Jury says Novell owns Unix copyrights

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Malcolm, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. Malcolm

    Malcolm Guest

    A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    businesses.

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.45-0.1-default
    up 1 day 21:44, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.08, 0.08
    GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - CUDA Driver Version: 190.53
     
    Malcolm, Mar 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 31 Mar, 09:10, Malcolm <> wrote:
    > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    > businesses.
    >
    > http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202


    Thats certainly good news - hopefully SCO will go away soon. Now if
    only Novell would do something useful with the copyrights. Maybe make
    it easier for the old commercial UNIXes to go open source should their
    owners wish to do that. Like what Sun did with Solaris.

    HP released the source code for Tru64s filesystem under the GPL but
    when finally discontinued it looks like the OS itself will just be
    left to rot. Presumably because it would be too expensive to release
    the code.
     
    David Goodwin, Mar 31, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Malcolm <> wrote:
    >A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    >owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    >businesses.
    >
    >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202


    Care to elaborate as to which ones exactly ? (ie does this have any effect
    on anyone ? :)).

    Thanks
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Mar 31, 2010
    #3
  4. On 31 Mar, 13:54, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    > > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    > > businesses.

    >
    > >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    >
    > Any Larry D'Loserites out there who still think that linux isn't
    > intellectual property?


    I would be surprised if anyone here argued it wasn't. Some might
    disagree with the term however - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
     
    David Goodwin, Mar 31, 2010
    #4
  5. On 31 Mar, 16:33, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "David Goodwin" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 31 Mar, 13:54, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > >> "Malcolm" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >> > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    > >> > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    > >> > businesses.

    >
    > >> >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    >
    > >> Any Larry D'Loserites out there who still think that linux isn't
    > >> intellectual property?

    >
    > > I would be surprised if anyone here argued it wasn't. Some might
    > > disagree with the term however - see
    > >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

    >
    > Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over its
    > copyrighted code or doesn't it?


    I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it
    stays that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.
     
    David Goodwin, Mar 31, 2010
    #5
  6. In article <>, David Goodwin <> wrote:
    >On 31 Mar, 13:54, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    >> > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    >> > businesses.

    >>
    >> >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    >>
    >> Any Larry D'Loserites out there who still think that linux isn't
    >> intellectual property?

    >
    >I would be surprised if anyone here argued it wasn't. Some might
    >disagree with the term however - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html


    ... and the copyright/copyleft discussion would be ... predictable ? :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Mar 31, 2010
    #6
  7. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:10:38 -0500, Malcolm wrote:

    > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    > businesses.
    >
    > http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202


    A wonderful victory on the side of the Truth!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #7
  8. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:57:47 +0000, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    >>owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many
    >>businesses.
    >>
    >>http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    >
    > Care to elaborate as to which ones exactly ? (ie does this have any
    > effect on anyone ? :)).


    It will only have an effect on that scammer corporation NewSCO.

    For everyone else it is BAU.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #8
  9. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:48:25 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:

    > On 31 Mar, 13:54, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO Group,
    >> > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by
    >> > many businesses.

    >>
    >> >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

    >>
    >> Any Larry D'Loserites out there who still think that linux isn't
    >> intellectual property?

    >
    > I would be surprised if anyone here argued it wasn't. Some might
    > disagree with the term however - see
    > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html


    In law there is no such a thing as "intellectual property". There are Patents, Copyrights, and
    Trademarks.

    All three are quite different and are protected in different ways under the Law.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #9
  10. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:20:01 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:

    >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >
    > I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    > the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it stays
    > that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.


    Agreed, and agreed.

    Novell has actually secured the copyrights to everything up until the point where it agreed to sell to
    OldSCO the right to further develop UnixWare on x86 machines.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #10
  11. Malcolm

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 31, 4:33 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over its
    > copyrighted code or doesn't it?


    Since you are so pig ignorant about this, Mr Impossible, I will try
    and explain.

    UNIX (the kernel and associated systems) contains code from various
    sources. A portion is proprietary code developed by AT&T. Other
    chunks of UNIX uses code developed by people at University of
    California, University of New South Wales, etc. AT&T used this code as
    well and stripped the Universities' copyright notices out of it and
    treated it as proprietary code. Some years back, the Regents (ie
    Council) of the University of California sued AT&T over this and it
    was settled out of court. I think that this code forms the basis of
    FreeBSD and GNU code (which is loosely called Linux). This
    Universities' code is now licenced for all to use.

    Novell subsequently purchased the UNIX product off AT&T and Novell
    subsequently sold some of the UNIX business to 'old' SCO (Santa Cruz
    Operation), including a licence enabling 'old' SCO to use the UNIX
    code as needed in support of this business. Novell did NOT transfer
    ownership of the copyrights to SCO, that is what the jury in Salt Lake
    City has decided. SCO liked to think they owned UNIX code and tried
    to bullshit the jury into believing this.

    There was another company called 'Caldera' in same ownership which
    originally sold a 'commercial' style of Linux (in a similar manner to
    Red Hat). This was not successful and for some reason the owners
    renamed old SCO something else and renamed Caldera as SCO and
    transferred the UNIX asset to it. The new SCO of course was thorougly
    infected with the alleged 'viral' properties of Linux.

    SCO was confused as to what it owned. In reality the allegedly
    infringing code in GNU/Linux was the original Universities code over
    which Novell or SCO had no ownership rights whatsoever. Instead SCO
    thought it could run a protection racket by 'licencing' this code and
    Microsoft signed up, not because it was afraid of a SCO lawsuit, but
    to facilitate SCO trying to cause mayhem with Linux.

    So you can see that Novell had ownership rights over a portion of UNIX
    only (and this has been meticulously respected by open source people),
    and of these ownership rights, non-exclusively licenced them to SCO to
    enable SCO to run its UNIX business. Now SCO was supposed to pay to
    Novell a portion of UNIX licence fees, and owes Novell millions. When
    SCO ended up between a rock and a hard place, it went into Chapter 11
    bankrupcy and managed to bullshit the courts etc about how it was
    going to win big.

    Note well, Mr 'Impossible' that AT&T played fast and loose with the
    intellectual property of other people including universities. And yet
    it is the likes of YOU who accuse open source supporters of piracy
    with absolutely no foundation whatsoever.

    See www.groklaw.net for the full story. This must be one of the
    world's largest legal research projects.
     
    peterwn, Mar 31, 2010
    #11
  12. On 31 Mar, 22:19, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:20:01 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:
    > >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    > >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >
    > > I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    > > the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it stays
    > > that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.

    >
    > Agreed, and agreed.
    >
    > Novell has actually secured the copyrights to everything up until the point where it agreed to sell to
    > OldSCO the right to further develop UnixWare on x86 machines.


    Yeah. It would be really nice if they BSD licensed it all now that
    they've won. It seems a real shame that the old UNIXes are slowly
    getting left to rot because the original developers hands are tied.
    IRIX is fairly nice but SGI has discontinued the line now - in a few
    years updates will stop and it will be entirely abandoned. HP has done
    the same thing to the only variant of OSF/1 - Tru64 UNIX (formerly
    Digital UNIX, formerly OSF/1 AXP), it will be gone soon. Digital did
    it to their PDP/VAX/MIPS unix in the mid 90s too - ULTRIX. I would
    really like to get my hands on a copy of Apples A/UX - it looks like a
    rather interesting system but they abandoned it in 1995 and its
    practically extinct now.

    I suppose even if System V were to go open source SGI/HP/Apple still
    wouldn't bother releasing their old code. Too expensive to pay someone
    to go over it making sure no other third-party code was released at
    the same time.
     
    David Goodwin, Mar 31, 2010
    #12
  13. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:13:44 -0700, peterwn wrote:

    > On Mar 31, 4:33 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >
    > Since you are so pig ignorant about this, Mr Impossible, I will try and
    > explain.
    >
    > UNIX (the kernel and associated systems) contains code from various
    > sources. A portion is proprietary code developed by AT&T. Other chunks
    > of UNIX uses code developed by people at University of California,
    > University of New South Wales, etc. AT&T used this code as well and
    > stripped the Universities' copyright notices out of it and treated it as
    > proprietary code. Some years back, the Regents (ie Council) of the
    > University of California sued AT&T over this and it was settled out of
    > court. I think that this code forms the basis of FreeBSD and GNU code
    > (which is loosely called Linux).


    all the BSDs were based on one particular version of old Unix. The GNU project , IIRC, was entirely
    new software written and released under the GPL.

    Linux likewise was entirely new software written and released under the GPL.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #13
  14. Malcolm

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:50:42 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:

    > On 31 Mar, 22:19, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:20:01 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:
    >> >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    >> >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >>
    >> > I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    >> > the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it
    >> > stays that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.

    >>
    >> Agreed, and agreed.
    >>
    >> Novell has actually secured the copyrights to everything up until the
    >> point where it agreed to sell to OldSCO the right to further develop
    >> UnixWare on x86 machines.

    >
    > Yeah. It would be really nice if they BSD licensed it all now that
    > they've won. It seems a real shame that the old UNIXes are slowly
    > getting left to rot because the original developers hands are tied. IRIX
    > is fairly nice but SGI has discontinued the line now - in a few years
    > updates will stop and it will be entirely abandoned. HP has done the
    > same thing to the only variant of OSF/1 - Tru64 UNIX (formerly Digital
    > UNIX, formerly OSF/1 AXP), it will be gone soon. Digital did it to their
    > PDP/VAX/MIPS unix in the mid 90s too - ULTRIX. I would really like to
    > get my hands on a copy of Apples A/UX - it looks like a rather
    > interesting system but they abandoned it in 1995 and its practically
    > extinct now.


    Both AIX and Solaris are being actively maintained, and so your point only really relates to those minor
    variants that were never all that popular in the first place.

    And besides, IBM is actively promoting Linux these days equally with AIX (if not more so due to the fact
    that it is considerably cheaper).

    Sun/Oracle is actively promoting OpenSolaris and Linux.

    In the Unix world Linux is the future.

    Also, most of the original code licensed to IBM and to SUN is also available under a BSD license via a
    BSD release. There was only a small amount of code that was exclusively owned by Novell and that
    needed to be replaced.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Mar 31, 2010
    #14
  15. Malcolm

    Adam Guest

    Nice write-up Peter, thanks.
     
    Adam, Mar 31, 2010
    #15
  16. On 1 Apr, 07:33, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:50:42 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:
    > > On 31 Mar, 22:19, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:20:01 -0700, David Goodwin wrote:
    > >> >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    > >> >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >
    > >> > I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    > >> > the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it
    > >> > stays that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.

    >
    > >> Agreed, and agreed.

    >
    > >> Novell has actually secured the copyrights to everything up until the
    > >> point where it agreed to sell to OldSCO the right to further develop
    > >> UnixWare on x86 machines.

    >
    > > Yeah. It would be really nice if they BSD licensed it all now that
    > > they've won. It seems a real shame that the old UNIXes are slowly
    > > getting left to rot because the original developers hands are tied. IRIX
    > > is fairly nice but SGI has discontinued the line now - in a few years
    > > updates will stop and it will be entirely abandoned. HP has done the
    > > same thing to the only variant of OSF/1 - Tru64 UNIX (formerly Digital
    > > UNIX, formerly OSF/1 AXP), it will be gone soon. Digital did it to their
    > > PDP/VAX/MIPS unix in the mid 90s too - ULTRIX. I would really like to
    > > get my hands on a copy of Apples A/UX - it looks like a rather
    > > interesting system but they abandoned it in 1995 and its practically
    > > extinct now.

    >
    > Both AIX and Solaris are being actively maintained, and so your point only really relates to those minor
    > variants that were never all that popular in the first place.
    >
    > And besides, IBM is actively promoting Linux these days equally with AIX (if not more so due to the fact
    > that it is considerably cheaper).
    >
    > Sun/Oracle is actively promoting OpenSolaris and Linux.
    >
    > In the Unix world Linux is the future.
    >
    > Also, most of the original code licensed to IBM and to SUN is also available under a BSD license via a
    > BSD release. There was only a small amount of code that was exclusively owned by Novell and that
    > needed to be replaced.


    IRIX and Tru64 weren't that minor. All SGI systems ran IRIX, many DEC
    Alphas ran Tru64 (there were two other official operating systems for
    the platform too - OpenVMS Alpha and Windows NT). A/UX was rather
    minor though - I'll give you that :)

    SunOS 5.x (Solaris) is actually a System V Release 4 descendant and
    the only open-source System V implementation around. I think AIX is
    System V with extensions too.

    But my interest in seeing those old UNIXes open-sourced isn't so they
    can live on alongside Linux, *BSD and Solaris. There is really very
    little chance of that as most of them were designed for specific
    hardware platforms which have now been discontinued.

    Rather, I would like to see them open-sourced so they can be kept in a
    working state and made freely available to anyone who wants to explore
    them. There are plenty of people out there with the hardware to run
    them but no licenses or media. I have the hardware to run A/UX but it
    seems unlikely I'll find a copy anytime soon. Luckily my SGI systems
    came with IRIX media and HP was nice enough to send me a free
    noncommercial copy of Tru64 despite it being discontinued.

    Some of them weren't just another UNIX either - there were fairly
    unique features. A/UX the most of all I suppose - go look at its
    wikipedia page. IRIX had a fairly nice desktop environment too - not
    just CDE like all the others were shipping at the time (and still do).
     
    David Goodwin, Mar 31, 2010
    #16
  17. Malcolm

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 1, 2:06 am, Sweetpea <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:13:44 -0700, peterwn wrote:
    > > On Mar 31, 4:33 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive  property rights over
    > >> its copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >
    > > Since you are so pig ignorant about this, Mr Impossible, I will try and
    > > explain.

    >
    > > UNIX (the kernel and associated systems) contains code from various
    > > sources.  A portion is proprietary code developed by AT&T.  Other chunks
    > > of UNIX uses code developed by people at University of California,
    > > University of New South Wales, etc. AT&T used this code as well and
    > > stripped the Universities' copyright notices out of it and treated it as
    > > proprietary code.  Some years back, the Regents (ie Council) of the
    > > University of California sued AT&T over this and it was settled out of
    > > court.  I think that this code forms the basis of FreeBSD and GNU code
    > > (which is loosely called Linux).

    >
    > all the BSDs were based on one particular version of old Unix. The GNU project , IIRC, was entirely
    > new software written and released under the GPL.
    >
    > Linux likewise was entirely new software written and released under the GPL.
    >

    Yes with respect to the Linux kernel, but AFAIK some command shells
    etc came from the original 'open' Unix code.
     
    peterwn, Mar 31, 2010
    #17
  18. Malcolm

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 1, 1:11 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > So copyrighted software is the exclusive property of the copy holderight?
    > Correct?

    Yes

    > And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to determine how
    > that property right I used/distributed. Correct?

    Yes - but the copyright owner can assign partial rights by way of
    licence.

    > Why then do you claim that
    > internet software pirates are entitled to download copyrighted software with
    > the owner's permission?


    Read carefully what I wrote earlier. I have made no such claim.
     
    peterwn, Mar 31, 2010
    #18
  19. Malcolm

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 31, 10:16 pm, Sweetpea <> wrote:

    >
    > In law there is no such a thing as "intellectual property". There are Patents, Copyrights, and
    > Trademarks.
    >
    > All three are quite different and are protected in different ways under the Law.
    >


    I asked somone I know who works for patent attorneys. Her response
    effectively was that 'intellectual property' means what the user of
    the term says it means. This is illustrated by this extract from
    'Through the Looking-Glass':

    "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I
    tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
    objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
    "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
    many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's
    all."
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty
    Dumpty began again.
    "They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the
    proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs –
    however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I
    say!"

    The 'narrow' use of the term refers to what is legally protectable in
    a particular nation ie patents, copyright, trademarks and registered
    designs in NZ. IMO 'Intellectual Property' is 'shorthand' for these
    particular rights.

    The 'mischief' comes from the 'broad' use of the term where someone
    claims that something is 'intellectual property' when this is not
    supported by legislation for example as when a poster here a few years
    ago claimed that a USA patent was enforceable in NZ.
     
    peterwn, Mar 31, 2010
    #19
  20. Malcolm

    victor Guest

    On 01/04/10 01:04, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "David Goodwin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 31 Mar, 16:33, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>> "David Goodwin" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> > On 31 Mar, 13:54, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>> >> "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> >> > A federal jury Tuesday found that Novell Inc., and not The SCO
    >>> >> > Group,
    >>> >> > owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used
    >>> by >> > many
    >>> >> > businesses.
    >>>
    >>> >> >http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202
    >>>
    >>> >> Any Larry D'Loserites out there who still think that linux isn't
    >>> >> intellectual property?
    >>>
    >>> > I would be surprised if anyone here argued it wasn't. Some might
    >>> > disagree with the term however - see
    >>> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
    >>>
    >>> Stop playing games. Does Novell have exclusive property rights over its
    >>> copyrighted code or doesn't it?

    >>
    >> I'm not playing games. It certainly does look like Novell has secured
    >> the copyrights to the old AT&T UNIX codebase. I very much hope it
    >> stays that way too - the whole thing has been a huge waste of time.

    >
    > Copyright=exclusive property right. Novell, and Novell alone, has the
    > right to decide how that codebase is used/distributed. Correct?


    No, there are conditional exceptions in copyright law, the rights are
    limited. Fair use, study and all that.
    The main problem here is the copyright period had outlived its purpose
    but is now effectively unlimited, the Unix copyrights were now only
    useful for the purpose of litigation to bully blackmail settlements out
    of users via SCO's bullshit licenses.
    Copyrights on obsolete code don't serve the primary purpose
    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
    limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
    respective Writings and Discoveries."
    Copyright duration has been incrementally extended far beyond this
    original intention firstly to provide lifetime royalties for authors of
    literature and their heirs, then to establish the revenue stream for
    royalty based income from music recording, then to protect licensing of
    cartoon characters as a tradeable corporate asset. All accomplished via
    the pork barrel partisan politics of the US congress with no economic
    analysis or consideration of unintended future consequences.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act.
    Along the way, software has been added to this precedent content because
    they have established what is perpetual unlimited copyright.
    The sense of entitlement has become embedded and the value set by the
    opportunity for potential future income purely through litigation.
    The case of Larrikin Records vs Men at Work shows the ultimate absurdity
    where a 1934 Girl Guide Jamboree nursery rhyme, which became an anthem
    of several generations of primary school kids, part if the culture of
    every Australian became such an asset when referenced as a scrap of
    Australiana in a song about Australian identity.
     
    victor, Mar 31, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slyfoot
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
    Slyfoot
    Aug 13, 2004
  2. name

    copyrights are futile, information is free

    name, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    649
  3. Patrick L.

    Question on copyrights

    Patrick L., Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    508
    Marvin Margoshes
    Apr 8, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    Ophelia Cummins
    Aug 20, 2007
  5. BrianM
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    359
    thingy
    Aug 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page