Forum Moderators: not2easy
If I rewrite the content in our own words without altering the meaning of the sentences, can this be terms as a copyright violation?
That is known as paraphrasing.
"Information can not be copyrighted, only the presentation of information is copyright"
If you retain the same sentence structure, you may be close to copyright infringement. If in doubt, consult a lawyer, or follow the old adage of 'publish and be damned' <g>
Matt
The proper way to do this is to use the original for research purposes, and write it in your own words. Think of it this way, when you were in high school would your teacher have accepted your paper if they had both works sitting in front of them?
Bottom line is many would knock you out of the SE’s in a heartbeat with a DMCA. Plenty will for less. Would you ever recover from your theft?
Sentence structure wont be the same. Let say for eg.
"This is infringment of copyright material" --->is a original sentence."
We wont restructure the sentence or just replace the word as--->
"The material is a violation of copyright"
The whole para will rephrased and restructure in our own words and will showcase the content from our point of view. Can u term this as a copyright violation?
BY the way, as far as my knoweledge, DMCA is applicable for USA, whereas we are not in USA.
Correct me if I am missing something here (regarding DMCA).
Thanks
What you are doing could very well fall under "derivative works". Again, the way to avoid this is to take the facts from their document and write your own copy using those facts.
As for the DMCA, it doesn't apply to your host if you are outside the United States, but it can apply to your results in any search engine with a presence in the United States. If that doesn't matter to you, then don't worry about it.
Theft is theft whether the country respects DMCA’s or not. Since many of the largest SE’s are located in the US it’s fairly easy to cripple any offenders site permanently. By all means play the game and see if you can resurrect your site once its banished.
Really your question deals with stealing and profiting off the hard work of another. Do you need a law to tell you what's right or wrong?
And it should be noted that copyright law reserves to the copyright-holder the right to create or otherwise control "derivative works". Taking a book (somebody else's work, research, complilation, effort, etc) and tweaking the word order of the sentences is NOT creating a new work; it is a "derivative" work, and is therefore subject to copyright law.
I guess you never learned about "plagiarism" in high school, huh?
Eliz.
Theft is theft whether the country respects DMCA’s or not ......... Really your question deals with stealing
Um... copyright infrigement is not theft as much as the RIAA would like it to be. It just isn't. Please don't spread that propoganda.
If you have a piece of original work.
You may paraphrase it.
You may reference it.
You may make 1 copy for archival purposes.
You may use it in school ciriculam as an educational tool.
You can parady it.
outland88 if you are so gung-ho about protecting copyrighted material that has been publicly posted on the internet, then start with Google cache and once you stop that then move to the little guy, until then don't be so quick to judge people who are trying to re-display information. Anyone who copies something from a public website word for word is doing nothing different then any of the major site indexers who cache pages.
"(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
>don't be so quick to judge people who are trying to re-display information<
> copyright infrigement is not theft<
I’ve got to admit that’s creative BS.
Nor did I think we were talking about SE caching. I believe a judge ruled recently for Google on that. Lets not create a whole different argument other than what the original poster proposed to do.
You can use that word if you wish but legally speaking when one commits copyright infringement, they have not commited theift in the legal sense of the word.
This isn't my opinion, It is legal fact, like it or not. If you don't like it perhaps you should lobby the lawmakers to change it but until then that is the law. So don't get mad at me.
And since you brought up the court case against G I will say it again:
"If G can, then why can't I?"
Do they have some special certificate that makes it so they can copy word for word whatever they want? Why is their company better then mine? Why can they and I can't? Why, why why.
In other words the hard labors of another are open to being used freely by anybody who wants to.
Not! that is why we have copyright infrigment law. There is recourse, I mean look at your DMCA filing threats, obviously you know the path to take when you have been infringed apon. Still doesn't equal theft no matter how many times you hear the RIAA say that it does. Pure Propaganda.
What I was saying and continue to say is that, if you post something on the internet, something that can be accessed by hitting a URL and not having to login or agree to terms of use then anything you see on that site can be reproduced word for word. That is EXACTLY what Google does and as you have said the courts have said it is ok. Until I hear why that applies only to them and not the rest of us I will continue to believe that it is fine.
So you think Raj Raj is interested in taking it to the US Supreme Court level? What actually are you defending? That somebody be allowed to steal your work. In other words we won't hear a peep out of you if somebody steals your work. You'll go calmly to your fate.
>Until I hear why that applies only to them and not the rest of us I will continue to believe that it is fine. <
Whoops, we betta watch out about posting url's around you.
What actually are you defending?
Fair Use, that's what. This is society is getting so insane over ownership of things that can't really be owned. I am so sick of itellecutal property rights. It has gotten so silly that restaurants have been sued for signing "Happy Birthday" to customers because the tune is copyrighted. You have to see the level of riduculousness that this attitude is bringing forth.
So when I hear people repeatidly saying that someone is stealing when really they aren't I tend to want to correct them.
That somebody be allowed to steal your work. In other words we won't hear a peep out of you if somebody steals your work. You'll go calmly to your fate.
Again with the steal word. How can I steal your work? I can steal your property, and I can steal your services, but steal your work, sounds like a neat trick. If someone wrongs me though, I do not go calmly into the night. But at the same time the work I have done and wish to collect money for I don't post on public websites, if I did I wouldn't expect to get much for it.
Whoops, we betta watch out about posting url's around you.
Actually you better watch out posting URLs anywhere because when someone views your web content without you forcing them to agreeing to terms of use, then guess what, they can do with that content as they please within the fair use clause. Plus throw in the presidence of Google being allowed to copy verbatum unprotected content and you have a big hole where people can actually do what they want, despite your feelings on the subject.
I don't see why you are mad at me for mearly pointing this out to you.
People (in some countries) have a right to privacy.
If I invade your privacy, I have not "stolen" your privacy rights; I have infringed upon them.
If I plagiarize your original work, I have not "stolen" your copyrights; I have infringed upon them.
"Theft" and "infringement of rights" are technical definitions. A feeling in your gut that they ought to be equated or be legally interchangeable does not change the fact that, legally, technically, they are different.
Sorry to offend.
Eliz.
Why would I be mad? The only thing I was trying to figure out is why you feel so compelled to defend the original poster’s proposition. Is it beneficial to you in the long run? Do you definitely feel it is beneficial to others? Did the original poster mention that it would be highly beneficial to an individual or group?
If a client takes possession of work you created, to use as a web site, but later refuses to pay you is that not theft? Based upon your definition that something to be used as web site is not property then he doesn’t have to pay you.
Verbal gymnastics don’t convince me it isn’t theft. Some US Supreme Court justices once owned slaves and in 1985 we were less an Internet society. Were they right?
By the way where is Mr. Raj Raj.
definitely file a DMCA for that type of “slice and dice”
and
many would knock you out of the SE’s in a heartbeat with a DMCA. Plenty will for less. Would you ever recover from your theft?
play the game and see if you can resurrect your site once its banished.
I find this extreme and unnessecary, obviously his intent is honourable wouldn't a simple cease and disist letter do (Context depending)? And then to go on to imply that he is a theif, that is plain wrong.
If a client takes possession of work you created, to use as a web site, but later refuses to pay you is that not theft?
This is what is known as "theift of services" which I mentioned already, this term is legally defined.
I don't care much for gymnastics and as far as what some people did back in the days of slavery, that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. I find it vulger you would try to use that to re-enforce a point of your opinion when I am discussing facts.
I think you become mad if someone doesn’t agree with you. Vulgar, come on now that’s reaching. What do we assume from your posts, copyright infringement is AOK. In other words we must all agree to your definitions and examples of what things are.
The simple fact is that you are wrong. It is not theft, it *might* be infringment.
The ONLY thing that grants you any rights as the content creator are the copyright laws. If it were not for those laws, once you publish, anyone could do whatever they wished with your work.
Once you publish, your work still becomes the property of the people. The only difference is that copyright law now grants you some exclusive rights, to encourage you to release your work to the public.
You *do not* own the work.
You *do* own the copyright.
Only personal property can be stolen. The copyright is your personal property. If someone infringes on your copyright, you are still in possession of that copyright, are you not?
If you are in possession of the copyright after it has been infringed, how can you claim that there was theft?
That is like claiming that someone that tresspasses on your land stole your property! They did not steal it, they just infringed upon your property rights as a land owner. You still own the land.
You can choose to remain ignorant of the law that protects your copyright, but I would suggest that you keep out of discussions with those that understand it if you are unwilling to learn.
Here is a quote from one of the most clearly written decisions in the last few years, SUNTRUST v HOUGHTON MIFFLIN. The entire decision is a wonderful education in how copyright and fair use works, but this section is what you should really read and think about.
The system illustrates that the author’s ownership is in the copyright, and not in the work itself, for if the author had an ownership interest in the work itself, she would not lose that right if she published the book without complying with federal statutory copyright requirements. Compliance with the copyright law results in the guarantee of copyright to the author for a limited time, but the author never owns the work itself. § 202 ("Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.").This has an important impact on modern interpretation of copyright, as it emphasizes the distinction between ownership of the work, which an author does not possess, and ownership of the copyright, which an author enjoys for a limited time. In a society oriented toward property ownership, it is not surprising to find many that erroneously equate the work with the copyright in the work and conclude that if one owns the copyright, they must also own the work. However, the fallacy of that understanding is exposed by the simple fact that the work continues to exist after the term of copyright associated with the work has expired. "The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking would be obnoxious." Pierre Leval, Towards a Fair Use Standard, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1124 (1990).
What do we assume from your posts, copyright infringement is AOK.
Funny, that is not what I assumed from their post. I assumed that they were trying to point out where you were wrong on the point of calling it theft, and that you were possibly wrong on declaring it even being infringement. I believe they were also calling you on taking an immediatly agressive stance when someone is simply asking a question. It seems you assume too much instead of sticking with what is actually written.
If it is not infringement, then it is legal, and dare I say, even moral. Using copyright law to try and keep someone from using the rights that are granted to the public is as immoral in my book as blatantly infringing on someone's copyright.
Where did the OP go? Well, since you jumpped right into attack mode, maybe they decided not to stick around. Or you could read their ID, take a guess as to where they are from and the fact that it's Friday, and come to the conclusion that they went home for the weekend.
My intent was to discourage the law being broken to begin with. If you feel hauling out legal decisions every time somebody says or mentions something that's your business. I don't need to communicate that way. I personally would look for legal forums with people on that same level as me if I were dispensing legal advice. That way other attorneys could agree with or contradict what I say. Most skilled lawyers I dealt with never brought vulgar or ignorant into the proposition to convince others.
Give it a rest buddy. Maybe I was getting at something that isn't entirely visible.
But if you go read the decison, it is clear that they though that some of these things needed to be said, because they wrote well beyond what was needed for the decision. The implication is that there is too much abuse of copyright law, and at least a geat misunderstanding amongh the public as to what it means.
You are claiming to own something that you do not own. The judges in this case used plain english to say that the law states otherwise.
You are right, few copyright cases make it to the supreme court. But you seem to misunderstand what the different levels of federal court are for. The supreme court does not produce final rulings on the cases, they just rule on whether the lower courts are right or wrong. The lower courts are *required* to follow the rulings of higher courts. So any Supreme court ruling on any copyright case absolutely impacts every case in district court. Even if case reaches an out of court settlement before going to trial, the Supreme Court ruling will have an impact.
In the case that I quoted, it was not the Supreme Court, it was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is only binding on those District Courts in the 11th Circuit.
If you don't want to read quotes from copyright cases, I would again suggest that you keep out of copyright discussions. It is a legal subject, so legal rulings are the equivalent of pulling out the RFCs when discussing a network protocol.
Personally if I was a successful copyright attorney I would enjoy learning about the intricacies of the law from other copyright attorneys and judges in their forums. In fact I don't know many who seek out webmaster forums. Perhaps some like to slum.
>If you don't want to read quotes from copyright cases, I would again suggest that you keep out of copyright discussions.<
Dave and I would suggest you quit pestering people as you do in about every thread.
You are dealing with a legal issue that is governed by our legal system. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear such things, but those are the facts of the matter.
The OP asked if something was legal. Can you explain to us how you determine if something is legal without looking at court decisions?
Oh, that's right, we await a declaration by outland88.
1. Feed all attorneys to the sharks.
2. Don’t kill sharks.
Who is this OP you are referring to? Can you use a name? Are you telling me you are an attorney specializing in copyright law? Have I got that much right?
The only message I ever see coming from you is laymen don’t know squat. When all the pretty words and flowery language die you have to take the gamble of filing DMCA’s or not. It’s not a pretty world. The attorneys can take as much advantage of you as the thieves.
Personally I have never understood what message you’re trying to convey to people.
Who was it who said "the only problem with law was lawyers."
Who is this OP you are referring to?
Original Poster, or in this case rajraj
Are you telling me you are an attorney specializing in copyright law? Have I got that much right?
No. I am a layman who has taken what seems to be the extraordinary step of actually educating myself about things I talk about.
The only message I ever see coming from you is laymen don’t know squat.
Then you got the wrong message. I think you are making assumptions again.
My message is that laymen that go with their gut feelings, instead of bothering to learn anything about copyright do not know squat. I'm assuming that both Demastro and stapel are laymen, and they seem to know what they are talking about. You see, there is a difference between informed laymen and uninformed laymen. You seem to be intent on staying in the later group.
I'm done. You can have the last shot.
In case you didn't notice, I entered this thing
Dave it was obvious. Most judges would kick you out of a courtroom for the name-calling. Always remember in any trial the witnesses will cover their rumps and you can never prepare for what comes out of their mouths. There’s a lot more to law than quoting it. Smart people and smart attorneys avoid courtrooms. It’s up front and personal. No hiding behind a keyboard insulting people.
It’s like I said to the original poster gamble if you choose. Somebody just pointing a finger on suspicion is enough to ruin you. You can have all the rights you want in life, as long as you can afford them. If you don’t think an opposing attorney will be calling copyright infringement stealing dream on fellow. Remember the winner in courtrooms is whoever has the most money in his pocket at the end of the day.
