright law only covers *preparation* of derivative works, not copying or distribution of derivative works. It doesn't have to cover the latter, because when you copy a derivative work you necessarily also copy the original work on which it is derived.
http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi ("the infringing work must incorporate some portion of the original work", "For example, a detailed commentary on a work or a musical composition inspired by a book would not usually constitute infringements of this right.")
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html "There is no hard-and-fast rule determining when something is a substantially similar copy, and when it is a derivative work, since both will incorporate the original work in some way and also have changed material."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html "Nintendo sued, claiming that when the Game Genie modified the game system's audiovisual display, it created an infringing derivative work. We rejected this claim because 'derivative work must incorporate a protected work in some concrete or permanent form.'"
Yes, the key for Nintendo was that the display was not in concrete or permanent form, but that doesn't change the fact that the derivative work must incorporate a protected work in some form the first place.
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Remember that the situation is not "OH NOES VAGUELY POSSIBLE (C) VIOLATION WE MUST FOLD TOMORROW!!1!" If you're talking about a possible battle, one should look to past battles, and particularly on contentious and politically charged issues like such an attack on Wikipedia would be.
It's worth considering that, as an academic work produced by a nonprofit, we have considerably greater scope for fair use. See the considerable quantities of quotes and fair use images in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu ? Not a squeak from the notoriously litigous Church of Scientology.
Furthermore, we have an active policy of aggressively removing copyright violations once notified, and even before being notified, which would get us many points in an actual courtroom. And the clock only starts ticking when you have been notified.
Furthermore, for the egregiously overbroad infringement suit Gregory Maxell hypothesises, the battle also goes out to the media. Imagine something more mediapathic. Suing cute fluffy kittens, perhaps? Not to mention that such a case would promptly bring to our aid ten thousand First Amendment ninja attack lawyers.
That is: we may well in fact be in a position to say "That's utter bullshit. Bring it on."
This is the reasoning behind [[Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia]].
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Remember that the situation is not "OH NOES VAGUELY POSSIBLE (C) VIOLATION WE MUST FOLD TOMORROW!!1!" If you're talking about a possible battle, one should look to past battles, and particularly on contentious and politically charged issues like such an attack on Wikipedia would be.
It's worth considering that, as an academic work produced by a nonprofit, we have considerably greater scope for fair use. See the considerable quantities of quotes and fair use images in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu ? Not a squeak from the notoriously litigous Church of Scientology.
Of course scientology was on the losing end of a fair use case that is at the most permissive end of what is allowed under fair use. See http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html and http://www.amquix.info/scientology_v_FACTNet.html
Furthermore, we have an active policy of aggressively removing copyright violations once notified, and even before being notified, which would get us many points in an actual courtroom. And the clock only starts ticking when you have been notified.
Effectively yes, although there is a strong argument that that is what should be done as soon as you become aware of a clear violation through any source. But many violations are not clear, and that leaves room for taking the benefit of the doubt. There are some clear rules about what goes into a takedown notice. It must clearly identify the material that is being infringed. It must clearly identify the infringing material. Most importantly, the person requesting the takedown must have the authority to make the demand; in other words, the order cannot come from some disinterested third-party meddler. Then the clock starts ticking, at which time the putative infringer has the opportunity to consider available options.
Beyond that, it is not easy for a plaintiff to mount an effective lawsuit, and unless substantial damages can be proved it may not be worth the expenditure. There are criminal law provisions for copyright infringement, but in such cases the standard of proof is much higher, and there must be an element of wilfulness in the infringer's actions in addition to the characteristics of a civil infringement. This would reflect an atitude where the infringer knew it was wrong, but did it anyway.
Furthermore, for the egregiously overbroad infringement suit Gregory Maxell hypothesises, the battle also goes out to the media. Imagine something more mediapathic. Suing cute fluffy kittens, perhaps? Not to mention that such a case would promptly bring to our aid ten thousand First Amendment ninja attack lawyers.
Absolutely! Publicity heaven! I would love it if the BC government started an action over its maps.
That is: we may well in fact be in a position to say "That's utter bullshit. Bring it on."
This is the reasoning behind [[Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia]].
Those who suffer from copyright paranoia are a part of the problem. The fear that many people have of seeing the inside of a courtroom goes beyond reason. As long as people are unwilling or afraid to accept the responsibility of standing up for their rights, governments and the monied classes, who have no such fears or compunctions, will be empowered to cast their rights in an ever wider net.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org