Sign up  |   |   |  Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2

Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #16 
Originally Posted by Englishman
I like how you read into and adapt the act to fit your needs.

I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're talking about.  I pretty much quoted part of the act verbatim; I didn't read anything into it or adapt it at all.

I paraphrased this:

Originally Posted by CDPA 1988
28A Making of temporary copies

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable—

(a)a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or

(b)a lawful use of the work;

and which has no independent economic significance.


as this:


Originally Posted by reka
the copy must be transient (i.e. intended or expected to be deleted without notice) AND is part of a technological process AND is solely intended for transmission across a network or as part of legal use of the work, i.e. you already have permission to do so, AND has no independent economic significance.


I think I was pretty accurate, given that I was quoting from memory, and didn't read into it, or adapt it in any way.

Originally Posted by Englishman
The law is what is written, and nothing else.

We're talking about the application of the law, which is subject to interpretation and precedent, along with the actual written law.

Originally Posted by Englishman
It is not a belief, It is a fact you cannot copyright the English-language.
In your belief that you can copyright the English-language.

Ok, stop there.  Take your blinkers off.  I have never said the language itself is, or can be, copyright.  Nobody is trying to claim that.  Not you, not me.  We both agree.  Please stop trying to use statement of this fact as some kind of generic and all-encompassing justification for the real point you are trying to make.

Your real point, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that nothing written in English can be copyright because the individual English words themselves cannot be copyright.  By that token, no language can be copyright (which is reasonable) and therefore nothing can be copyright (which is not quite so reasonable).  If it were true, I'm sure there are one or two legal experts out there who would have also stumbled upon this argument and used it to tear down 500+ years of copyright-like laws.

Let's get something straight.  Three points.  Two of which I'm sure you will agree with:

1.  The English language, and individual English words, cannot be copyright;
2.  Ideas cannot be copyright;

and here's the third point, which I expect will get you repeating your "you cannot copyright the English language" mantra:

3.  Copyright exists in the expression or fixation of an idea.

The expression of an idea could be in written, typed or printed form, it could be an image, a painting or a photograph, it could be a song or composition.  Copyright exists in the expression of that idea; but it does not mean copyright exists in the words used as the expression.  A Harry Potter novel is copyright because it fixates a very well-defined idea (actually, a large set of ideas) but there will be individual sentences within the novel which cannot be copyright because they don't sufficiently express an idea.

You need to stop thinking about written work as just a combination of words, because it is more than that; if those words fixate or express an identifiable idea, there is copyright in those words.

You can argue against this until you're blue in the face, but it won't make you right.

Originally Posted by Englishman
Common sense [is] something you seem to lack.

I recommend you refrain from insults, now matter how passive or suggestive; it reflects badly on the validity of your argument and your ability to defend it.


Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #17 
I find it hard to believe anything authored with such poor spelling and grammar would collide with with someone else's work.

As a basis for claiming copyright cannot be enforced, your assertion that the English language cannot be subject to copyright is absurd.  I dare you to plagiarise (sorry, maybe that should be "write the same English words as") a Harry Potter novel and see what happens...

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.