|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
"A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea." This is
true.
Men At Work may have accidentally duplicated a copyright melody, but there's no
pass for unintentional infringement (though the penalties might be less
draconian).
The Beatles lost a similar case. The 'idea' may be expressed in many ways, but
if that sequence of notes is already copyright, you're infringing, just like
infringing a s/w patent by independently writing code that's already patented.
Many authors of educational music books are prevented from printing certain
musical examples by music publishers, even though they may be 'fair use'. It
doesn't matter how that sequence of notes is expressed.
A machine patent prevents others from building a device similar to yours as
described in the patent.
Patents and copyrights protect the _expression_ of the idea. You are free to
think about the ideas, but not to express them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I think YOU'RE confused. - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
Men at work were sued because they _played_ the melody, not
because they had the idea of playing it.
An invention is tangible.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
