Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million copies.
Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
book--thin, written during the last big war.
You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
[this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
er
--
email not valid
[email protected] wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
>>>years.
>>
>>That's relatively novel. Up until '76 there was a maintenance
>>requirement, and the term's always been shorter than that (extensions
>>always preceding the fall of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Makes
>>you think about all that other work that is being lost, eh?)
>>
>>
>>>...
>>
>>>It sounds like the new 'author' should be 'outed' but I dunno
>>>what consequences that might have for your friend.
>>
>>I guess we're going to find out, because he's already done it. :)
>>
>
>
> Well you could try requesting a free copy. I'll bet it is temporarily
> unavailable (It's likely that the ASME has sent them a cease and
> desist order.)
I'm going to suggest that to my friend. :)
I also found later that the ASME has republished an updated version of
it in 2001, so even with changes to reflect social evolution they may be
in the position of having maintained copyright.
er
--
email not valid
Since this is the real world, do you not think you could profit from this.
I am not sure who to give credit to for this idea.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
There is a UseNet newsgroups called misc.legal and another,
misc.legal.moderated. You would probably get some useful
discussion going by posting there.
IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
years. The US government does not enforce its copyrights
on material created by the government itself. Material
created by Federal contractors may or may not be
protected. Some contractors aggressively assert
copyright in situations that seem, well, questionable.
It sounds like the new 'author' should be 'outed' but I dunno
what consequences that might have for your friend.
--
FF
Enoch Root wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
> > years.
>
> That's relatively novel. Up until '76 there was a maintenance
> requirement, and the term's always been shorter than that (extensions
> always preceding the fall of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Makes
> you think about all that other work that is being lost, eh?)
>
> > ...
>
> > It sounds like the new 'author' should be 'outed' but I dunno
> > what consequences that might have for your friend.
>
> I guess we're going to find out, because he's already done it. :)
>
Well you could try requesting a free copy. I'll bet it is temporarily
unavailable (It's likely that the ASME has sent them a cease and
desist order.)
--
FF
Enoch Root wrote:
> Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
> leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
> everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million copies.
>
> Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
> prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
> you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
> title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
> book--thin, written during the last big war.
>
> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
> Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
It's both. The author of the prior work can sue the CEO.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >There is a UseNet newsgroups called misc.legal and another,
> >misc.legal.moderated. You would probably get some useful
> >discussion going by posting there.
>
> Definitely. particularly misc.legal.moderated.
> However, he'll have to be a _lot_ more specific, to get anything
> approaching a meaningful answer.
>
> >
> >IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
> >years.
>
> For older works, it is a _lot_ more complicated than that, unfortunately..
>
> It depends on:
> *IF* the original work was copyrighted -- required _registration_ with
> the Library of Congress.
> If the copyright required renewal before the Berne Convention changes
> and if so, whether or not it _was_ renewed.
> If copyright was still in force at the time of the Berne Convention
> changes.
> If the copyright had been renewed, and subsequently expired, was the
> filing made 'restoring' copyright under Berne Convention rules.
>
> If copyright in effect when Berne adopted, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies
> If original copyright had expired, and was not renewed, it is in public domain.
> If original copyright renewed, and not expired when Berne adopted, 'life plus
> (now) 70 yrs' applies.
> If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice not
> filed, it is in public domain.
> If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice was
> filed, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies
>
> In reality, the situation is even _messier_ than above. because the value
> of 'n', for 'life plus n years' has been changed more than once. creating
> some additional classes of works eligible for 'restoration' of copyright,
> *if* the appropriate notice was filed with the gov't/
>
> > The US government does not enforce its copyrights
> >on material created by the government itself.
>
> Correction:
No, confusion.
> 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright
> protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute.
According to the Berne Convention, 'created by the government'
IS eligible, without regard to which government. 'Eligibility'
depends on the thing that is created, not the identification
of the creator. The 'right' is an intellectual property
right that is cocreated with the work in question. The US
has, by statute, prohibitted itself from enforcing its copyrights
on material originally created by the US government.
> The
> government may, however, hold copyright rights that were transferred
> _to_ the gov't by a third party.
Yes. The US government can also transfer its copyrights for
material 'created by the government' to private parties as was
done with most of the Landsat imagery during the Reagan
Administration.
--
FF
Dhakala wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
> > Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
> > leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
> > everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million copies.
> >
> > Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
> > prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
> > you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
> > title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
> > book--thin, written during the last big war.
> >
> > You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> > occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> > CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> > number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
> >
> > Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>
> It's both. The author of the prior work can sue the CEO.
Correction, the copyright owner can sue an infringer. Typically
for journal articles the copyright is transferred from the author
to the publisher prior to publication and retained by the publisher
thereafter.
--
FF
Enoch Root wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
> > You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> > occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> > CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> > number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
> Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
> nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told
> that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources...
> and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...
>
That is what it says in the USA today article.
Monetary gain on the part of an infringer is irrelevant. A work
is infringed if it is copied unless the act qualifies for exemptions
specified in the statute, the copier has the permission of the
coyright owner, or the work is in the public domain.
Monetary loss on the part of the copyright owner is an issue,
not in determining if infringement has occurred, but in determing
damages.
The ASME sells "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering", so if the
work in question infirnges on the ASME's copyrights then
each copy distributed may be construed as costing the ASME
money, even though the infringer loses money copying and
distributing the work.
My guess is that the ASME will receive (or already has received)
a licensing fee from Raytheon, perhaps in the form of a donation.
It is entirely possible that a licensing deal was cut with the
ASME prior to publication so that no infringement occurred.
I'm also inclined to guess that it was ghost written--which has
some rather amusing implications. One wonders, for example,
if the _USA Today_ article was written by the same author...
--
FF
Enoch Root wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Enoch Root wrote:
> >
> >>Enoch Root wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> >>>occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> >>>CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> >>>number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
> >>
> >>Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
> >>nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told
> >>that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources...
> >>and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is what it says in the USA today article.
>
> Yes, and conflicts with the reality that it was almost exclusively
> King's book that was the source.
>
> > Monetary gain on the part of an infringer is irrelevant. A work
> > is infringed if it is copied unless the act qualifies for exemptions
> > specified in the statute, the copier has the permission of the
> > coyright owner, or the work is in the public domain.
> >
> > Monetary loss on the part of the copyright owner is an issue,
> > not in determining if infringement has occurred, but in determing
> > damages.
>
> I imagine they are anticipating all stages of any sort of civil
> litigation that could fall out, in making that statement.
>
I imagine the statment is either being made for pure PR purposes
since it addresses an issue that is completely irrelevant to any
legal issues. An infrignmetn suit alleges harm to the copyright
owner. If the infringer didn't benefit from the infringent why should
that matter to the copyright owner?
> > The ASME sells "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering", so if the
> > work in question infirnges on the ASME's copyrights then
> > each copy distributed may be construed as costing the ASME
> > money, even though the infringer loses money copying and
> > distributing the work.
>
> They might make that argument, but from what I've seen (and that's
> fairly limited, as IANAL) it's a difficult argument to make.
AFAIK that is the standard argument regarding damages. Each
copy distributed by the infringer deprives the copyright owner of
their rightful income they would have received by selling a copy.
I suppose there are counter arguments that if sold instead of
given away fewer copes would be distributed, arguments about
profit margin and so on. But the basic argument that distribution
of an infringing copy deprives the copyright owner of income is
rock-solid. That is the basis for a copyright suit since typically
you are not allowed to sue for anything unless the alleged
tort has cost you something with monetary value.
Also, AFAIK there is no such thing as 'innocent infringement'.
Ignorance of a existing copyright might be a defense against
criminal charges (there is such a thing as criminal copyright
infringement in addition to the tort), but would not be a defense
in a civil suit. Negligence is not a necessary element for copyright
infringement, though willfull infringement might result in punitives.
>
> [schnibble]
>
> > I'm also inclined to guess that it was ghost written--which has
> > some rather amusing implications. One wonders, for example,
> > if the _USA Today_ article was written by the same author...
>
> I think WJ King has either passed away or is feeling his oats in some
> pasture. :)
>
Uh, let me clarify: I meant a different, still living ghost, which
would make it a 'work for hire'.
--
FF
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [[.. munch ..]]
>
> >> > The US government does not enforce its copyrights
> >> >on material created by the government itself.
> >>
> >> Correction:
> >
> >No, confusion.
>
> Yup. on _your_ part.
> >
> >> 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright
> >> protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute.
Oh, right. Copyright PROTECTION is not available. It is the protection
that is not available. The copyrights exist, not withstanding that
they are not protected.
Your statement was essentially correct.
> ...
> In the U.S., the laws implementing the Berne Convention accords state:
> "Copyright protection under this title is not available for works
> of the United States Government."
>
> It does _not_ say that "the U.S.G. will not enforce it's copyright on
> any works it creates."
The inavailability of copyright PROTECTION means the government
will not (as it cannot) PROTECT its copyrights.
Note the statute does not state that the copyright does not exist
or that it cannot be ransferred to another party.
...
>
> A work of the U.S. Government is still a work of the U.S. government,
> regardless of whom has subsequently purchased the work (or the reproduction
> rights for that work).
'Reproduction rights' ARE a component of copyright by definition.
>
> Since copyright protection is not available for that work, *regardless* of
> who owns it (or the 'reproduction rights'), the work is is *NOT* protected
> by copyright,
> > to private parties as was
> >done with most of the Landsat imagery during the Reagan
> >Administration.
>
> Those private parties are selling copyrighted works, based on the Landsat
> imagery. What they are selling is _not_ the original government work,
> but their 'derived work' (noise-filtered, composited, mosaiced, etc.) based
> on the government product. Their claimed copyright extends *only* to the
> creative effort involved in producing the derivative work, _not_ to the
> underlying 'raw' imagery.
While they may have sold processed imagery, they certainly
also sold unenhanced imagery exactly as it was received from
the government.
>
> Their 'exclusive' access to the 'raw' imagery is strictly a matter of a
> private contractual arrangement with the original owner -- who agreed,
> for a fee, to _not_ sell the same stuff to anybody else.
Perhaps we should locate and read that contract. ISTR that others
were prohibitted from distributing the raw LandSat imagery that
was transferred, which if so, is therfor indistinguishible from a
transfer of copyright.
--
FF
Enoch Root wrote:
> Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
> leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
> everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million copies.
>
> Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
> prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
> you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
> title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
> book--thin, written during the last big war.
>
> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
> Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>
> [this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>
> er
This is plagiarism and copyright infringement (assuming the copyright is
still valid). It is also academic cheating/stealing, and morally and
ethically wrong. Contact the original author who should contact his
publisher.
Once upon a time, I was assigned to critique an automated fingerprint
system being designed by a large company for the FBI. The various
components ranged from majorly stupid to brilliant. My boss took the
finished product (probably 100 pages) and apparently thought seriously
about replacing my name with his. He came to me, confessed, apologized,
and requested a few minor changes. He showed me something.
mahalo,
jo4hn
jo4hn wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>> Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
>> leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
>> everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million
>> copies.
>>
>> Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
>> prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
>> you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
>> title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
>> book--thin, written during the last big war.
>>
>> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the
>> same.
>>
>> Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>>
>> [this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>>
>> er
>
> This is plagiarism and copyright infringement (assuming the copyright is
> still valid). It is also academic cheating/stealing, and morally and
> ethically wrong. Contact the original author who should contact his
> publisher.
>
> Once upon a time, I was assigned to critique an automated fingerprint
> system being designed by a large company for the FBI. The various
> components ranged from majorly stupid to brilliant. My boss took the
> finished product (probably 100 pages) and apparently thought seriously
> about replacing my name with his. He came to me, confessed, apologized,
> and requested a few minor changes. He showed me something.
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
It is possible, of course, that both could have plagiarized from a third
party. That does happen.
honest jo4hn (who never stole much)
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>There is a UseNet newsgroups called misc.legal and another,
>misc.legal.moderated. You would probably get some useful
>discussion going by posting there.
Definitely. particularly misc.legal.moderated.
However, he'll have to be a _lot_ more specific, to get anything
approaching a meaningful answer.
>
>IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
>years.
For older works, it is a _lot_ more complicated than that, unfortunately..
It depends on:
*IF* the original work was copyrighted -- required _registration_ with
the Library of Congress.
If the copyright required renewal before the Berne Convention changes
and if so, whether or not it _was_ renewed.
If copyright was still in force at the time of the Berne Convention
changes.
If the copyright had been renewed, and subsequently expired, was the
filing made 'restoring' copyright under Berne Convention rules.
If copyright in effect when Berne adopted, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies
If original copyright had expired, and was not renewed, it is in public domain.
If original copyright renewed, and not expired when Berne adopted, 'life plus
(now) 70 yrs' applies.
If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice not
filed, it is in public domain.
If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice was
filed, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies
In reality, the situation is even _messier_ than above. because the value
of 'n', for 'life plus n years' has been changed more than once. creating
some additional classes of works eligible for 'restoration' of copyright,
*if* the appropriate notice was filed with the gov't/
> The US government does not enforce its copyrights
>on material created by the government itself.
Correction: 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright
protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute. The
government may, however, hold copyright rights that were transferred
_to_ the gov't by a third party.
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
[[.. munch ..]]
>> > The US government does not enforce its copyrights
>> >on material created by the government itself.
>>
>> Correction:
>
>No, confusion.
Yup. on _your_ part.
>
>> 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright
>> protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute.
>
>According to the Berne Convention, 'created by the government'
>IS eligible, without regard to which government.
What the Berne Convention says doesn't mean sh*t, if the laws that
implement the agreement say something different.
In the U.S., the laws implementing the Berne Convention accords state:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for works
of the United States Government."
It does _not_ say that "the U.S.G. will not enforce it's copyright on
any works it creates."
*IF* there was an un-enforced copyright on 'works of the U.S. Government',
Then the U.S.G. could assign, transfer, or sell, that 'intellectual
property' to 'someone else', who then _could_ enforce the "rights" associated
therewith.
Since, however, the statute expressly states that there is 'no protection'
for works of the U.S.G, that _cannot_ happen. There is no 'thing of value'
(intellectual property) there to be sold, transferred, or assigned. Copyright
protection simply *does*not*exist* for those works. Since copyright protection
does not exist _under_any_circumstances_ for those works, it is entirely
accurate to describe those works as 'not being eligible for copyright
protection'.
> 'Eligibility'
>depends on the thing that is created, not the identification
>of the creator. The 'right' is an intellectual property
>right that is cocreated with the work in question. The US
>has, by statute, prohibitted itself from enforcing its copyrights
>on material originally created by the US government.
Prohibited itself, *or*anyone*else* who might hold those 'rights' at some
time, from doing so. Since NO ONE can _ever_ enforce such 'rights', this
is indistinguishable from the "non-existence" of that right, as regards
those works. IOW, those works are "not eligible" for protection, because,
for those works, the right _does_not_exist_.
>> The
>> government may, however, hold copyright rights that were transferred
>> _to_ the gov't by a third party.
>
>Yes. The US government can also transfer its copyrights for
>material 'created by the government'
No, it CANNOT. There is *no* copyright protection for such works.
Per 17 USC 105:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of
the United States Government, ....."
A work of the U.S. Government is still a work of the U.S. government,
regardless of whom has subsequently purchased the work (or the reproduction
rights for that work).
Since copyright protection is not available for that work, *regardless* of
who owns it (or the 'reproduction rights'), the work is is *NOT* protected
by copyright,
> to private parties as was
>done with most of the Landsat imagery during the Reagan
>Administration.
Those private parties are selling copyrighted works, based on the Landsat
imagery. What they are selling is _not_ the original government work,
but their 'derived work' (noise-filtered, composited, mosaiced, etc.) based
on the government product. Their claimed copyright extends *only* to the
creative effort involved in producing the derivative work, _not_ to the
underlying 'raw' imagery.
Their 'exclusive' access to the 'raw' imagery is strictly a matter of a
private contractual arrangement with the original owner -- who agreed,
for a fee, to _not_ sell the same stuff to anybody else.
If 'somebody else', by whatever means, nefarious or otherwise, would happen
to get their hands on the 'raw' imagery, and started offering it for sale,
this would *not* be a violation of the copyright held by the derivative-work
producer.
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [[.. munch ..]]
>>
>> >> > The US government does not enforce its copyrights
>> >> >on material created by the government itself.
>> >>
>> >> Correction:
>> >
>> >No, confusion.
>>
>> Yup. on _your_ part.
>> >
>> >> 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright
>> >> protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute.
>
>Oh, right. Copyright PROTECTION is not available. It is the protection
>that is not available. The copyrights exist, not withstanding that
>they are not protected.
>
>Your statement was essentially correct.
>
>> ...
>> In the U.S., the laws implementing the Berne Convention accords state:
>> "Copyright protection under this title is not available for works
>> of the United States Government."
>>
>> It does _not_ say that "the U.S.G. will not enforce it's copyright on
>> any works it creates."
>
>The inavailability of copyright PROTECTION means the government
>will not (as it cannot) PROTECT its copyrights.
>
>Note the statute does not state that the copyright does not exist
>or that it cannot be ransferred to another party.
If transferred to another party, it is *still* unenforceable, to use
your language.
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for works
of the United States Government."
A thing which no one can enforce is no different than a thing which
does not exist.
>
>...
>
>>
>> A work of the U.S. Government is still a work of the U.S. government,
>> regardless of whom has subsequently purchased the work (or the reproduction
>> rights for that work).
>
>'Reproduction rights' ARE a component of copyright by definition.
*NOT* TRUE.
e.g., I have the _only_ copy remaining in existence of a book printed in 1850,
in Philadelphia, Penn, USA.
I'm sure you will agree that there is no copyright in effect on that work.
I can, however, sell permission to reproduce copies of that book. and agree
not to sell that same permission to anyone else.
Now, if, after having done so, I loan that book to someone else, who
photocopies the pages without (or even with) my knowledge, and starts
selling copies of *those* pages, the poor guy who 'bought' from me is
just SOL. I haven't breached my contract with him, 'somebody else' is
not bound by that contract, and no 'statutory' prohibition to their
copying applies.
>> Since copyright protection is not available for that work, *regardless* of
>> who owns it (or the 'reproduction rights'), the work is is *NOT* protected
>> by copyright,
>> > to private parties as was
>> >done with most of the Landsat imagery during the Reagan
>> >Administration.
>>
>> Those private parties are selling copyrighted works, based on the Landsat
>> imagery. What they are selling is _not_ the original government work,
>> but their 'derived work' (noise-filtered, composited, mosaiced, etc.) based
>> on the government product. Their claimed copyright extends *only* to the
>> creative effort involved in producing the derivative work, _not_ to the
>> underlying 'raw' imagery.
>
>While they may have sold processed imagery, they certainly
>also sold unenhanced imagery exactly as it was received from
>the government.
>
>>
>> Their 'exclusive' access to the 'raw' imagery is strictly a matter of a
>> private contractual arrangement with the original owner -- who agreed,
>> for a fee, to _not_ sell the same stuff to anybody else.
>
>Perhaps we should locate and read that contract. ISTR that others
>were prohibitted from distributing the raw LandSat imagery that
>was transferred, which if so, is therfor indistinguishible from a
>transfer of copyright.
You *have* to be 'recalling' incorrectly. "Doctrine of first sale" trumps
contract terms restricting buyers actions (except in the case of real
property, and restrictions that 'run with the land'), *absent* other
statutory provisions (such as copyright -- which is _not_ applicable
in this situation) that constrain the buyer from 'doing as he will' with
that which he owns outright.
"Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
> leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
> everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million
copies.
>
> Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
> prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
> you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
> title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
> book--thin, written during the last big war.
>
> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
> Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>
> [this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>
Well, the first thing I would do would be to read the CEO's book to see just
how close the two really are. It's very common for books on the same topic
to be very close. Some things can only be said in a limited number of ways
and some principles stand the test of time, so they are easy to find
repeated in many places. I don't know how you can say they are basically
the same if you haven't read the book.
Is it plagiarism? Maybe not. If the second author is expressing the same
thoughts with newer reasoning, or a more up to date purpose, then I don't
think it's plagiarism. Copyright infringement? Not if they are common
business practices or the likes.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >>I haven't ordered the new book, but in several articles and interviews
> >>the new author claims to've assembled these valuable principles from his
> >>notes over the years of his career, and the main content is these
> >>principles.
>
>
> > In which case it would be perfectly reasonable that the principles are
so
> > similar to a previously published work. Few ideas are really original
after
> > all.
>
> Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
> haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
> and express them in the same way.
>
No - I really wasn't being flippant. It's just that so much of this stuff
that is bantered about in the business world today has become cliche. There
really are not that many new ideas you hear anymore, but you sure do hear a
lot of re-hashing of the same ones.
> Take "Who moved my cheese" as an example (not relevant to the case!).
> If someone published a book called "who disturbed my cheese" which had
> the same insipid self-help industry pap that these books always do, even
> though there's nothing more than common ideas between the covers,
> there's still a problem with propriety.
>
And... you friend may prove to have a case, I don't know. I wasn't trying
to suggest he doesn't as much as I was making a statement that so much of
the stuff that gets thrown around today is the same stuff we've been hearing
for years now.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't ordered the new book, but in several articles and interviews
> the new author claims to've assembled these valuable principles from his
> notes over the years of his career, and the main content is these
> principles.
>
In which case it would be perfectly reasonable that the principles are so
similar to a previously published work. Few ideas are really original after
all.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
>Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
>leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
>everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million copies.
>
>Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
>prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
>you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
>title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
>book--thin, written during the last big war.
>
>You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
>Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>
>[this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>
>er
First, IANAL, and you should take my comments (and any other advice
you are likely to get on a forum like this) with a huge grain (block?)
of salt.
It seems that using another's ideas that are not generally known and
not generally associated with the author of those ideas requires
(ethically, not legally) acknowledgment of the source, so this sounds
like plagiarism.
EG, if I am going to state "eight principles to live by", and seven of
them happen to coincide with Covey's "Habits", I probably should cite
that and give credit where credit is due.
But my understanding of copyright is that it protects the expression
of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Sounds to me like your
hypothetical author crossed that line. Might be worth looking at the
DaVinci Code trial over in England. Don't know if that has been
resolved yet, but it deals with this fuzzy line between ideas and
their expression.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
>>haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
>>and express them in the same way.
>>
>
>
> Ok - I looked at the links you posted in another reply and I have to say
> that those points certainly do look specific enough to raise an eyebrow.
> Can't see what the list of points actually are in your friend's booklet but
> if they are pretty much a one for one match then I'd have to agree with you.
btw, I appreciate that you are concerned about the scope of copyright,
and offer an old article about a somewhat different situation--but one
which does clarify the distinction between idea and expression:
<URL:http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html>
er
--
email not valid
alexy wrote:
> alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>A very valid point. Extending on that, if these are common
>>>principles or common knowledge, both authors may be quoting
>>>some earlier savant.
>>
>>An example to make it an on-topic thread, how often do you site a
>
> or cite one -- hate it when that happens.
>
>>source when you tell someone to measure twice and cut once? <g> Surely
>>someone was the first to say it.
If someone starts gushing at my genius, I'll normally disclaim
authorship at least. I definitely wouldn't claim authorship.
And this is more than one quip being tossed out.
er
--
email not valid
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I haven't ordered the new book, but in several articles and interviews
>>the new author claims to've assembled these valuable principles from his
>>notes over the years of his career, and the main content is these
>>principles.
> In which case it would be perfectly reasonable that the principles are so
> similar to a previously published work. Few ideas are really original after
> all.
Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
and express them in the same way.
Take "Who moved my cheese" as an example (not relevant to the case!).
If someone published a book called "who disturbed my cheese" which had
the same insipid self-help industry pap that these books always do, even
though there's nothing more than common ideas between the covers,
there's still a problem with propriety.
er
--
email not valid
er
--
email not valid
[email protected] wrote:
> There is a UseNet newsgroups called misc.legal and another,
> misc.legal.moderated. You would probably get some useful
> discussion going by posting there.
Good idea. Actually though, I have no idea if the original is still
under copyright. My feeling is that even if it were public domain there
is still an ethical boundary that has been crossed. Lawyers are a great
source for legal advice, but you have to be more careful of the ethical
stuff because they use an entirely different system based on clients,
the law, and winning, and for some this colors other parts of their lives.
> IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70
> years.
That's relatively novel. Up until '76 there was a maintenance
requirement, and the term's always been shorter than that (extensions
always preceding the fall of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Makes
you think about all that other work that is being lost, eh?)
> The US government does not enforce its copyrights
> on material created by the government itself. Material
> created by Federal contractors may or may not be
> protected. Some contractors aggressively assert
> copyright in situations that seem, well, questionable.
> It sounds like the new 'author' should be 'outed' but I dunno
> what consequences that might have for your friend.
I guess we're going to find out, because he's already done it. :)
I may as well give the URLs:
l'Originale "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0791801624/103-5714649-4528621?v=glance&n=283155
the phoney "The Unwritten Rules of Management":
http://wwwxt.raytheon.com/communications/whs_rules/
The Press:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm
(here are the "rules" as copied verbatim (with minor, sparse grammatical
changes) from the original (copyright 1944, ASME press) book by WJ King.
https://s100.copyright.com/DR/USATODAY/SM8SIe2CNrRgrLVWjHeHUw--.pdf
(an interview in which the new author describes the creation and
assembly of his "rules", seemingly from whole cloth)
l'Expose: http://www.neuromatix.net/Blog/
er
--
email not valid
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>A very valid point. Extending on that, if these are common
>principles or common knowledge, both authors may be quoting
>some earlier savant.
An example to make it an on-topic thread, how often do you site a
source when you tell someone to measure twice and cut once? <g> Surely
someone was the first to say it.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy wrote:
> But my understanding of copyright is that it protects the expression
> of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Sounds to me like your
> hypothetical author crossed that line. Might be worth looking at the
> DaVinci Code trial over in England. Don't know if that has been
> resolved yet, but it deals with this fuzzy line between ideas and
> their expression.
There was also a recent suit against someone that published a story with
many of the structural elements of the Harry Potter books.
Don't remember the specifics, but I'm inclined to think this is a closer
analogy. If the book is not an exact copy of the original, at least the
section headers are transferred over with little to no variation. It is
clear that even if the (new) author is placing his own personal
experiences in each section (including descriptions of how he
"discovered" the principle, and even though his domain lies in
management rather than engineering, he is very clearly using not only
the ideas but the structure, arrangement, exact wording, and intentions
from the original book. He didn't attempt to obfuscate anything! Not
the title (two word changes...) and not the section titles (occasional
small change or addition).
er
--
email not valid
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
>>leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
>>everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million
>
> copies.
>
>>Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
>>prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
>>you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
>>title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
>>book--thin, written during the last big war.
>>
>>You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>>occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>>CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>>number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>>
>>Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>>
>>[this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>>
>
>
> Well, the first thing I would do would be to read the CEO's book to see just
> how close the two really are. It's very common for books on the same topic
> to be very close. Some things can only be said in a limited number of ways
> and some principles stand the test of time, so they are easy to find
> repeated in many places. I don't know how you can say they are basically
> the same if you haven't read the book.
>
> Is it plagiarism? Maybe not. If the second author is expressing the same
> thoughts with newer reasoning, or a more up to date purpose, then I don't
> think it's plagiarism. Copyright infringement? Not if they are common
> business practices or the likes.
I haven't ordered the new book, but in several articles and interviews
the new author claims to've assembled these valuable principles from his
notes over the years of his career, and the main content is these
principles.
er
--
email not valid
Enoch Root wrote:
> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told
that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources...
and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...
Interesting.
er
--
email not valid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Is it plagiarism? Maybe not. If the second author is expressing the
> same thoughts with newer reasoning, or a more up to date purpose, then
> I don't think it's plagiarism. Copyright infringement? Not if they
> are common business practices or the likes.
A very valid point. Extending on that, if these are common
principles or common knowledge, both authors may be quoting
some earlier savant.
It does sound like it's treading close to the line, but as you
say you'd have to read the second book, and confirm that he
doesn't acknowledge some other source (which, if it's in a
footnote, might not appear in excerpts in the press).
John
[email protected] wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>>Enoch Root wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>>>occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>>>CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>>>number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>>
>>Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
>>nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told
>>that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources...
>>and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...
>>
>
>
> That is what it says in the USA today article.
Yes, and conflicts with the reality that it was almost exclusively
King's book that was the source.
> Monetary gain on the part of an infringer is irrelevant. A work
> is infringed if it is copied unless the act qualifies for exemptions
> specified in the statute, the copier has the permission of the
> coyright owner, or the work is in the public domain.
>
> Monetary loss on the part of the copyright owner is an issue,
> not in determining if infringement has occurred, but in determing
> damages.
I imagine they are anticipating all stages of any sort of civil
litigation that could fall out, in making that statement.
> The ASME sells "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering", so if the
> work in question infirnges on the ASME's copyrights then
> each copy distributed may be construed as costing the ASME
> money, even though the infringer loses money copying and
> distributing the work.
They might make that argument, but from what I've seen (and that's
fairly limited, as IANAL) it's a difficult argument to make.
[schnibble]
> I'm also inclined to guess that it was ghost written--which has
> some rather amusing implications. One wonders, for example,
> if the _USA Today_ article was written by the same author...
I think WJ King has either passed away or is feeling his oats in some
pasture. :)
er
--
email not valid
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
>>from many
>>sources... and that the book was being given away free so there was no
>>monetary gain...
> Ever know a CEO who didn't want his name in lights or the NYT best seller
> list? Odd.
The bad on that is the ceo is already credited with turning the company
around. He was doing all right.
I predict that in the minds of many (who've adopted "business ethics" as
their own) that will be enough to exonerate him of all harm or
transgression.
er
--
email not valid
"Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
> haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
> and express them in the same way.
>
Ok - I looked at the links you posted in another reply and I have to say
that those points certainly do look specific enough to raise an eyebrow.
Can't see what the list of points actually are in your friend's booklet but
if they are pretty much a one for one match then I'd have to agree with you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
>>haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
>>and express them in the same way.
>>
>
>
> Ok - I looked at the links you posted in another reply and I have to say
> that those points certainly do look specific enough to raise an eyebrow.
> Can't see what the list of points actually are in your friend's booklet but
> if they are pretty much a one for one match then I'd have to agree with you.
I looked at the book and saw the passages... I didn't do an analysis but
my friend says there is about an 80% match with what was listed in the
usatoday article.
er
--
email not valid
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>It seems that using another's ideas that are not generally known and
>not generally associated with the author of those ideas requires
^^^
whoops! Meant "are"
>(ethically, not legally) acknowledgment of the source, so this sounds
>like plagiarism.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Enoch Root wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>
>>You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>>occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>>CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>>number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the same.
>
>
> Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
> nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told
> that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources...
> and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...
Okay, this was real. It's on the bottom of the front page of the NYT
business section.
er
--
email not valid
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:34:06 -0700, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the
>nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon
Do you know anyone at Raytheon that can get me a discount on
Beechcraft parts?
A guy can ask... <G>
Barry
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>A very valid point. Extending on that, if these are common
>>principles or common knowledge, both authors may be quoting
>>some earlier savant.
>
>An example to make it an on-topic thread, how often do you site a
or cite one -- hate it when that happens.
>source when you tell someone to measure twice and cut once? <g> Surely
>someone was the first to say it.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same
>> (the occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't
>> have the CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the
>> same, the number of points made is the same, and the points
>> themselves are the same.
>
> Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from
> the nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she
> was told that ceo had collected his pearls over the years
... and they all Just Happened to line up. Like a billion monkeys on
typewriters. And sometimes coincidences happen.
> from many
> sources... and that the book was being given away free so there was no
> monetary gain...
Ever know a CEO who didn't want his name in lights or the NYT best seller
list? Odd.
>
> Interesting.
>
> er
... and they all Just Happened to line up
Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>from many
>>>sources... and that the book was being given away free so there was
>>>no monetary gain...
>
>> Ever know a CEO who didn't want his name in lights or the NYT best
>> seller list? Odd.
>
> The bad on that is the ceo is already credited with turning the
> company around. He was doing all right.
>
> I predict that in the minds of many (who've adopted "business ethics"
> as their own) that will be enough to exonerate him of all harm or
> transgression.
>
> er
These days "business ethics" is an oxymoron.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>"Enoch Root" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>I haven't ordered the new book, but in several articles and interviews
>>>>the new author claims to've assembled these valuable principles from his
>>>>notes over the years of his career, and the main content is these
>>>>principles.
>>
>>
>>>In which case it would be perfectly reasonable that the principles are
>
> so
>
>>>similar to a previously published work. Few ideas are really original
>
> after
>
>>>all.
>>
>>Tens of ideas, verbatim? I think you're being flippant, that you
>>haven't considered how improbable it is to come upon the same principles
>>and express them in the same way.
>>
>
>
> No - I really wasn't being flippant. It's just that so much of this stuff
> that is bantered about in the business world today has become cliche. There
> really are not that many new ideas you hear anymore, but you sure do hear a
> lot of re-hashing of the same ones.
>
>
>>Take "Who moved my cheese" as an example (not relevant to the case!).
>>If someone published a book called "who disturbed my cheese" which had
>>the same insipid self-help industry pap that these books always do, even
>>though there's nothing more than common ideas between the covers,
>>there's still a problem with propriety.
>>
>
>
> And... you friend may prove to have a case, I don't know. I wasn't trying
> to suggest he doesn't as much as I was making a statement that so much of
> the stuff that gets thrown around today is the same stuff we've been hearing
> for years now.
Eh, my reply to this last evening was eaten by a server burp:
Okay, now I understand.
There is an overwhelmingly large amount of funny business going on at
all levels, though, and it's hard to get a grip on it all--but it would
be a shame to dismiss all the fruits of any efforts to expose it.
You'll never get the complete story: perfect knowledge is a tough
hurdle, and the gaps are an opportunity to equivocate.
A "lead" on a story is something that should demand more attention, not
less. :)
er
--
email not valid
jo4hn wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>> Suppose you read in USAToday of an amazing response to a corporate
>> leadership book written by the CEO of a large defense corporation that
>> everyone's heard of, and that it's sold more than a quarter million
>> copies.
>>
>> Suppose further that one of the points of this book strikes a chord that
>> prompts you to look through stuff you've collected over the years, and
>> you find a book given you by one old mentor with almost exactly the same
>> title (it's geared to the engineer, not the manager). It's an obscure
>> book--thin, written during the last big war.
>>
>> You look inside and all, yes, all the points are virtually the same (the
>> occasional dash replaced with a colon), and, though you don't have the
>> CEO's book, you can see that the ideas are basically the same, the
>> number of points made is the same, and the points themselves are the
>> same.
>>
>> Is this plagiarism, and is it copyright infringement?
>>
>> [this has happened: not to me but to a friend...]
>>
>> er
>
> This is plagiarism and copyright infringement (assuming the copyright is
> still valid). It is also academic cheating/stealing, and morally and
> ethically wrong. Contact the original author who should contact his
> publisher.
>
> Once upon a time, I was assigned to critique an automated fingerprint
> system being designed by a large company for the FBI. The various
> components ranged from majorly stupid to brilliant. My boss took the
> finished product (probably 100 pages) and apparently thought seriously
> about replacing my name with his. He came to me, confessed, apologized,
> and requested a few minor changes. He showed me something.
Some clarifications: Reading over some of the publicity, it seems the
company is publishing the book and giving it away. But the CEO is
riding a wave of publicity generated by the promotion of "his"
management wisdom. When asked if he would hand it over to a publisher
he said it was being evaluated.
er
--
email not valid