Reported Post by rmaday

rmaday · June 29, 2009, 3:29pm

rmaday has reported a post.

Reason:

Post: copper bar
Forum: AskNACHI.org Forum
Assigned Moderators: gbeaumont, fmagdefrau, fcarrio, lkage, mkyriacou, jmckenna1, rromoser, sgilligan1, iniquette, bjones5, jramos, wwilson3

Posted by: Electrical Guru NOT!
Original Content:

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.

by Brad Templeton

Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is – basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn’t know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.

“If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted.”
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

The correct form for a notice is:
“Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]”

You can use C in a circle © instead of “Copyright” but “(C)” has never been given legal force. The phrase “All Rights Reserved” used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the “moral rights.”

“If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.”
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away – and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn’t include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

“They can’t get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!”
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of criminal law, as is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don’t apply the same way or at all. It’s mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

“Oh, so copyright violation isn’t a crime or anything?”
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don’t think you’re going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn’t charge was acquited because he didn’t charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

jbushart · June 29, 2009, 5:20pm

What is improper about this post?

rmaday · June 29, 2009, 5:31pm

A non-member has answered a post in Ask NACHI.

This post is not so much the issue as that entire thread has, IMO cast NACI in a bad light.

What do you think the opinion of the original poster might be? Especially after returning to see his answers and seeing personal squables in a forum to answer questions asked by
the public.
This is also obviously a fake name generated in order to dicredit a member:
Posted by: Electrical Guru NOT!