Apparently, you are not familiar with the doctrine called
“Substantial Similarity”. Even if there is no exact copy
being made, a new work that is substantially similar to
a previous work made by other author or artist in whole
or in partial portions can be copyright infringement.

Just because no one accuses Quentin Tarantino of
copyright infringement does not mean that he is free
of copyright infringement. Authors and artists are
selective about suing infringers and/or do not have the
resources and money to suit infringers.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

the only thing that has gone WAY too far is the hyperbole some fair use (or should we say free use) maximalists use when characterising copyright.

why not challenge us to write a reply not using words?

the mice, all three of us, are left somewhat speechless by your (hopefully unintentional) mischaracterisation of what copyright entails.

for your future information, copyright protects expression – not content. it does not prevent anyone from writing a book about cops and robbers, only using the same unique characters that another author brought to life. it does not prevent people from using notes, only using a distinctive sequence of notes which were the product of someone else’s genius.

in kill bill vol. 2, quentin tarantino created a unique, original film clearly influenced by sergio leone’s spaghetti westerns and 1970’s kung fu movies. he did not copy characters or specific scenes – he built on the existing culture to create something new. we are almost certain that one of the notes used in the chapel scence was exactly the same note played in one of the scenes from the good, the bad and the ugly. he even raised the volume to an intolerable level – just like leone did.

and as far as we know, no one has accused him of copyright infringement.

When someone can get sued, and lose, for issuing an album with “One Minute of Silence”, copyright has gone WAY too far. Try creating an original silence, and see how for that gets you.

providing access to source code in order to examine the inner workings of programs for security, functionality, and interoperability is indeed a legitimate concern. this is the reason that the mice support software patents as a means to encourage this sort of disclosure while at the same time protecting original developers from having their inventions misappropriated by others.

copyright has always been a poor substitute for effective patent rights. that someone can claim copyright on something which is never published makes very little sense to us mice.

“free as in free speech” developers like yourself have to however reject the “free as in free beer” elements of your community who use your movement for their anti-capitalist goals.

I agree with you on a philosophical level that society would be better off if free software didn’t have to worry about “re-inventing wheels which are already turning.” However, I think most F/OSS developers would agree with me saying that free as in beer (“no cost”) software isn’t really the goal. The main reason I develope is for free as in speech software.

I’m going to take a line from one of the Professor’s speeches (OSCON ’02): “Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.” If you don’t have (a) the source code and (b) the freedom (speech) to use it, it become somewhere in between a pain and extremely difficult to develop new software. In order to create “something truely original” at this point, one really does have to build upon the past.

Perhaps we could agree that free (speech) software should get to the point where it surpasses the already turning wheels of proprietary software, then they (the people who write proprietary software) could build upon our platform, which is much more conducive to creativity.

Sorry if this was completely nonsensical- i’ve had about 45 minutes sleep in the last ~72 hours… 😉

Like the stagnation of the amazing productivity and variety of Free Software (Open Source)?

only proves our point. open source invests enormous creative resources into creating “free as in no cost” versions of application software which is already avaliable. the mice submit that society would be better served if this talent were focused on creating something truely original instead of re-inventing wheels which are already turning.

be original, rob. it’s as simple as that.

originality requires neither wealth nor power. only imagination. this is what society should encourage from artists.

the “free culture” coddling of less creative artists cheapens culture and makes it harder for true talent to become recognized.

If I recall correctly, you work as farmers.

Allow me to point out that like fruits and vegetables
that grow with proper nutrition that comes from the
soil and fertilizer that come from the compost that
come from the dead fruits and vegetables, new works
can be made with the very fertile environment that
comes from the public domain works. This is hardly
a recipe for stagnation. Much stronger copyright
can easily parch soil, an excellent recipe for
starvation (of knowledge and arts).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

And how can artists (very few of whom are as rich as you probably think) afford to work within the limits increasingly set by those enforcements? When “fair use” of cultural material is logistically impossible, all the artist can do is doodle or scat and hope they don’t accidentally produce anything that resembles someone else’s work.

Copyright regimes don’t protect artists. They allow large companies to rip artists off, persecute them, and generally stop cultural development.

“�free culture� is the recipe for stagnation.”

LOL. Like the stagnation of the amazing productivity and variety of Free Software (Open Source)?

The profit motive is fine when it support production and distribution. But production and litigation is the model becoming unprecedentedly enshrined in law. This is wrong and harms commerce as well as culture.

one does not have to resort to calling someone a nazi to end a debate – once the term “maximalist” is reached, the mice normally turn this TV off.

more interestingly, the invocation of goodwin’s law makes it plain that khan’s expression (in addition to being rhetorically hyperbolic) is neither original nor particularly clever.

this is, for us mice, the problem with the “free culture” movement.

arguing that it is important to provide “freedom” to derivative hacks like kahn, or to our felonious cousin dj danger mouse, by allowing them to freely trespass on true originality seems to us like a bad deal for everyone.

unless artists are challenged to think – to really use some imagination and be original – the bar never moves and culture is doomed to a never ending cycle of hip-hop mediocracy. ice ice baby.

it is strong, enforceable copyright which provides precisely the challenge to artists that society needs to develop culturally.

“free culture” is the recipe for stagnation.