Slashdot Mirror

"WTF? Where could the 'inventor' of tetris have gained patent protection? Methinks the author of tfa has no idea what they're talking about."

Completely agree with you that the TFA-A is clueless. However, you most certainly can patent a game concept in the US (search for "Board Game" on patents.google.com to see extensive examples). In the UK you're bound by the normal limits on not patenting abstracts (which are the rules) but you can patent the totality of the game: http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/how_pr otect/board_game.htm

Of more interest is whether Pajitnov had any rights to Tetris in the first place. The Sovs did exploit the rights by selling them to Nintendo, but Pajitnov, as a scientist working for the Soviet Academy of Scientists didn't benefit from the deal. The obvious conclusion is that the state ownership of property stifles innovation, but in what way was Pajitnov's situation different from a US academic researcher or government scientsit who would find their work equally appropraited either by the University or the state?

I believe that (under UK copyright law at least) copyright of a photograph is owned by the subject of that photograph.

the general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner. The 'author' is the person who created a copyright work so in the case of photographs will usually be the photographer.

296ZE Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts

(2) Where the application of any effective technological measure to a copyright work
other than a computer program prevents a person from carrying out a permitted act
in relation to that work then that person or a person being a representative of a class
of persons prevented from carrying out a permitted act may issue a notice of
complaint to the Secretary of State.

(3) Following receipt of a notice of complaint, the Secretary of State may give to the
owner of that copyright work or an exclusive licensee such directions as appear to the
Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of -
(a) establishing whether any voluntary measure or agreement relevant to the
copyright work the subject of the complaint subsists; or
(b) (where it is established there is no subsisting voluntary measure or agreement)
ensuring that the owner or exclusive licensee of that copyright work makes
available to the complainant the means of carrying out the permitted act the
subject of the complaint to the extent necessary to so benefit from that
permitted act.

Fair dealing has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use; where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing.

For a country were there is no legal copying allowed for private use for example, like in UK

*sigh*

This is simply NOT TRUE. While we do not have a concept in British law that goes by the name of "fair use", this does NOT mean that you are not allowed to make private copies under any circumstances.

Look, here it is from the horse's mouth: "there are a number of exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner" (source).

Specifically, "private study" does not infringe copyright, and "private study" is defined to include usage "purely for personal enjoyment" (source).

Also, look up "fair dealing", which in practice is extremely similar to the USA's "fair use".

(IANAL. Seek legal advice if you really care.)

For a country were there is no legal copying allowed for private use for example, like in UK

*sigh*

This is simply NOT TRUE. While we do not have a concept in British law that goes by the name of "fair use", this does NOT mean that you are not allowed to make private copies under any circumstances.

Look, here it is from the horse's mouth: "there are a number of exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner" (source).

Specifically, "private study" does not infringe copyright, and "private study" is defined to include usage "purely for personal enjoyment" (source).

Also, look up "fair dealing", which in practice is extremely similar to the USA's "fair use".

(IANAL. Seek legal advice if you really care.)

Let's be accurate about something.

Yes, that would be a nice idea, wouldn't it?

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that is shown over the ABC airwaves that is recorded and shared via the internet IS NOT piracy. Over the air television, HD or analog, is free for the taking.

Bullshit. Sorry, but that is complete and utter bullshit. "Let's be accurate about something." Just because something is shown over the airwaves does not mean it's free for the taking.

Unlike you, I will back up my claims with evidence.

It is not "free for the taking" in the USA. See this statement from the US Copyright Office website, which says "anybody who wishes to retransmit copyrighted broadcast programming--whether over the Internet or by more established means of transmission such as cable or satellite--may do so only by obtaining the consent of the copyright owners."

It is not "free for the taking" in Britain, either. See the official guide to UK copyrights.

I don't know about other countries, but I suspect you're based in the USA, in which case you are simply wrong.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/how_pr otect/recipe.htm That's what I was going from, I guess I just didn't word it properly, or moreso, was detailed enough.

• to be identified as the author of the work or director of the film in certain circumstances, e.g. when copies are issued to the public
• to object to derogatory treatment of the work or film which amounts to a distortion or mutilation or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director

Copyright in a published edition expires 25 years from the end of the year in which the edition was first published.

The is what I found on the UK groverment website: For copyright material issued to the public in an electronic form, a copyright owner may decide to use technical measures so that it is not possible to make a copy of the material, that is, it is copy-protected. It is also possible for copyright owners to use other technological measures to prevent other types of illegal uses of copyright material. Where a copyright owner has sold copies that are protected by technical measures, the copyright owner may have the right to take action against a person who circumvents or who makes, sells or otherwise deals in devices or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent, the technical measures. The right to take action is equivalent to the rights a copyright owner has when suing for infringement of his or her copyright in the civil courts. Criminal offences may also apply to those who deal in the means to circumvent technical measures. It is also possible for copyright owners to use other technological measures to prevent other types of illegal uses of copyright material. Can be found here: - http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resour ces/other_ip_rights/copy_protect.htm

It's a little different - it's only fifty years copyright for the actual recording itself (ie an audio recording of one performance of the song). For the song itself, copyright is the standard life + 70 years.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/co pyright/how_long.htm

At least here in the most countries of Europe there's nothing wrong with distributing copies of music, video and software.

If you are in a country with membership of the EU, you might be interested* in reading Directive 2001/29 EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. This has most definitely had an impact on the copyright regime in the UK, although, even before this, unauthorised distribution of copyrighted files was not permitted.

And, on the topic of wondering whether there is "nothing wrong" with distibuting, perhaps some thoughts about the moral rights of authors? Not protected as much in mainland Europe as in the UK (mainland seems to prefer protection of economic rights), but important nonetheless.

*Disclaimer. You might not be interested in reading this at all, but it is of sufficient length to help prevent you posting misleading statements on /. for a while.

Are you sure that this book is still under the copyright of Ladybird?

On this page it claims...

As 2004-1979 = 25 doesn't that make this book out of copyright now?

I assume this is a typo
Since no mass copy technologies weren't available
and you meant that there were no mass coping technology available at the time. However that is simply NOT true. Copyright was started because devices such as the printing press drove the cost of copying written text to nearly nothing. (yes the press was "expensive", but it cost a whole lot less per copy than having to run a monestary, which is where most "texts" were printed.)
see the history of copyright

The very murky situation of differing copyright laws rears it's head.

In the UK, the type of work dictates the duration of copyright. See, for example, here

In the USA, the type of authorship dictates the duration of copyright. See, for example, here

The fact that the performers tend to produce works for hire, and composers tend not to is a side distraction here. There are composers who produce works for hire, and performers who own thier own recordings - which really clouds things in the USA.

Oh, and the copyright terms in the USA are determined by authorship, not ownership. Thus, just because it's currently owned by a corporation doesn't make it a corporate authorship.

At least the justification for differening terms for personal or corporate authorship has some merit.

As it stands in the UK, making a film is clearly considered worth two and a half times as much as makeing a sound recording, and 5 times as much as writing a book (assuming that one of the director, authors or composer lives 50 years after making the film). Why? Well, I can find no good reason for it.

Well depending on what name you're selling under, it is the basis of a "passing off" suit. Our name is our trade mark. If competitors are using our trade mark to advertise their competing product, this is called passing off and is a type of unfair competition (according to British law at least). It is unfair because they are benefitting from the reputation associated with our name to sell their product, and may create confusion in the mind of the consumer. It also unfairly rides on the back of the considerable sum of money we've spent promoting our services. This is unfair to both the consumer and to us, so I hope you can see why it's immoral at the very least.

If our name was not obviously a trade mark (i.e. Brilliant UK Hosting Services or something generic) or the competitor were selling something in a completely different market sector (lipstick, fire engines, livestock...) which couldn't easily be confused with hosting services, then there would be no problem. But neither of those was the case when we took action last time.

Well depending on what name you're selling under, it is the basis of a "passing off" suit. Our name is our trade mark. If competitors are using our trade mark to advertise their competing product, this is called passing off and is a type of unfair competition (according to British law at least). It is unfair because they are benefitting from the reputation associated with our name to sell their product, and may create confusion in the mind of the consumer. It also unfairly rides on the back of the considerable sum of money we've spent promoting our services. This is unfair to both the consumer and to us, so I hope you can see why it's immoral at the very least.

If our name was not obviously a trade mark (i.e. Brilliant UK Hosting Services or something generic) or the competitor were selling something in a completely different market sector (lipstick, fire engines, livestock...) which couldn't easily be confused with hosting services, then there would be no problem. But neither of those was the case when we took action last time.

Actually they have, it is called copyright. While the printing press did not make reproduction free it did make it virtually free

see History of copyright

This register story gives the situation.

In Britain we have fair dealing, but it is quite restricted in scope, use appears to be limited to less than a "substantial part", ie if you can recognise the track from the clip it's substantial! Journalists it seems can do what they like (Copyright-wise) and claim it's research for a story.

The UKPO has this to say:

Do I always need permission to copy or use copyright material?
No, there are certain exceptions to the rights given to the copyright owner. For example, limited use of works may be possible for non-commercial research and private study, criticism or review, reporting current events, judicial proceedings and teaching in schools. But if you are copying large amounts of material and/or making multiple copies then you may still need permission. Also it is generally necessary to include an acknowledgement of the name of the copyright work and its author.

But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you.

Patents go back over 500 years in English law, upon which the US legal system is based. So, if you think that there were no patent laws prior to the formation of this country, you would be wrong.

If you wish to learn more about patents, there are a variety of sites that can help you. Here is one that has a brief historical summary.

You can only copy small amounts for "private study"; at least, that's what I understand from that page (IANAL etc)...

In the UK, moral rights can be waived.

I think what the article is getting at is that the director may have something called "Moral Rights" over the work. Essentially this means that the item is a work of art that was produced for a fee and that the author of the work has the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work (i.e. censoring scenes).

The idea being that once a piece of art has been created the author has his/her name attached to it, and thus any treatments of the work done later that do not fit the artist's vision taints the artist's reputation.

I don't know how this works with film, because there are limitations to this when an artists produces work for an employer.. so it may be that the studio owns the moral rights, and I'm also not sure how this works in the US, but the UK and Canada both have moral rights. I'm not entirely sure as IANAL.

But.. here is a link for my karma-whore points... Moral Rights .

Look up the history of copyright in British common law. The origional intent of copyright was to give the crown control over what could be published. Here and here are some decent sites detailing the history of copyright (in the US and UK, respectively). In particular, I'm refering to the Licensing Act of 1662, which granted publishers the monopoly currently refered to as copyright in exchange for censorship of information deemed damaging to the church or government.

Copyright was something an author sold a publisher, and didn't exist in any form, really, until it got put in the American constitiution.

Why are Americans so embarassingly ignorant of history? Are schools in the United States really that bad?

Unsurprisingly, copyright in the United Kingdom dates back to before the revolting colonies threw their tea out of the pram. And Alan is absolutely right that - in England, anyway - it was based on the 1662 Licensing Act, whose aim was primarily censorship.

I'm not claiming the United Kingdom had the first copyright laws; I think at least the French and the Dutch had them before we did. But we had them before the United States even existed.