How can an author ban critique?

[lmorin]

.............
A new work would need to be substantially different to avoid infringement, or need the author's permission............

Define "substantially." As for alternatives, look HERE. Scroll down, click on the dive site number for more info, including GPS coordinates and images of the site.

 

[adurso]

So I misunderstood, gotcha - TY

You are welcome

 

[rjchandler]

Define "substantially." As for alternatives, look HERE. Scroll down, click on the dive site number for more info, including GPS coordinates and images of the site.

Just checked those coordinates. I think a certain quarry in Ohio is closer right now.

 

[adurso]

Define "substantially." As for alternatives, look HERE. Scroll down, click on the dive site number for more info, including GPS coordinates and images of the site.

Shorediving.com is a compendium of participant's experiences and ratings. A court would determine whether a work is substantially different or similar. Factual works are described as having a "thin" copyright due to the nature of the material (Beaudin v Ben and Jerry's Homemade 95 F 3d 1) so a court will look at the quantity of material that is alleged to have been copied.

 

[Mossman]

But a quick reading of recent code indicates that the whole issue has become quite complex. The ideas are copyrighted, that is the whole point. The facts are not, but she did it first and so anything that follows might be considered a derivative work, the same with any alterations.

No, the ideas are not copyrighted, only the literary expression of the ideas.

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a​

description, explanation, or illustration

So "discoveries" such as the revelation that certain fishies prefer certain sites or "methods" such as advice on the best way to enter the water may not be copyrightable at all.

If someone were to distill all the facts, and nothing but the facts, from the dive guide in question, would it be an infringement? Facts being how to get there, best method of entry, fishies commonly found there, special details of the particular site, and of course the site name, depths, usual presence of current, parking situation, etc. You'd think someone could enter such facts in one's own database of facts, then use those facts however one wished, whether laminated, printed on pink paper, or tattooed on one's arm.

Were I the original guy accused of malicious lamination, that's what I'd do in an attempt to avoid infringement. Of course she could still try to have the poor guy arrested while he's diving on the island with the potentially infringing work in his possession (especially upon payment of a suitable bribe), but hopefully the judge would laugh it out of court (unless he happens to be her uncle).

 

[Mossman]

You're not likely to change US copyright laws or international copyright treaties. There really is some good info here: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

Why thanks, Dandy, but I used to dabble in copyright law in another life. I'll be OK. Of course anything I say or do should not be taken as legal advice, but merely as fodder for discussion, since I don't know what the heck I'm talking about much more than you do.

If you wanted to produce your own original work, that'd be different but rewriting hers is called Piracy. Wm Shakespeare was the third person to write Hamlet I think, but it was different then. RIAA - Piracy: Online and On The Street - July 25, 2008

Thanks again, Dandy. I've heard of piracy too, having visited the pirate's cave on Grand Cayman, set foot on Coco Island, and worked 4 months in Building 11 on the Redmond campus digesting every single international piracy case in the company's existence before I got myself a real job. Infringement is a better term. Software "piracy" involves licensing issues as well, issues that are not involved here.

Please note that section 102(b) states "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

If you were able to "rewrite" a work using only the unprotected elements as listed above, how would you be infringing any copyright?

 

[adurso]

No, the ideas are not copyrighted, only the literary expression of the ideas.

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a​

description, explanation, or illustration

So "discoveries" such as the revelation that certain fishies prefer certain sites or "methods" such as advice on the best way to enter the water may not be copyrightable at all.

If someone were to distill all the facts, and nothing but the facts, from the dive guide in question, would it be an infringement? Facts being how to get there, best method of entry, fishies commonly found there, special details of the particular site, and of course the site name, depths, usual presence of current, parking situation, etc. You'd think someone could enter such facts in one's own database of facts, then use those facts however one wished, whether laminated, printed on pink paper, or tattooed on one's arm.

Were I the original guy accused of malicious lamination, that's what I'd do in an attempt to avoid infringement. Of course she could still try to have the poor guy arrested while he's diving on the island with the potentially infringing work in his possession (especially upon payment of a suitable bribe), but hopefully the judge would laugh it out of court (unless he happens to be her uncle).

I think I am getting ideas and facts reversed, intellectual property comes into play somewhere along the line also

It would be a civil suit, not a criminal action.

I like the "malicious lamination" charge though.


Technicalities aside, I still think the whole uproar on the author's part is silly

 

[Bob3]

I've had a couple of my projects flat out ripped off & sold on ebay; I know all too well what it's like to have hundreds of hours of work flat out stolen by some 2-bit ******.
From what I can see, someone is getting their undies in a bundle over nothing much at all.
edit: Geeze, ****** gets asterisked out by the auto-censor? **** ****!!!!!

 

[Mossman]

It would be a civil suit, not a criminal action.

Even America's code provides criminal penalties for certain infringements. Who knows what might be criminalized in Bonaire? I thought breaking any law more serious than drunken driving or stealing stuff from unattended pickup trucks is taken quite seriously on the island.[/quote]

Technicalities aside, I still think the whole uproar on the author's part is silly

Seriously silly. They should "throw the book" at her.

 

[DandyDon]

Why thanks, Dandy, but I used to dabble in copyright law in another life. I'll be OK. Of course anything I say or do should not be taken as legal advice, but merely as fodder for discussion, since I don't know what the heck I'm talking about much more than you do.

Thanks again, Dandy. I've heard of piracy too, having visited the pirate's cave on Grand Cayman, set foot on Coco Island, and worked 4 months in Building 11 on the Redmond campus digesting every single international piracy case in the company's existence before I got myself a real job. Infringement is a better term. Software "piracy" involves licensing issues as well, issues that are not involved here.

Please note that section 102(b) states "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

If you were able to "rewrite" a work using only the unprotected elements as listed above, how would you be infringing any copyright?

Gotcha! Thanks!