decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:24 PM EDT

Groklaw member Alanyst left a comment, a humorous take-off of Edgar Allan Poe's the Raven, and it was so clever and well done, I decided, with his permission, to place it as an article, knowing as I do that many busy people do not have time to read all the comments to every article and might have missed it. I enjoyed it very much, and I hope you do too. It's meant in fun, just a bit of creative fun.

And if you enjoy it, stop and think of this: If Edgar Allen Poe was alive and thought like SCO, you couldn't write this without the risk of being sued by the venerable Mr. Poe, because he might say, like SCO, if he shared their concept, that we had "stolen" his plot line. Just think of how much creativity the world would lose if such ideas about copyright were to be adopted. Without a doubt the world would be the poorer for it. Happily, The Raven is in the public domain, which means we can be as creative as we like with Mr. Poe's original work, with delightful results.

If you own the rights to Mickey Mouse, of course, you might not care about creativity on the part of others. In fact, you might wish to stamp it out whenever it rears its pretty little head, because it is in your corporate interest that there be no competition to your Mouse, so people will go on buying the same old, boring Mickey Mouse watches and lunchboxes and all the derivatives of your long-ago creativity. Actually, Disney's Mickey Mouse was himself a derivative of someone else's intellectual property. As you can see from the Big Cartoon Database's page on "Steamboat Willie", they say it was "a loose parody of Buster Keaton's movie Steamboat Bill", and the lead character later became Mickey Mouse. Creatively building on the work of others is what creative people do.

Nowadays, they do it at the risk of being sued. Today, with aggressive copyright enforcement we find situations where a children's party performer, who appeared in a documentary, reportedly was sent a cease and desist letter [reg reqd] by Disney for twisting balloons into the shape of the Genie in Aladdin. Do we really want a world like that? Where popular culture is privately owned, and no one new is permitted to be creative unless they have money to pay lawyers and licensing fees to buy the rights to twist balloons at a kid's birthday party? As you can see by this poem, you never know where creativity might turn up. It doesn't always happen inside a corporate structure, so if we only allow them to be creative, obviously the popular culture is being impoverished.

By the way, in the course of researching this article, I came across something I think you might enjoy, an eyewitness account of the Eldred arguments before the Supreme Court, which also recounts remarks by Larry Lessig prior to the event. I think it will put into some perspective Darl McBride's Open Letter that talked about that case. Enjoy.

****************************

The Nazgul - A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe
~ by Alanyst

Once upon a midnight dreary, as I worked at SCO/Caldera,
Searching many quaint and curious printouts of forgotten source --
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my office door.
"Tis some co-worker," I muttered, "tapping at my office door --
Only this, and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the sere September,
And each fragmentary member of my UNIX code lay on the floor.
Nervously I feared the morrow; -- vainly I had sought to borrow
From old code surcease of sorrow--sorrow for the sinking score --
For the sinking, dwindling, stinking ticker telling our stock's score --
Profitless for evermore.

And my silly sad devotion to each frivolous court motion
Stalked me -- mocked me with forebodings heretofore I oft ignored;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
"Tis some co-worker discussing business at my office door --
Some late-staying co-worker loitering around my door;
This it is, and nothing more."

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
"Stowell," said I, "or Sontag, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my office door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"--here I opened wide the door --
Darkness there and nothing more.

Deep inside that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no CEO e'er dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was "Kevin?" quavered 'cross the floor.
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back to reach my door --
Merely this, and nothing more.

Back into the office turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely I know something's at my office window;
I will therefore let it in, though Custodial just cleaned my floor --
Let my heart be still a bit and let it in despite the floor --
'Tis a raven; nothing more."

Here I pushed the pane aside, when, with a quick and quiet glide,
In there stepped an awful Nazgul straight from Cravath, Swain & Moore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he,
But, with mien to frighten Hades, perched above my office door --
Perched upon a bust of Bill Gates just above my office door --
Perched and sat, and nothing more.

Then the ebony wraith beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the stern and solid stack of legal filings that it bore,
"Though thy manner be so regal, thou," I said, "art sure no eagle,
Ghastly grim and ghoulish Nazgul wandering from the Federal Court --
Tell me of thy client's case to argue there before the Court!"
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

Much I marvelled, musing mainly, to hear lawyer speech so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning -- little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was cursed with seeing wraith above his office door --
Wraith or ghoul upon the molded bust above his office door --
Speak such judgment: "Nevermore."

But the Nazgul, sitting lonely on that sculpted bust, spoke only
That one word, as if its soul in that one word he did outpour
Nothing farther then he uttered; not a paper then he fluttered --
Till I scarcely more than muttered: "Others settled suits before --
On the morrow he will leave me, as my stock has soared before."
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

Startled by the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
"Doubtless," said I, "what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy client who by some corporate giant
Was rendered docile and compliant by threatened barratry and torts --
Till the dirges of his revenue that baleful burden bore
Of "Never -- nevermore."

But the Nazgul still defying all my blathering and lying,
Straight I wheeled my cushy chair in front of wraith and bust and door;
Then, upon the leather sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous lawyer--
What this black, benighted, brooding being, ominous lawyer--
Meant in hissing, "Nevermore."

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the shadow's silent figure burned into my greedy core;
This and more I sat divining, thinking of my public whining,
Tales of billion-dollar fining of the fiends of open source --
Recompense for the declining of our once-demanded source--
Monetizable no more.

Then, methought, the air grew heavy as I dwelt upon the bevy
Of our legal contradictions Groklaw dragged into the fore.
"Wraith," cried I, "thy client sent thee -- with these documents hath sent thee
Here to settle now, and by new contracts end this costly war!
Seal, oh seal this poisoned pact and settle now this costly war!"
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

"Counsel!" said I, "thing of Linux! -- robber then of long-lost Unix! --
Whether Torvalds sent, or Red Hat be with whom you have rapport,
FUD destroyers, still undaunted, seeing SCOSource still unwanted --
Of our IP by us vaunted -- tell me truly, I implore --
Is there -- is there SCO in Linux?--tell me--tell me, I implore!
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

"Counsel!" said I, "thing of Linux!--robber then of long-lost Unix!--
By that law that bends before us -- by that cash we both adore --
Tell this litigation lover if, before the case is over,
We shall be able to discover rights in reams of code galore --
In forty million man-hours find our rights in code galore."
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

"Be that our sign of parting, hippie fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting --
"Get thee back into the distant darkness of Armonk, New York!
Leave no subpoena as a token of the lie thy soul hast spoken!
Leave my pump-and-dump unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!
Take thy sword from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"
Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."

And the Nazgul, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid pasty bust of Bill above my office door;
And in gloom I sit defeated, crushed by lies that I repeated,
And the innocence I pleaded has been laughed down to the floor;
And the bankruptcy attorney lurking round my cellblock door
Shall release me -- nevermore!


This poem is released under a Creative Commons license.


  


The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst | 309 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: entre on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:38 PM EDT
Correction here please

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:42 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT
All OT is dervived from somewhere...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trolling motors on here
Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:46 PM EDT
Fishing for crappie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Be that our sign of parting, hippie fiend!"
Authored by: freeio on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:53 PM EDT
Oh my! As an old, old coder, who once long ago did grace the halls of UC
Berkeley, this has to be the funniest insult I have ever seen.

"Hippie fiend" ... if they only knew the half of it!

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ROTFLOL
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT
That is the funniest thing I have read in a very long time. I took the time to
memorize "The Raven" a few years back, and I thought of it recently
when I operated on a man whose last name was Raven (I am a surgeon). This
wasn't a bad diversion to help us pass the time until we hear whether IBM got
the PSJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ROTFLOL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
    • ROTFLOL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT
Discomfort
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 09:11 PM EDT
While there may be various things with US copyright law as it currently stands,
and the judicial interpretations of copyright law.... these stories on Groklaw
(discussing Eldred, RIAA, etc) always make me feel a little uncomfortable.

The point is McBride likes portrary SCO as "being in the right" on the
current laws, and the rest of the world as being in the wrong.

But BASED ON THE CURRENT LAWS - IT'S SCO WHO ARE IN THE WRONG

1. SCO have made accusations about IBM's Linux activities infringing their
copyrights, having done essentially no analysis

SCO said themselves during the September 15th hearing.


2. They have presented no admissable evidence of IBM's infringing their
copyrights

SCO themselves admit this - see SCO's opposition to IBM's motion to strike in
which they claim the materials they offered in opposition to IBM's summary
judgement motion, are only offered for the "narrow" purpose of a rule
56f motion [seeking more discovery], and not at all for a rule 56e response
[showing admissable evidence demonstrating facts in dispute].


3. They are the ones seeking to avoid judicial resoluton of their copyright
allegations against IBM.

SCO filed a motion to dismiss/stay IBM's Counterclaim 10 (about whether IBM's
Linux activities infringe) in favor of AutoZone. This motion is still pending.
And the basis for the motion, was that the issues in AutoZone were allegedly
the same as the issues in IBM. Yet, during the September 15th hearing, SCO
told the IBM court that AutoZone case was NOT about the same issues as IBM, but
about entirely different issues.

Furthermore, SCO are seeking to delay adjudication of these copyright issues, by
their recent 2 motions to "enforce the schedule", and to
"emergency motion for case management conference"


4. SCO can not demonstrate that they even own any of the copyrights allegedly
infringed in parts 1-3.


5. SCO are themselves infringing IBM's copyrights (IBM counterclaim 8)


6. SCO are apparently unable to offer a proper response to IBM's summary
judgement motion, on SCO's copyright infringements.

Hence, SCO are seeking to delay adjudication of these additional copyright
issues, by their recent 2 motions to "enforce the schedule", and to
"emergency motion for case management conference"



Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

P.S.
Good poem

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks, I missed the first post
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 09:20 PM EDT
.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ Reply to This | # ]

For those who want to look up the originals
Authored by: Nick on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 09:54 PM EDT
It was, of course, Steamboat Bill, Jr. that was Buster Keaton's great film. It was released on May 12, 1928. Disney's loose parody of this popular film, Steamboat Willie, was released on July 28, 1928. For those of you who are not familiar with Keaton's work, or are familiar in a general sense but have not really seen his films, I urge you to check them out. Some say he was more of a genius than Chaplain. He, Chaplain, and Harold Lloyd are the three giants of the comedic silent film era, and all three are very, very, very worthy of your time to this day.

Of course, this brings up the obvious question: What if today someone had come out with a short parody of Finding Nemo called Finding Memo, about two-and-a-half months after the original hit theatres? Heh heh, I'll bet you can guess exactly what would happen with Disney's lawyers. Oh how things change! Mickey Mouse got his start in a manner that would get today's creative professional sued until he or she was reduced to nothing but a puddle on the ground. If today's rules had been in place back in 1928, Mickey Mouse might never have been born. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether this would be a good or a bad thing. In the meantime, go pop in another Keaton or Lloyd masterpiece and laugh your head off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: JRinWV on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT
Aweful in its black glory; the Nazgul!

I am speechless evermore in the face of this derivative masterwork!

Poe was always one of my literate lights, making my spirit quale late at night,
as hearts thump in time to mine, and this interpretation of the story of TSCOG
is right there with the mythos of Cthulhu and the Houst of Usher.

Thanks!

JR

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: mekettler on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 10:58 PM EDT
Unfortunately, there already has been a lot of 'you stole my plot' in the print
industry copyright.

"Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass" was sued out of existence
for cloning the plotline of Harry Potter. Admittedly I've never seen the Tanya
books, so I can't tell for sure if it's more than just a text substitution.
However, from casual glance it could also be a case of simple suing people for
using the concept of a child going to a school of magic in a book.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084960/

While Mr. Poe may not be of such mindset, I'd venture to say modern publishers
are defensive of those stealing their ideas and using copyright to defend them.


This behavior is clearly not limited to software companies like SCO.

Greed is a universal factor, and it affects all manner of people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: ocelot on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Honestly,

I think Poe would have been at a loss for words over this mess...

Cheers,

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: tyche on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 11:26 PM EDT
This was excellent! I've read "The Raven" (as, I'm sure, many of my
generation have) and found the concept somewhat disturbing. Of course,
considering Poe, MOST of his stuff was disturbing. This was a great way of
turning that disturbing feeling toward a target that truely deserves it. It
makes me wonder what the author of this work could do with a little bit of
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, such as "Xanadu: The Ballad of Kublai Khan".
Nice work, and thanks for offering it to us.

Craig
Tyche

---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 20 2004 @ 11:30 PM EDT
PJ, Alanyst, thanks for this wonderful bit of parody. The language, tone,
rythm, meter, phrasing, plot, imagery and rhyme are remarkably faithful to the
original. Thanks to Groklaw I find the plot easier to follow than the
original.
It touches me in so many ways. It is rather tempting to make a recording of it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:16 AM EDT
Poe's writing was very much in line with the upsurge in interest in the occult
at the time...

Analyst's derivative work makes me wonder if Poe hadn't been looking into a
crystal ball and seeing D. McBride on the other end when he wrote the original
Raven. I personally can't think of a more apt description for McBride than
'Raven' - a carrion bird well known for its penchant for stealing shiny objects,
(or anything not actually nailed down).

I especially love the reference to 'hippie fiends' - what better statement for
the right to free expression than the hippie culture of the 60's?....

Cheers

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 01:42 AM EDT
Is this IBM-312 or 313? I'll go check with Pacer.

;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The message I an sure, from IBM to one and all,
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 02:22 AM EDT
was; never never again.

The poem is rather haunting.
A framed copy should be sent to one Mr Gates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Public Library would be Illegal...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 03:00 AM EDT
The public library has been one of the greatest innovations of all time, helping
to spread literacy to the masses and allowing culture to spread and grow. The
benefits of the library are clear and precious. But does anyone--for even a
small moment--think that the Library could exist today if the concept was not
conceived so long ago?

Think about the concept of the library in the minds of the selfish corporatists
who seek to monopolize all creativity in a dangerous new "knowledge-based
economy". That's right, the library is nothing more than a trading house
where intellectual property is "shared". No need to mince words: The
library is a means of sharing knowledge without appropriate royalty payments, a
method of wholesale theft and *piracy* from authors who deserve to be paid for
their creativity.

Now that we have libraries, I can see attempts to banish them.

*** To all of our Shareholders ***

The library is not liable for direct infringement. The library does not create
copies of the works it lends. But should the library be guilty of contributory
and vicarious infringement? Should First Sale be repealed, because of the
continuous theft and abuse of intellectual property that emanates from public
libraries?

For each book that the library lends, the borrower is able to read, enjoy, and
benefit from the book without permission from or renumeration to the author.
This is nothing less than theft. Each book that was borrowed displaces a
potential sale from one of our booksellers, which then decreases the value of
our book in the market. Our booksellers are forced to compete with the library,
and as a result we have suffered our fourth quarter of losses. Who can survive
in the market when they have to compete with "free"? The end result
is that there is less incentive for artists to create works, and there will be
fewer books available.

Now consider that many of today's libraries not only hold books, but have a
designated room where one or more photocopy machines are available for public
use. It is obvious that the library does not merely contain our valuable
intellectual property and encourages people to "share" them, but the
library also induces others to make unauthorized copies of our works. The
public library is a nefarious Peer to Peer (P2P) system designed solely for the
infringement of our copyrighted materials.

If we do not see any improvement in the face of continued and unchecked
infringement, we will be forced to sue the libraries and 500 random patrons,
until the infringement abates. We do not believe that the library should be able
to escape liability merely because of disclaimers posted by the copy machines.

The public library is a bane to all creative artists and publishers. The public
library also prevents the creation of "pay per read" and "pay per
use" business models that would add recurring revenue to our balance sheet
and immense benefits to our shareholders. Write your elected representative and
make libraries illegal today!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 03:29 AM EDT
A Fantastic piece of work. :)

I loved every sentance of it. Someone suggested we make a recording of it? Maybe PJ could do this?!

Greebo

---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 05:10 AM EDT
And if you enjoy it, stop and think of this: If Edgar Allen Poe was alive and thought like SCO, you couldn't write this without the risk of being sued by the venerable Mr. Poe, because he might say, like SCO, if he shared their concept, that we had "stolen" his plot line. Just think of how much creativity the world would lose if such ideas about copyright were to be adopted. Without a doubt the world would be the poorer for it. Happily, The Raven is in the public domain, which means we can be as creative as we like with Mr. Poe's original work, with delightful results.
This has nothing to do with "thinking like SCO". Even if "The Raven" wasn't public domain, I think this would be considered a parody and would be fair use. However, anyone who has read "The Raven" and then reads this poem will see the substantial similarity. If the Raven were copyrighted and this wasn't a parody, I think Alanyst would be guilty of copyright infringement.

What, do you want to abolish all copyright, or just have it protect direct line-by-line copying? I think it's a good thing that plots and such carry copyright protection. If not, then anyone that submitted a script to a movie studio or book publisher would risk having their story be ripped off and re-written by studio hacks. Computer software is completely different though since at its heart is an unprotectable idea.

If this were SCO v. IBM, the poem wouldn't be at all like "The Raven" and Poe would be suing Alanyst for distributing his poem for free. You see, Alanyst signed a contract with Poe to create this poem based on "The Raven" (Poe's prescious IP). Never mind that Alanyst was supposed to own his own home-grown words. Another poem, actually a haiku that Analylst wrote and distributed for free, contains the line "I worked at SCO/Caldera" as you can clearly see is in the first line of this poem. No matter that it was not in "The Raven", it was in "The Nazgul" and therefore violates Alanyst's contract with Poe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever next? Eskimo Dell?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 05:47 AM EDT
;^)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A wonderful copyrighted world
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT
Do we really want a world like that? Where popular culture is privately owned, and no one new is permitted to be creative unless they have money to pay lawyers and licensing fees to buy the rights to twist balloons at a kid's birthday party? As you can see by this poem, you never know where creativity might turn up. It doesn't always happen inside a corporate structure, so if we only allow them to be creative, obviously the popular culture is being impoverished.
A few years ago I've read a wonderful SF story (written in 50's or 60's?), where all the people were obliged to carry a small electronic box, which accounted them a fine for copyright infringment, whenever they have said any copyrighted sentence.

(Does anybody remember the author and the title? I'd like to present that story to some of my friends who are fans of IP, copyrights and so on.)

I'm afraid our world is on the crash course to the reality like described in that story :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who to read it?
Authored by: archonix on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 07:28 AM EDT
A poem like this needs a particular kind of voice. If you've ever heard James
Earl Jones' reading of the original, as portrayed in a halloween episode of The
Simpsons no less, thenyou'll agree with me that it *needs* his voice. The timbre
is just perfect, the depth and the gravitas adding a certain something... try
imagining it in his voice. Go on. It's fun.

---
disclaimer: I'm human. I make mistakes too, so if I've made one here, tell me
nicely and I'll try to see it corrected in future.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I absolutely agree
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
I should be free to distort your work and then sell it, so please change the
Groklaw license to allow for commercial use.

Wait... or were you talking about *other* people?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Stock
Authored by: Felix_the_Mac on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 09:12 AM EDT
"...On the morrow he will leave me, as my stock has soared before." Quoth the Nazgul, "Nevermore."
SCOX stock tracker.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ or Analyst : License of "The Nazgul"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT
Nowhere in the post is a mention of the license for the derivative work? A work
that makes substantive changes to a public domain piece gains new copyright, and
this poem definitely qualifies, so what's the license? Is "The Nazgul"
covered under Groklaw's interpretation of the Creative Commons license? Does
such license apply to all our comments?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nonsense
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 09:48 AM EDT
Can we please stop this nonsense of associating IBM with the
Nazgul from Lord of The Rings? The Nazgul, though powerful,
were mindless creatures used by the villians to kill the good in
the world. This is not how we should be portraying IBM in this
case. IBM is giving us more than we had hoped for, and has
been probably the single greatest benefactor Free Software
could have in terms of public acceptance (code contributions
were nice, but it's the PR that is the greatest asset).

A more apt comparison would be between IBM and Gandalf the
wizard: insightful, smart, and persistent. Granted, Gandalf as
portrayed in the movies was a [insert appropriate anatomical
reference for weak] and IBM is quite powerful, but it's much better
than the Nazgul nonsense that seems to have taken hold on
Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mike Keith's mathematical Raven Paraphrase
Authored by: PrecisionBlogger on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT
This is an off-topic reply (apologies!), but many who enjoy Raven parodies are
likely to be fascinated by Mike Keith's "Poe, E.: Near a Raven" at:
http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikerav.htm.

Hint:
Poe 3 letters .
E 1 letter
Near 4 letters
a 1 letter
Raven 5 letters
Midnights 9 letters
Hmmm......

- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com


---
- Precision Blogger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eldred v. Ashcroft
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT

"... a page of history is worth volumes of logic." - USSC, Eldred v Ashbrook

On whether economics or the quest for knowledge is the primary factor behind copyrights:

The public benefits not only from an author’s original work but also from his or her further creations. Although this truism may be illustrated in many ways, one of the best examples is Noah Webster[,] who supported his entire family from the earnings on his speller and grammar during the twenty years he took to complete his dictionary.”
House Hearings on Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, at 165.

Because I was interested, I tracked down the Senate Judiciary Committee report on the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995. They interviewed Bob Dylan, Don Henley, and Carlos Santana. Really. Here is the gist of the part I found most relevant:

"... the principal behind the U.S. copyright term — that it protect the author and at least one generation of heirs — remains unchanged by the bill....

"As the foregoing discussion indicates, the primary purpose of a proprietary interest in copyrighted works that is descendible from authors to their children and even grandchildren is to form a strong creative incentive for the advancement of knowledge and culture in the United States. The nature of copyright requires that these proprietary interests be balanced with the interests of the public at large in accessing and building upon those works. For this reason, intellectual property is the only form of property whose ownership rights are limited to a period of years, after which the entire bundle of rights is given as a legacy to the public at large."

TSG's contention that copyright is primarily for the economic benefit of the copyright owner is clearly erroneous. Its purpose is to induce creative work that will benefit the public first by its existence and second as it becomes part of the public body of knowledge. Monetary incentive is balanced against those two higher purposes.

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The status of Mickey Mouse
Authored by: teknomage1 on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT
People often mention that steamboat willie was a derivative of a Buster
Keaton film but know one remembers that Mickey himself is a derivative of
'Oswald the Lucky Rabit.' A very long time ago, when Walt Disney worked for
another studio, he created Oswald the Lucky Rabit, when Walt left to found
Disney, he was denied the rights to Oswald. Mickey was described when he was
originally created as having second cousin resemblance to Oswald. So Disney the
Corporation's current practices are particularly depressing in light of how
devastated Walt was by losing the rights to his character.
My source for this information was "The Illusion of Life" by
Thomas and Johnston

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Chris Clark on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT
My goodness, that's a dark one. Maybe from SCO's point of view that might be
how they'd view it. If Alanyst is up for it, the poem could be good for a
Halloween type makeover...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT
He he he he he!!! SCOX is still falling today, now at around $3.53 per share. I
think it must be Alanyst's superb parody that has put the magical kabosh on SCOX
today. Good work Alanyst! And absolutely magnificent work on the parody of Poe's
"Raven".

GL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brilliant!
Authored by: dwandre on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT
It's such a fitting commentary for this theatre of the absurd.

[ Reply to This | # ]

obeisance misspelled
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 01:41 PM EDT
"obeisance" is misspelled as "obesiance" in the article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The source of the problem - and a solution
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 04:20 PM EDT
All this leads back to why "crazy" laws are passed all the
time. Most laws are NEVER READ by the lawmakers in DC.

They say that they would never get anything done if they
read all the laws being passed before them.

Having seen some lobbying up close I can see how easy it
is for someone like Disney to simply make a donation to
see each congressman and senator, as is the norm, and cry
over loosing this great American Symbol unless copyright
is extended. They even call it the Mickey law in DC.

What would be really much more effective is to to reverse
the flow. Educate each and every one of them about the
actual ramifications of the Mickey law. Point out that the
whole purpose with copyright is to help creativity. To
foster an initiative to be creative!

This unfortunately takes money. Lots of money. Say about
5K per congressman/senator. Someone with the resources to
do something like that could pay a couple of people to
work their way through congress and save the future for
our children, and their children. As surely things will
get grimmer and grimmer as creativity goes down. Remember
the imagery of 1984?

Fortunately it takes a lot to break down the will of man,
but we are nevertheless under attack. Disney alone has
been the one cutting the biggest wound in creativity,
thanks to the ignorance (and workload) of DC.

It's even possible that 5,000-10,000 readers would commit
to pay $1-5/mth for a year, to reverse this wicked saga. I
know I would.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT
Creatively building on the work of others is what creative people do. ok I just read this quote and had to reply, as this is kinda close to my heart. I think as we go on the room for new inovative ideas gets smaller, we refine and build on whats there. I think this is where patents cause a problem also as it makes it hard to extend if the basic idea is leagelly out of reach. What we make today is based on what has been learned over and over by our ansesters, we can't help but use proven methods to futher our "harness" on the world. Surly patents hurt this progress, espessialy on the under-funded part time developer. With the internet and without patents we can and *have* created great things. we can share knowledge like never before, but we must make sure our politians are educated before passing laws that hurt us all.
I often hear people ask what the differnce between open source and proprietry software is, and I hear lots of disscussion about security and such. The sort answer to this question is that there is no difference, both are applications writen by programmers run by end users, and to the end user there is very little differnce. For example how many new users do you think could tell that IE is closed source and firefox is open source, just from testing both. The differnce is that open source offers more (i.e you can look at the source code) than closed source, but in terms of an end user application the difference (for bussieness use mainly)will only be in legislation, in other words the only grounds on which microsoft has chosen to compete on is leagal means, not on features.
If you ignore any leagal issues and just compare program to program, I think OSS does pretty good and thats before you go into the benifitis of having the source code to play with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Nazgul, A Derivative Work of the Intellectual Property of Edgar Allan Poe, by Alanyst
Authored by: strider on Thursday, September 23 2004 @ 04:46 AM EDT
Cause I liked the poem so much I've made a wallpaper featuring it. I'm
uploading it to kde-look as well.

The pictures are 1280x1024 and probably won't display well on lower resolutions.
If you particularly want a smaller resolution e-mail me or perhaps crop. I
might be able to work out something.

I've uploaded it to
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mstrahan/thenazgul.jpg

Same but without creditation to me:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mstrahan/thenazgulnocredit.jpg

PNG are available at the same url with .png instead of .jpg. I'll leave the png
files on the server for at least a week but they're taking up huge amounts of
space.

All artwork was by me using Paint Shop Pro 7.04. If you want any portion of the
picture e-mail me at mstrahanatcse.unsw.edu.au. If you want the .psp file
e-mail me.

I give permission for anyone to distribute either version or my artwork (I'm not
vain, I just put the creditation to me cause I thought for some reason it looked
a bit better and more traditional) in any way you want (including cropping or
derivations) as long as you abide by the author of the poem's license, and
attach creditation to strider somewhere there.

---
strider

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )