[nylug-talk] the DMCA is not all bad

[joe]

At 11:40 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, Michael wrote:
>  The big problem with that clause is that it can be manipulated to turn
>completely unoriginal concepts into instant patents, which carry the
>weight of criminal prosecution.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying and if I am, I apologize. 
But if I read you correctly, I think you may not be aware of what is 
copyrightable and when. (BTW, patents and copyrights are totally different 
- patents are not covered, or even mentioned, by the DMCA,)

Given that it is a government document, there is a surprisingly lucid and 
jargon free explanation of copyright on the official web site at 
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/. - and a very nicely done web site it is, too.

My point is that to be copyrightable a work must be both original and 
expressed. Concepts cannot be copyrighted. Old stuff or derivative stuff 
cannot be copyrighted. And there is no manipulation. Copyright starts from 
the moment the work is expressed in a fixed medium (paper, stone, film 
emulsion, recording, video and magnetic or laser readable disk.)

Referring to the DMCA, you said . . .

>It has not once been used in a case
>where someone's copyright was actually threatened.

I don't care about threats of copyright abuse. But I do care about actual 
abuse. Please read my earlier posts in which I named names. I did that with 
the deliberate purpose of giving real world examples of how I, a copyright 
holder, used DMCA to stop actual theft of my  work. I have reason to belive 
there have been others before and since my uses of it.

Joe