On TechRepublic: Linux desktops have tanked: Get over it
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 25:
Next »
« Previous
Your logic is somewhat flawed
"Copyright is supposed to protect income potential from the copyrighted material. Therefore it would seem that if there is no intention to publish for profit, copyright infringement would be impossible."

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of copyright is that it exists in any work you create, be it an e-mail, letter, poem, book, quilt design, computer code, painting, whatever. As long as you can show that it is your work and that you created it, it has copyright by default. If you perform the work as an employee of a company, then the company has the copyright.

Copyright protects a work by not allowing others to claim ownership - hence no one can take your work and sell it without permission since they don't own it. Copyright exists to protect ownership. As the owner, you have the right to determine who gets to "use" the work and so can stop the publication or distribution of the work since this allows others to use it without your permission, virtually "stealing" it. The bottom line is, if I created it, you can't use it without my permission, that's it.

Whether the e-mails have any current value, or whether the students are attempting to profit from them, is irrelevant. The fact that they don't own them and are distributing them in their entirety may very well breach copyright, if not the DMCA.

Parts of copyright material can be legally copied provided you do not copy it in its entirety - say quote a few lines of a play in a review or extracts of documents in an investigative journalism piece. This is where the students may fall down - had they used excerpts of the e-mails within a text, with proper attribution, that would be perfectly reasonable and probably perfectly legal as an expression of free speech. But they didn't.
Posted by: Fred Fredrickson   Posted on: 11/17/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

What Copyright Infringement  Update victim | 11/17/03
the dmca  lmaxwell | 11/17/03
Your logic is somewhat flawed  Fred Fredrickson | 11/17/03
Something is flawed but it's not his logic  none none | 11/17/03
Only registered copyrights qualify  dscherf | 11/18/03
Re: Only registered copyrights qualify  none none | 11/18/03
What's flawed?  Update victim | 11/18/03
Re: What's flawed?  none none | 11/18/03
Clarification  none none | 11/18/03
More information about sale vs. license  Update victim | 11/19/03
More - 11-20-2003  Update victim | 11/20/03
Gov't has no problem posting others' emails  Update victim | 11/20/03
funny - they don't dent the content  lmaxwell | 11/17/03
The scariest part...  WhoIsDaMan | 11/18/03
Message has been deleted.  unixguy@... | 11/18/03
Oh boy, the LinuxCAD SPAMMER is back.  James T. Kirk | 11/18/03
If there is any place for open source  Frihet | 11/18/03
Absolutely agreed.  Damon K | 11/18/03
IT'S A DAMN CALCULATOR!!!  dkwiatkowski@... | 11/18/03
one more thing...  dkwiatkowski@... | 11/18/03
The students noticed Swartzenneger followed the e-way of G.W.Bush.  Vily Clay | 11/18/03
Are they kidding?  ltw1958 | 11/18/03
when?  ryusen | 11/18/03
Nothing Really  WhoIsDaMan | 11/18/03
(NT) Nope, the Talkbacks are still broken.  none none | 11/18/03

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here