As a second reply.. just because it realy angered me to be attacked, for no real reason.
I would advise, "sir", that simply insulting someone just becuase that person has no real avenue of recourse to make you accountalbe for your words, is one of the Hallmarks of Childish Behavior.
Children believe, that the louder they "cry", the stronger the "arguement" they are trying to make is.
It is, in fact, the way to least likely have your veiwpoint considered, by someone you disagree with.
Your just another example of why there should be licenses for Internet Access, just like Driving a Car. There is little place for children, in the realm of Adult Discussion.
Physcical Age has little to do with being a Adult. It's primary hallmarks are self-control, and the ability to reason under duress, and to accept the consequences of what you say and do. None of these factors you possess as you clearly demonstrate here, attacking me from the first line, making specious arguments while giving no accurate factual proof, and posting Anonymously.
Yes, you are right on this. I should have carefully considered my wording, and made it more along the lines of what you state here.
However, that wasn't the point that I was trying to demonstrate.
I expressly Does Not cover the idea, or theme, merely the communication thereof.
I grasp these concepts just fine. I think you do as well, but just fail to see where they are applicable in this situation.
I assure you, I am more than just a little familar with the distinction of Copyrights vs. Patents. This knowledge via RL experince with these matters,allows me to see what, where, and how, in this case, they cannot be seperated.
The distiction is in where wer draw the line. At odds here is if the Process of producing the end product The Music violates the Copyright of that music, and allows for the assocaited protections of Copyright. Spelled out in the preable to Patent Law is the actual word "Process". This brings the entrie dicussion, and case, into the realm where Patent Law has to be considered.
This is the direct disinction, laid out by the Supreme Court (cannot site the case from memory, and don't feel the need to google something you can do yourself should you question me) in it's decision that Backup Copies were not considered part of Copyright violation. There are a massive number of these cases, all attempting to tie together or seperate these concerns, and the courts have been pretty stable about the interpretation. Copyright will give to Patents, when the tenents on the case are defined considerations within the purview of Patent Law. Remember, Patent Law dates back to the 1780's, while Copyright law, as we know it today, only extends from it's definition in 1he Copyright Act of 1976.
My "economic manifesto" non-withstanding, the issues are tighly bound by their very nature. Any attorney worth his wieght in these matters will attempt to make a very stong case to bind them together in this case.
Exactly my point.. just in clearer consiser, in less "vocabularic arrogance". lol
You right, it isn't cut and dry, thus I feel that they most certainly take it to court. That is where the "hairs are properly split" and the reasonable accomidation under the Law has to be made.
I think the persons who "shut down" this site, failed to take ito account any of the Patent Law concerns, and choose to focus solely on the Copyright concerns. Since we are talking about the Process, a part of the system completly within the purview of Patent Law, as stated by the preamble to the Patent Law (forgive me I cannot remember the document, as it is part of the original Constiutional Congress's documents which I just don't have recall on in detail).
Also, one thing here.
The issue at hand is realted to the Process of production of the end product, the Music. This, to me, is a extremly important distiction.
Processes are, by letter and spirit, part of the purview of Patent (or as the new term has become IP, when used in conjunction w/ Copyright concerns as well)Law.
If we were talking about a site that was putting the end product up, then we would be wholely in the purview of Copyright Law. Because we are dicussing the Process and not the Product, we have to consider the same considerations as we do in Patents, the "part" of the law that determines proper action in Process cases.
See.. this is where we start to diverge in our interpretation of what is going on where.
I agree, and can see where this site would be "in-the-wrong" if they were directly copying the tabulations and/or sheet music, then publishing said copies on thier webiste. This would clearly violate the letter, and the spirit of the Copyright.
What we are having problems coming to terms with is the definition of "derivative work."
I say, that due to the manner of how I beleive these tabulations are developed, they are not "derivative work" in the aspect as they are utilizing the "as-produced" product, the music itself, then extracting the "specifications" for the music to allow a third "Virgin" party to reproduce it.
Yours looks at the entirity, and includes the tabulation/sheet music produced from the Music itself, by the produceing company, and then (in my mind) attempts to extend it's Copyright into a forum it doesn't belong.
Who is right? Not real sure, even while I type this, I am considering what you are saying, and beginning to see some merit it in.
Thank You, *Insert Desired Diety", for letting us live in a country, that lets us dicuss these thing, and hopefully, will maintain a legal system that will allow for intelligent dicussion and Reasoned decisions about these issues. I have many opinions good and ill about our Legal system. I just wish it was a little more of a Justice system, than a Legal system.
I would remind you, that Copyrights are by design, supposed to be Weaker than Patents.
To give Copyrights a fundmental protection, not afforded to Pantents, would violate the premise.
I'm sorry, but your understanding of Reverse Engineering is a little off. I know. I used to get paid quite well to do it.
Musician used his ears, underdstanding of his instrument, and knowledge of musical theory. I used scripts, volt meters, and O-scopes, understanding of the system that I was analyizing purpose, and my knowledge of Electrical Engineering. Yes, I was "contaminate", thus I could not be involved with the re-development of the techonology once my team defined the specifications to the Attorneys. It did not bar me from preforming the analysis. Nor did it bar me from doing it in the first place.
Yes, I agree with your point, and it does have some legal validity. This is why we have Courts to get involved, however, and we just don't use a "checkbox" justice system.
Copyright, is by definition in the law, supposed to afford a MUCH weaker protection to the IP in question than a Patent. Copyright was developed to maintain ownership of a idea, while still allowing the use of that idea in the public domain. Panents are not intended to allow for use of the "idea" in the public domain, but to afford protection of the IP for monotary exploitation. Both are needed. There can't be a massive disencitive for companies/persons to develop only to have thier IP stolen.
To afford protections, not granted to the Patent, to Copyrighted material would violate the fundemental difference between them.
I would also like to point out, just a few, of the INCREDIBLY useful ideas, that were allowed to become Standards, rather than IP:
TCP/IP
SNMP
HTML
Programming Languages (take your pick)
The Mouse
The QWERTY Keyboard (get ready to go reeeeeeal old school)
Radio
T.V.
Electric Lighting
I ask you... if we had had the currently legal climate today, when these Techs came to fruitition....
Would You Really Like The World We Live In Today?
The practise of "copying-by-listening"..is absolutly....completly....100% L E G A L. Don't believe me?... about 90% of you are sitting in front of a piece of technology that is wholely depedented on it's practise. I hope that someway somehow, these folks have an attorney with even 1/4 of a Brain. The amount of case law on this, is simply staggering.
This is, start-to-finish, 100%, known as Reverse Engineering. The only difference is here the musician/engineer isn't providing these to a attorney, he is posting them on a site. The middle-man is then providing them to a "Virgin" party, for replication. This practice by which many of the largest Technoogy companies, not only brought into practise on a wide scale in the "Silicon Valley Rush" of the 1980's., but formed the finiancial foundations that thier enables thier current success today.
This practice, is a very large reason, we have the wonderful benifit accross the world of cheap, reliable, and INCREDIBLY useful technology.
I wish people could see past their own pocketbooks... or at least realize the ENTIRITY of the costs, over the long term.
People need to be upset with things like this, the RIAA, and others that can't seem to grasp that they may not have all the ideas, and might not even be applying the few really really good ones, to maximum benifit. This one of the very fundementals of a Keynesian Economics, on which our economy is based. When the markets are allowed to be free, we all benifit. This isn't pie-in-the-sky dreaming...this is academicly accepted, real-world v
Slashdot Mirror
As a second reply.. just because it realy angered me to be attacked, for no real reason. I would advise, "sir", that simply insulting someone just becuase that person has no real avenue of recourse to make you accountalbe for your words, is one of the Hallmarks of Childish Behavior. Children believe, that the louder they "cry", the stronger the "arguement" they are trying to make is. It is, in fact, the way to least likely have your veiwpoint considered, by someone you disagree with. Your just another example of why there should be licenses for Internet Access, just like Driving a Car. There is little place for children, in the realm of Adult Discussion. Physcical Age has little to do with being a Adult. It's primary hallmarks are self-control, and the ability to reason under duress, and to accept the consequences of what you say and do. None of these factors you possess as you clearly demonstrate here, attacking me from the first line, making specious arguments while giving no accurate factual proof, and posting Anonymously.
Yes, you are right on this. I should have carefully considered my wording, and made it more along the lines of what you state here. However, that wasn't the point that I was trying to demonstrate. I expressly Does Not cover the idea, or theme, merely the communication thereof.
I grasp these concepts just fine. I think you do as well, but just fail to see where they are applicable in this situation. I assure you, I am more than just a little familar with the distinction of Copyrights vs. Patents. This knowledge via RL experince with these matters,allows me to see what, where, and how, in this case, they cannot be seperated. The distiction is in where wer draw the line. At odds here is if the Process of producing the end product The Music violates the Copyright of that music, and allows for the assocaited protections of Copyright. Spelled out in the preable to Patent Law is the actual word "Process". This brings the entrie dicussion, and case, into the realm where Patent Law has to be considered. This is the direct disinction, laid out by the Supreme Court (cannot site the case from memory, and don't feel the need to google something you can do yourself should you question me) in it's decision that Backup Copies were not considered part of Copyright violation. There are a massive number of these cases, all attempting to tie together or seperate these concerns, and the courts have been pretty stable about the interpretation. Copyright will give to Patents, when the tenents on the case are defined considerations within the purview of Patent Law. Remember, Patent Law dates back to the 1780's, while Copyright law, as we know it today, only extends from it's definition in 1he Copyright Act of 1976. My "economic manifesto" non-withstanding, the issues are tighly bound by their very nature. Any attorney worth his wieght in these matters will attempt to make a very stong case to bind them together in this case.
Exactly my point.. just in clearer consiser, in less "vocabularic arrogance". lol You right, it isn't cut and dry, thus I feel that they most certainly take it to court. That is where the "hairs are properly split" and the reasonable accomidation under the Law has to be made. I think the persons who "shut down" this site, failed to take ito account any of the Patent Law concerns, and choose to focus solely on the Copyright concerns. Since we are talking about the Process, a part of the system completly within the purview of Patent Law, as stated by the preamble to the Patent Law (forgive me I cannot remember the document, as it is part of the original Constiutional Congress's documents which I just don't have recall on in detail).
Also, one thing here. The issue at hand is realted to the Process of production of the end product, the Music. This, to me, is a extremly important distiction. Processes are, by letter and spirit, part of the purview of Patent (or as the new term has become IP, when used in conjunction w/ Copyright concerns as well)Law. If we were talking about a site that was putting the end product up, then we would be wholely in the purview of Copyright Law. Because we are dicussing the Process and not the Product, we have to consider the same considerations as we do in Patents, the "part" of the law that determines proper action in Process cases.
See.. this is where we start to diverge in our interpretation of what is going on where. I agree, and can see where this site would be "in-the-wrong" if they were directly copying the tabulations and/or sheet music, then publishing said copies on thier webiste. This would clearly violate the letter, and the spirit of the Copyright. What we are having problems coming to terms with is the definition of "derivative work." I say, that due to the manner of how I beleive these tabulations are developed, they are not "derivative work" in the aspect as they are utilizing the "as-produced" product, the music itself, then extracting the "specifications" for the music to allow a third "Virgin" party to reproduce it. Yours looks at the entirity, and includes the tabulation/sheet music produced from the Music itself, by the produceing company, and then (in my mind) attempts to extend it's Copyright into a forum it doesn't belong. Who is right? Not real sure, even while I type this, I am considering what you are saying, and beginning to see some merit it in. Thank You, *Insert Desired Diety", for letting us live in a country, that lets us dicuss these thing, and hopefully, will maintain a legal system that will allow for intelligent dicussion and Reasoned decisions about these issues. I have many opinions good and ill about our Legal system. I just wish it was a little more of a Justice system, than a Legal system.
I would remind you, that Copyrights are by design, supposed to be Weaker than Patents. To give Copyrights a fundmental protection, not afforded to Pantents, would violate the premise. I'm sorry, but your understanding of Reverse Engineering is a little off. I know. I used to get paid quite well to do it. Musician used his ears, underdstanding of his instrument, and knowledge of musical theory. I used scripts, volt meters, and O-scopes, understanding of the system that I was analyizing purpose, and my knowledge of Electrical Engineering. Yes, I was "contaminate", thus I could not be involved with the re-development of the techonology once my team defined the specifications to the Attorneys. It did not bar me from preforming the analysis. Nor did it bar me from doing it in the first place.
Yes, I agree with your point, and it does have some legal validity. This is why we have Courts to get involved, however, and we just don't use a "checkbox" justice system. Copyright, is by definition in the law, supposed to afford a MUCH weaker protection to the IP in question than a Patent. Copyright was developed to maintain ownership of a idea, while still allowing the use of that idea in the public domain. Panents are not intended to allow for use of the "idea" in the public domain, but to afford protection of the IP for monotary exploitation. Both are needed. There can't be a massive disencitive for companies/persons to develop only to have thier IP stolen. To afford protections, not granted to the Patent, to Copyrighted material would violate the fundemental difference between them. I would also like to point out, just a few, of the INCREDIBLY useful ideas, that were allowed to become Standards, rather than IP: TCP/IP SNMP HTML Programming Languages (take your pick) The Mouse The QWERTY Keyboard (get ready to go reeeeeeal old school) Radio T.V. Electric Lighting I ask you... if we had had the currently legal climate today, when these Techs came to fruitition.... Would You Really Like The World We Live In Today?
The practise of "copying-by-listening"..is absolutly....completly....100% L E G A L. Don't believe me?... about 90% of you are sitting in front of a piece of technology that is wholely depedented on it's practise. I hope that someway somehow, these folks have an attorney with even 1/4 of a Brain. The amount of case law on this, is simply staggering. This is, start-to-finish, 100%, known as Reverse Engineering. The only difference is here the musician/engineer isn't providing these to a attorney, he is posting them on a site. The middle-man is then providing them to a "Virgin" party, for replication. This practice by which many of the largest Technoogy companies, not only brought into practise on a wide scale in the "Silicon Valley Rush" of the 1980's., but formed the finiancial foundations that thier enables thier current success today. This practice, is a very large reason, we have the wonderful benifit accross the world of cheap, reliable, and INCREDIBLY useful technology. I wish people could see past their own pocketbooks... or at least realize the ENTIRITY of the costs, over the long term. People need to be upset with things like this, the RIAA, and others that can't seem to grasp that they may not have all the ideas, and might not even be applying the few really really good ones, to maximum benifit. This one of the very fundementals of a Keynesian Economics, on which our economy is based. When the markets are allowed to be free, we all benifit. This isn't pie-in-the-sky dreaming...this is academicly accepted, real-world v