If I had my way, you could retain the copyrights on your HTML, the text therein, and the images you use in the page. But how the page looks on the screen? You should get no copyright on that. And here's why:
When I view your page, I am running a program that interprets what you have written and displays it on the page. To allow you to have copyright on that interpretation would allow you to have copyright on any interpretation of the HTML.
So, for instance, I write a HTML "visualizer" that takes your HTML and paints a pretty picture with it. That is my program's interpretation of your HTML. Do you have a copyright on that interpretation, then? Of course not.
You simply should not have a copyright on how I choose to display your data.
It might be possible to argue this legally, too. You get copyright on something as soon as it is fixed in some medium. So you code your HTML, and you get your copyright on it. But that has nothing to do with later interpretation by browsers, which vary in their presentation (like Lynx vs. Mozilla.)
And that's ok. I mean, the content of your page is intact, and copyrighted, and so are the images. Your intellectual property is protected. [So go ahead and nail that guy for distributing images he doesn't hold the copyright on--it's already illegal.]
But to say "I have a copyright on how Netscape presents my webpage to you" is completely absurd. You do not have such a copyright.
All this being said, I'm sure all head-in-ass judges will cluelessly make contrary decisions. Just watch them.
I agree with all the aforementioned hammer and gun analogies.
Taking it a step farther, I think the software author should never be held responsible for someone else's actions.
See, the judge would have to decide if the software was "dangerous" or not, and this is not something I want them to do (as much as I trust our technically adept government here in the US).
And for the government to ban a certain technology (e.g. like The Digital Millenium Copyright Act does) is just as bad. What if they banned viruses, and then suddenly classified the software you had written as a virus, whether it was or not?
Also, how would you like it if you developed a network security tool and later someone misuses it, and the judge holds you at fault! Insane! And yet whenever you give a piece of the government power to make these kinds of judgements, they always eventually misuse that power, and innocent law-abiding citizens will pay the price.
Of course, the side effect of this is that you have people who can create purely malicious software and not be punished when someone else uses it. Such are the prices of liberty! Deal with it!
If I want to write and distribute software that disguises identities, that's my own business. I'm not hurting anyone, and so I should not be punished.
Would I irritate you just by writing some software like that? Can you use your Spidey-Senses to tell when I am doing it? NO!
I am against any law that bans technology instead of addressing the improper use of that technology. Any of you who like to listen to MP3s should be in complete agreement with me.
But then again, they're Virginians, and I live in California. They can screw themselves as long as it doesn't affect me. When it does affect me, it's a different matter.
Note: I am a member of the ACLU and if they can show to me that this law is unconstitutional, I will back them. If preserving my first amendment rights were as easy as hitting the 'D' key, I would be a very happy man.
Or go to http://www.ifarchive.org/. There is a sizable culture revolving around interactive fiction, and 2 or 3 major games are still released annually!
If you like this kind of thing, run out to the archive and grab some interpreters and games.
If you want to play Infocom games, you can get all-but-two of them on the Masterpieces of Infocom CD. For more information, try http://www.geocities.com/TimesS quare/3177/infocom.htm. Comes with windoze binaries, but you can run most of the adventures under Linux (or anything else) by downloading an interpreter such as Frotz. 'Swhat I do.
For gobs of other information, go to Yahoo and search for "interactive fiction".
Just do what I do! 'D'! As you are deleting the flame, consider how much time was spent writing it, and rejoice in the fact that you have just caused some bastard to completely waste his time.
Learn to love hate-mail...it makes life much easier and more enjoyable. Imagine, if you will, the frothing idiot sitting at his machine pounding out his grumble-mail; this is an appropriate time to feel superior. Furthermore, you can snicker at the sender for thinking they are irritating you.
As for freshmeat, it rocks, and I'm very sorry to see it offline. Bring it back, and don't let the ungrateful wretches get you down.
Finally, it seems you might have forgotten the very useful expression, "If you don't like it, you can kiss my ass!"
Slashdot Mirror
Beware--I've heard that some DVD players don't play CD-Rs. Yet another feature by your friendly RIAA.
When I view your page, I am running a program that interprets what you have written and displays it on the page. To allow you to have copyright on that interpretation would allow you to have copyright on any interpretation of the HTML.
So, for instance, I write a HTML "visualizer" that takes your HTML and paints a pretty picture with it. That is my program's interpretation of your HTML. Do you have a copyright on that interpretation, then? Of course not.
You simply should not have a copyright on how I choose to display your data.
It might be possible to argue this legally, too. You get copyright on something as soon as it is fixed in some medium. So you code your HTML, and you get your copyright on it. But that has nothing to do with later interpretation by browsers, which vary in their presentation (like Lynx vs. Mozilla.)
And that's ok. I mean, the content of your page is intact, and copyrighted, and so are the images. Your intellectual property is protected. [So go ahead and nail that guy for distributing images he doesn't hold the copyright on--it's already illegal.]
But to say "I have a copyright on how Netscape presents my webpage to you" is completely absurd. You do not have such a copyright.
All this being said, I'm sure all head-in-ass judges will cluelessly make contrary decisions. Just watch them.
Taking it a step farther, I think the software author should never be held responsible for someone else's actions.
See, the judge would have to decide if the software was "dangerous" or not, and this is not something I want them to do (as much as I trust our technically adept government here in the US).
And for the government to ban a certain technology (e.g. like The Digital Millenium Copyright Act does) is just as bad. What if they banned viruses, and then suddenly classified the software you had written as a virus, whether it was or not?
Also, how would you like it if you developed a network security tool and later someone misuses it, and the judge holds you at fault! Insane! And yet whenever you give a piece of the government power to make these kinds of judgements, they always eventually misuse that power, and innocent law-abiding citizens will pay the price.
Of course, the side effect of this is that you have people who can create purely malicious software and not be punished when someone else uses it. Such are the prices of liberty! Deal with it!
That would suck.
Is not.
Would I irritate you just by writing some software like that? Can you use your Spidey-Senses to tell when I am doing it? NO!
I am against any law that bans technology instead of addressing the improper use of that technology. Any of you who like to listen to MP3s should be in complete agreement with me.
But then again, they're Virginians, and I live in California. They can screw themselves as long as it doesn't affect me. When it does affect me, it's a different matter.
Note: I am a member of the ACLU and if they can show to me that this law is unconstitutional, I will back them. If preserving my first amendment rights were as easy as hitting the 'D' key, I would be a very happy man.
If you like this kind of thing, run out to the archive and grab some interpreters and games.
If you want to play Infocom games, you can get all-but-two of them on the Masterpieces of Infocom CD. For more information, try http://www.geocities.com/TimesS quare/3177/infocom.htm. Comes with windoze binaries, but you can run most of the adventures under Linux (or anything else) by downloading an interpreter such as Frotz. 'Swhat I do.
For gobs of other information, go to Yahoo and search for "interactive fiction".
Plugh!
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the abstract of the patent and said, "Hey that sounds vaguely like IRC!"
Give us maybe another 5 years.
Learn to love hate-mail...it makes life much easier and more enjoyable. Imagine, if you will, the frothing idiot sitting at his machine pounding out his grumble-mail; this is an appropriate time to feel superior. Furthermore, you can snicker at the sender for thinking they are irritating you.
As for freshmeat, it rocks, and I'm very sorry to see it offline. Bring it back, and don't let the ungrateful wretches get you down.
Finally, it seems you might have forgotten the very useful expression, "If you don't like it, you can kiss my ass!"