"When is IP Protection not appropriate?" Topic

Say I create a new wargame. I market it. I maintain it under copyright. Then, many years later, I stop producing it, and, just arbitrarily, forbid anyone else to do so. Am I morally in the wrong?

Now, let's make it a bit more serious. Let's say I develop a cure for cancer. I do not patent it, but maintain it as a trade secret -and, for whatever reason, it cannot be reverse engineered. Now, again, for whatever reason, I eventually stop making it, withhold the formula from the public, and eventually die. The knowledge is now lost. Am I morally in the wrong here?

I think the obvious answer is "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second.

And this, in fact, proves up what IP law is all about in the first place, a LIMITED protection of the creator's right to his IP. It is also what so many on this board seem to fail to understand.

Also, remember that to say that #1 is okay and #2 is not, is simply to say that gaming is unimportant. Bu that theory, IP law should probably not apply to it in the first place.

Justin, Astronomican, any INTELLIGENT replies?

IP law is about the continued production of quality product. If there is no money in something people will often not produce it. People may still produce wargames, and some people may still produce cures for various diseases, but the progress of it will be very slow if they can't make money at it.

Your theoretical cancer cure is difficult to understand because of all of the processes a cure for cancer would have to go through to be approved for human use, never mind the papers published on the pure science of it.

Be that as it may what would be your solution to the problem of the scientist who came up with the answer? If he wants to keep his formula a secret do we torture him to get it out of him?

Also your second to last paragraph doesn't make any sense at all. Even if the first sentence of it was true, which it is not, the second sentence surely doesn't follow from that.

If people were able to freely produce miniatures why would anyone invest the time in making good ones in the first place. If all I had to do was buy the casting equipment and one of each pack of Perry figs and make my own here my costs are minimal compared to the time invested in sculpting the figs. I could probably sell them for half of what the Perry's are. If that were the case then the Perry's would most likely stop doing it.

IP is not for the protection of the creator, it is for the protection of the consumer. If there is no way to make money from work, people will not do work. It is that simple.

To be "morally in the wrong", you have to make the stretch that the world is entitled to your production, and that lives would be more miserable if they did not have access to your wonderful wargame.

In the second case, that is such an unlikely happening. First of all, WHY does the mythical mad scientist develop "a cure for cancer" in the first place? To withhold it for spite? You are also supposing that it "cannot be reverse-engineered". Sorry. That's just plain impossible. If it's a drug, its structure can be analyzed by any beginning chemistry grad student.

In any event, people die from SOMETHING all the time. What's the world record? 120 years on this planet? No one gets out of here alive. If you want to have your mad scientist tie up his wonder "cure" for frivolous reasons, go right ahead.

It's a difficult topic because much of our progress comes from sharing knowledge rather than concealing it. Leonardo da Vinci knew a lot of physiology, and kept it secret for his own purposes. Modern science succeeds because the honor goes to the first to PUBLISH a discovery. He gets the credit, the rest of us get the benefit of the new knowledge. Some cultures resist sharing knowledge (see the essay "Why Arabs Lose Wars") and cross-training and such. We don't want to go back to guild secrets.

At the same time, if (say) drug companies can't profit from an investment of millions of dollars into developing a new medicine, becaue other companies (or other countries) steal the results, they will cease doing the research in the first place.

I don't want world government, it terrifies me, but we need effective world-wide protection for intellectual property.

Trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and unfair competition all protect rights in intangibles. They all work differently to protect different things and offer limited rights to the owner. Each area of IP law protects something different. For example, patents protect inventions and have a very limited term. Copyrights protect works and have a much more expansive term. You need to undertand the purposes of these different areas of law and what they are trying to do in order to understand how they work.

Moral rights are the author's ability to control the quality, look and feel of his own work, whether he owns it or not. Most common law countries do not recognize moral rights (i.e. U.S., U.K. – although there are a few exceptions in the U.S.). Other countries allow rights of the author to exist even after he has sold his rights in that work (e.g. France, Germany). As moral rights protect the inherent quality or uniqueness of a work, they cannot exist in inventions (i.e. patents). Copyright on the other hand, is the perfect example of where moral rights exist.

"Justin, Astronomican, any INTELLIGENT replies?"

Lots, but that would require you to gain some INTELLIGENCE to understand them instead of posting lame-ass examples to pathetically justify your thieving and distribution of copyright material via PDFs.

"Say I create a new wargame. I market it. I maintain it under copyright. Then, many years later, I stop producing it, and, just arbitrarily, forbid anyone else to do so."

You do not need to arbitrarily forbid anything, since as the copyright holder you are the one who has the right to make copies – others have that right only on your explicit permission (or as per fair usage conditions). Neither do you need to particularly maintain the copyright as such – it comes to existence immediately upon creation and lasts until xx years after your death.

"Also, remember that to say that #1 is okay and #2 is not, is simply to say that gaming is unimportant. Bu that theory, IP law should probably not apply to it in the first place."

I fail to see how the importance of something is an issue here. Presumably any creation can be considered as potentially important for the creator, and if a certain person wants to make a copy of it then that person also considers it as a matter of some importance.

Griefbringer

Just because something is not produced does not mean the IP rights automatically expire. So, using your first example, a company may stop producing a rule for any number of reasons – they can't afford the production costs, they judge the market is not right for the game, they want to keep it off the market for a few years so as not to saturate the market and keep up the value of their game, etc. In some cases the company may no longer be in business but there is someone who still owns the rights to the game. They may decide, like above, to not produce the game. Perhaps they are shopping the rights to the game and haven't found a buyer yet.

Just because a game is out of production does not give anyone else the right to produce the game.

One should not presume that if a game is out of production then the IP owners no longer have a use for it.

This isn't the first time VT has been on a rant like this, and as usual he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is setting up straw men to knock down, and none of his straw men make any sense.
It would help if he would let us know exactly what he is talking about, instead of using the vague catch-all phrase, "Intellectual property".

>>> It would help if he would let us know exactly what he is talking about, instead of using the vague catch-all phrase, "Intellectual property".

Oh, I don't think you have to look too far;

TMP link

Once again: "But I really, really wanna!" is not a justification for theft.

Allen

"Once again: "But I really, really wanna!" is not a justification for theft."

It is when – it's almost as if these people go to some sort of night-class to become "skilled" in lame-ass excuses for their thievery.

Say I create a new wargame. I market it. I maintain it under copyright. Then, many years later, I stop producing it, and, just arbitrarily, forbid anyone else to do so. Am I morally in the wrong?

No, its yours, you can do with it want you want.

Now, let's make it a bit more serious. Let's say I develop a cure for cancer. I do not patent it, but maintain it as a trade secret -and, for whatever reason, it cannot be reverse engineered. Now, again, for whatever reason, I eventually stop making it, withhold the formula from the public, and eventually die. The knowledge is now lost. Am I morally in the wrong here?

Well you will always be thought of as a nut but again its yours, do with it as you will.

Coca Cola I think keeps its formula secret (I know, not the cure for cancer).

As to morals, I think you are OK on that. I don't think you have a moral obligation to provide the cure for cancer (although it would be a nice thing to do). And if we know it exists and we want it, we can damn well go and find it for ourselves. And since it is not protected, make a fortune, laughing all the way to the bank ha ha ha.

Going with Void Trekker's original example, copyright means that VT owns the rights. Only he may reproduce his property and profit from its sale. Well, he and his licensees, that is.

I do not think that anyone has ever died from lack of wargames, though, so the cancer analogy isn't quite workable. Nevertheless, the law covers our ability to create something, copyright it, and profit from its sale or licensing.

This extends to medicines. There are any number of medicines out there that are fully covered by IP laws, and therefore more expensive than they could be; the pharmaceutical companies justify this by saying that they need the money for research and development in order to develop new and better lifesaving drugs.

Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine. Now, polio was a nasty disease, killing and crippling zillions of people. We of the modern age tend to forget how terrified our ancestors were of polio.

Under the laws of the time, (and right now, for that matter) Salk could well have slapped a legal boilerplate on the drug and become a megazillionaire, charging $1,000 USD a shot for the stuff. How much would YOU pay to protect your child from polio forever?

Salk did not. He published his research results publicly, and said, "Make as much of the stuff as you can, shoot up every kid on the planet, and nobody owes me anything." And because he did, we owe him forever.

I wonder what Pfizer would do if they had developed something similar?

If a cure for cancer exists, I want it. I do not necessarily have a right to it. I didn't pay for it. I did not develop it. I did not expend resources in its creation. I have as much right to it as I do to wander into your house, poke my head into your fridge, and help myself to a beer and a sandwich. Say, where's your TV remote? I'm gonna borrow these DVDs, okay?

Plainly, you think I should not do this. You're right. The law prohibits it, unless you're going to invite me. But what if I'm dying of hunger and thirst? Do I, then, have a right to kick down your door and raid your pastrami stash, use all your mustard, drink up all your beer?

No, I do not. The law does not differentiate between starving me and oafish me. However, you, as the plaintiff, might look at things differently, depending on the circumstances.

Perhaps Pfizer might allow free use of a cancer vaccine by those dying of cancer yet unable to pay. It'd be their call, though.

Human beings can have compassion. Corporations are not human beings.

If Pfizer abandoned the cancer cure, ceased to make it, ceased to defend the copyright… well, that's where things come into question. Same is true of any printed product. And let us not forget that copyright is not forever, unless you are Disney and employ many lobbyists…

You know the place where I get confused is in the "Derivative Works" category. I mean if you are inspired by someone elses achievement (film, art work, song) and you go on to make something of your own, it gets very complicated. I understand parody, that has its own protection, but things like fan fiction (The kind set in another authors universe, not the kind where someone takes another authors characters and writes their own stories about them)seem to me to be things that improve the overall hobby. So if someone has a web comic that parodies a companies products, and "mythology" that's okay, but a fan fiction site where people try to tell stories about the same companies universe is not? I don't get it. Particularly when it seems that the derivative work cannot really take away the original creators income potential from the work. I guess I just don't understand the details very well.

Justin, Astronomican, any INTELLIGENT replies?

And if we are going to be constrained to only make intelligent replies. I feel it would be right for the poster only to make intelligent posts?

I have as much right to it as I do to wander into your house, poke my head into your fridge, and help myself to a beer and a sandwich. Say, where's your TV remote? I'm gonna borrow these DVDs, okay?

The Homer Simpson approach to life.

Good one.

Eeeeesh. "Derivative works" is a legal minefield. I would speak authoritatively about it, but every time I have done so, someone points out a legal precedent that shoots me out of the saddle.

Durn near have to be a lawyer to understand "derivative works" law.

So if someone has a web comic that parodies a companies products, and "mythology" that's okay, but a fan fiction site where people try to tell stories about the same companies universe is not? I don't get it. Particularly when it seems that the derivative work cannot really take away the original creators income potential from the work. I guess I just don't understand the details very well.

The issues there can be many – however lets limit it more closely to RPGs and Wargames (something that most of us have a bit of experience with).

Consider if there was a setting which involved an apocalyptic past with a harsh present time (not uncommon). In the initial release of rules, fluff and miniatures – the game designers didn't release much info as to the cause of the apocalypse. Fans of the game take up and write there own history for the game and it becomes very popular and widely accepted.

Now in doing as much the designers are now in a predicament. When the game was originally designed they had planned on selling a supplement that allowed you to play during the apocalypse – but that wouldn't be released for a year or so after the initial version. The problem is that their history is significantly different than the now accepted history created on fan sites. They have to now rethink there business plans as well as their entire setting – or press forward and hope no one is offended by the changes to what they have come to accept. The offended players often become vehemently opposed to anything else the company does and that can lead to lost sales.

Because the fan site writers do not know the whole story, they may damage the property inadvertently. You also have situations where fan site authors have sued after the fact when they believe that their "unique" work was worked into the official universe (although the status of their works as derivatives greatly limits any claims they can make, anyone can sue…and they have to respond to the law suits). Most companies simply prefer to avoid the potential problems by preventing the fan sites from existing (not big mean companies – just a CYA approach in todays world).

Fan sites are pretty cut and clear violations of copyright – however other things are much more vague (take a look at I think 12 Monkeys for an example of more vague).

link

For anyone who would like to know a bit more…

I think the issue with the cancer example is that the government would have every right to step in and appropriate your IP as a public health issue.

The unavailability of a game is not a life threatening issue. It may be something that makes you unhappy but it is not illegal.

And no, you have no right to copy, reproduce or steal the IP.

VT, your comparison is flawed. Any medical device, drug, or procedure is under patent, not copyright law. A patent lasts for 14 years. INCLUDING the clinical trials, where you have to prove that it actually works, but you don't make any money out of it. And clinicals can last for years – I worked on a dvice that was in clinical trials for nine (9) years before the FDA would even consider it for full approval.

Neither the polio vaccine or any other vaccine was distributed around the world with no one making a profit from the effort. The workers who made the vaccine did not do so for free; were the immoral for taking money for their efforts? The companies who hired the workers and bought the raw materials and the machinery to make the vaccine did not do so for free. Were they immoral for taking money for their efforts? The workers and companies that packaged and shipped the vaccine did not do so for free. The doctors and nurses who distributed the vaccine did not do so for free; they may not have charged the patients, but presumably *someone* paid for their housing, clothing, food, transportation and supplies. That's a profit, whether you look upon it as one or not.

So let's drop this nonsense about "free" medicine. There is no free medicine; it must be paid for in some manner, because it is enormously expensive to make the stuff in the first place. What, you think medicine springs out of the ground in nicely measured dosages? It takes years of research and labor to develop a medicine, coupled with further years of testing to establish that it is safe and effective, and to determine what dosage levels are appropriate for different body types, ages, complicating conditions, etc., etc.. And *none* of that happens for "free." *Somebody* has to pay for it at some step of the way, even if it's just at cost, because somebody else who is essential to the process of making the medicine needs to frickin' EAT! And if they're making the medicine that means you live, they don't have time to spend growing and processing food and other essentials *they* need in order to live. Geez, some of you people are thick as bricks when it comes to economic reality. Everything costs something because everything takes time to produce, gather and distribute. TANSTAAFL!!!

And that goes for IP products of a more "leisure" nature as well. If you want to enjoy it, then you should show your appreciation by paying the individuals who sacrificed their time and resources to provide you with it. If a work is out of print or out of production, by a used copy if you want it for your own use. If you want to produce it and distribute it, then pay for the rights to do so. Once you buy the rights, you can give the product away for free if you like, but you're still gonna have to pay someone somewhere along the way for something, whether for printing, binding, etc., or for computers and software and 'net access, etc..

Geez, is it impossible to understand this? If it's not yours, don't take it. You should have gotten that down in kindergarten.

"Consider if there was a setting which involved an apocalyptic past with a harsh present time (not uncommon). In the initial release of rules, fluff and miniatures – the game designers didn't release much info as to the cause of the apocalypse. Fans of the game take up and write there own history for the game and it becomes very popular and widely accepted.

Now in doing as much the designers are now in a predicament. When the game was originally designed they had planned on selling a supplement that allowed you to play during the apocalypse – but that wouldn't be released for a year or so after the initial version. The problem is that their history is significantly different than the now accepted history created on fan sites. They have to now rethink there business plans as well as their entire setting – or press forward and hope no one is offended by the changes to what they have come to accept. The offended players often become vehemently opposed to anything else the company does and that can lead to lost sales."

Loss of income is the most practical side of the issue. The other side is the simple vandelism of an artist creation. If you create a character near and dear to you and begin to write and have published novels, the last thing you want is to see that character distroyed because someone else decided, for example, it was time for him to turn to other side of the law, lose a limit or become a porno star.

Parody is protected, because it should be clear in this case that the new work is not intended to have a lasting effect (though unfortunately it might).

While I think there is some moral high ground to stand on concerning inventions like cure for cancer, the real issue here is precedence. Pass one law making something the communial property of mankind and someone will use it as argument for stealing your car because they "needed" it.

Never said that polio vaccine was free. My parents paid for mine. I simply said that its inventor did not patent it. Ultimately, he DID profit from its creation -- if only in speaking fees and general props from society.

Parody is protected "fair use" of copyrighted property, but there are pitfalls. A fine example is a hilarious poster someone (Wally Wood, I think) did of all the iconic Disney characters having wild sex.

It could be argued that this is parody, and therefore protected by the right of free speech. Disney could argue that this poster damages the family-friendly image of the characters in question, and therefore harms the income potential of those characters, and therefore the poster should be suppressed.

There is legal precedent to support both sides of this argument.

As to fanfics and suchlike… well, one would think that these fanfics do not really harm the salability of the materials on which they are based. Some artists disagree, particularly when you start getting into slash fiction, bizarre sexual permutations, and suchlike. Furthermore, some artists (George R.R. Martin, in particular) flatly opposes ALL fanfics based on their work, on general principle (the "it's my baseball and my bat, and only I may play with them") argument. You may disagree with their reasoning, but they do in fact own the materials in question… so who's right?

As to the government seizing a patented cancer cure: well, one could argue that the government is serving the greater good, sure.

It is, even now, argued that the government is serving the greater good when they use eminent domain to evict elderly people from their retirement homes in order to resell the property to developers or Wal-Mart, from which the local governmental structure will receive far more money in tax revenue than they did from the old pensioners who originally owned the property.

"Pirates and emperors are really the same thing," it has been said. Governments routinely seize private assets for a variety of reasons. Whether or not these reasons are morally and ethically sound has to be judged on a case by case basis.

Is parody protected? Weird Al Yankovic is always talking about how he had to get the original artist's permission to do one of his takeoffs. It got ugly when Coolio went back on his permission for "Amish Paradise"/"Gangsta's Paradise".
For a while, Coolio threatened to sue, and Yancovic sweated bullets. Odd, because I feel Weird Al's version is superior.
This is also odd, because if Parody is protected, Yancovic would not have NEEDED permission. I would also expect him to be conversant with parody/copyright issues, since he has made millions out of parody.

Anyway.
Does having a copyright on a song mean that you can prohibit unauthoized reproduction, or that you can collect royalties?
Or, is copyright not the real issue with parodies?

Dr. B: Yes, it was Wally Wood who did the poster (there's a small picture of it at the end of this article about the "Mickey Mouse and the Air Pirate" comic book:

home.freeuk.net/moondog/air.htm

------------------

Copyright does NOT expire just because you quit publishing a book or game. The copyright continues for the duration allowed when it entered into protection. Ccurrently, that amount of time for an individual author is the lifetime of the author plus 70 years: link

-------------------

That cancer stuff doesn't really deserve comment. :-/

I think 'IP/copyright' like any other 'laws' designed to protect the new inventions/ideas/creations of others…needs to be handled with 'common sense and courtesy'. Two items in very short supply I fear!

If I invented 'the wheel'…should all possible 'varients' of it by ANYONE else be considered 'ip infringement'?

or the 'mousetrap' or 'zipper' or nose tissue, instant photos, photocopies etc???

At what point does 're-inventing the wheel' NOT become 'infringement' etc???

then there is the 'popular urban myth' where a certain 'evil CORPORATE empire' tried to BACK-copyright things like 'dwarves/dwarfs, elves and other 'fantasy names/terms'…but I digress!

What about 'warp drive'…Star Trek or John W. Campbell in 'Islands of Space' copyright 1933 or 36????…transporters, phasers, laser-blasters…etc?

and at what point does it become 'parody' IF not already clearly DESIGNATED as such…'Plan 9 from Outer Space' was supposed to be a SERIOUS movie? vs 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes' or the 'Scarey Movie series???'

Your honor…I rest my 'case'..

*slish…slish

>Coolio threatened

"Bloop!"

err… sorry.

w.

Yeah, parody is protected – Weird Al wouldn't need to worry much…though it is still possible for someone to sue him (and if I recall they have sued in the past). Just because you are right…doesn't prevent someone from suing and often the threat of a lawsuit (and all the related expenses) is enough to shut down many of those who do do parodies.

The site that I linked to doesn't cover any Weird Al cases, but it does cover the parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" by 2Live Crew. The courts found that the parody was protected and the label Acuff-Rose Music had no grounds for their claim. The unfortunate reality of it all was that 2Live Crew ended up spending nearly a million dollars defending their right to parody – and were never able to recoup the court fees.

That alone would make me sweat if I were Weird Al – not so much loosing, but just spending the rest of my life in court for something that I know for sure is legal.

But does anyone really understand how music copyright works in terms of cover versions ?

I'm 99.9% sure, I can form a band, record the worst version of Stairway To Heaven ever made but as long as I give Plant / Page (assuming they wrote it) their cut, which isn't much, there's nothing they can do.

In fact, I even heard a major artist comment on that, it's not like people send them tapes, can I release this – they just record it and it's done.

Now, there may be challenges if they wanted to reproduce the lyrics in liner notes – that might be copywight.

But then, I've never understood, if a cover version is so simple to release, why couldn't the people who released WKRP just hire sound-alike bands for the DVD rather than change the music ?

I suppose there is a difference between releasing a song "on its own" or releasing a song as part of a movie / TV show ? Similarly for othr commercial purposes – as in a commercial.

So if I want to sell escalators, could I find a cover band to let me use their recording of Stairway To Heaven ? Hmmmmm – probably not…

BTW – Patents are completely different than copyrights (and related issues). If you invented an improvement to an existing device your improvement can be patented and protected not like a derivative work which is a violation (take a look at pretty much anything listed in the USPTO database – they almost all build off from past inventions which are cited as well in the claim).

Prior art is also an existing concept when dealing with IP issues. If I claim to invent the wheel, my claim has no grounds since the wheel has been in existence for years. Same goes for other issues – elves, dwarves and many fantasy standards are part of mythology so prior art exists preventing anyone from claiming them as their own (they are available for everyone to work with).

You also can not copyright facts. If you have a game that talks about Nazis – you can not copyright those issues, as they are part of history and factual. This extends towards theories which are believed to be potentially factual (worm holes, lasers, various methods of faster than light travel). Most of these when cited in a fictional work have been first mentioned within academic circles. Although some of the specific terms might be subject to trademark or copyright protection ("warp drive" I believe is protected) the general concept is not (it has been suggested that it is possible to warp space in order to travel far distances in short times given a large enough force).

I'm 99.9% sure, I can form a band, record the worst version of Stairway To Heaven ever made but as long as I give Plant / Page (assuming they wrote it) their cut, which isn't much, there's nothing they can do.

Not true at all. However in most cases they could care less since it isn't worth their time. Remember, they have to pay their lawyers too – and if they go after every garage band and cover group for damages (not generally much) they would end up on the loosing side of that battle (spending more on their attorneys than they recover in damages).

There have been several cases where bands have done covers or used parts of other songs (not sampling – but using rhythms or similar parts) have been sued and have lost with various results (some forfeit large amounts of money in damages…others end up paying the royalty fee after the fact).

Unfortunately it's the lawyer's that are often making the decisions without consulting the Artist. There was a version of "Stairway to Heaven" that used the lyrics to "Gilligan's Island" called "Stairway to Giligan's Island (oddly enough). Clearly this is parody, but Led Zep's lawyer successfully sued to stop. Many years later Plant heard the cover for the first time and gave it the thumbs up for being funny.

From what I can see, releasing a cover song is purely a matter of royalties – no permission required.

Unlike a traditional music copyright license, the terms for a compulsory cover license are established by the U.S. Copyright office rather than the artist or record label. This includes set royalty percentages and payment schedules. Also, a compulsory cover license does not require negotiations with the original musical composition copyright holder. In other words, you can obtain the right to sell a cover version of a song without ever having to gain the consent of the original artist.

from: link

And other searches all indicated generally the same thing – it's a "mechanical license" that simply sets royalty rates.

Plant is very good about parodies. He loves Dread Zeppelin, for one thing.

Successfully sued, or successfully intimidated?

"Successfully sued, or successfully intimidated?"

Not sure. I'd bet intimidated since "Little Roger and the Goosebumps" probably did have enough of a fan base to make it worth fighting.

Does the Copyright Owner Have any Recourse Against a Compulsory Cover License?

Yes, if the cover alters the original song in any significant way. The compulsory cover license only applies to covers that are consistent with the original rendition of the song. Therefore, remixed or off-the-wall covers of songs may not be applicable under a compulsory cover license.

There is no standing definition of what alters in a significant way – so unless you are doing it note for note…on key, and with the rhythm – it doesn't offer much protection. Since the determination of whether or not it is a significant change is at the whim of a judge (or worse…jury), there is no rule that can be pointed to to determine whether or not something is mathematically significant. If you change the instrumentation, change the octave it is performed in, speed it up or slow it down – you have done a significant change.

It also doesn't cover public performances either (the bread and butter of most cover bands).

There are other issues that make the mechanical license a bit of a mine field now. If you record a cover (and meet all other requirements) you have to pay a fee for each copy of the song. Since most small bands now publish extensively online, each download is subject to the fee (and streaming music becomes even more of a nightmare). Now if those songs are copied – are you liable for the copies as well? This is one of the issues that are being dealt with by device dependent downloads (PITA they might be).

While the concept of mechanical licensing exists – it isn't used too often (by any major band) due to the potential legal road blocks and speed bumps.

mrln68 – interesting – yet one of the things I found was Ramones suing whoever makes Guitar Hero as a song sounded too much like the Ramones version to be considered a cover !

Yep – the entire thing is a mess (much like a lot of other laws and areas of law). I am glad I no longer deal with it on a daily basis.

As with nearly everything else (including your kids setting up a lemonade stand as was shown this past summer) – Always check with a lawyer before waking up in the morning.

I think the issue with altering a cover is if you alter it too much, it creates a new work (a derivative work) and you need permission to use parts of a song. Further, if other original works consist of the same basic components of the song, it dilutes the originality of that work. If you want to have a strong copyright, you need to police it.

The "cover" exclusion also only applies to recorded music. You can't cover a song in a live concert without getting permission first.

Regarding mechanical licenses (or open source licenses), the author has no control over how works are used. This gets into the moral rights issue. My beautiful goth rock ballad could be used by a muzak station by chilean pipers. As an author, that control is central to the desire to have copyright. This is something that I haven't seen Lawrence Lessig or the other copyright gurus successfully overcome.

It was the Romantics, not the Ramones, who sued because of a soundalike cover version of their song.

And regarding live performances, in the U.S., venues that have live music pay a monthly fee to ASCAP or the other group that represents songwriters (BMI?) to supposedly compensate the composers for the public performance of their works.

Parody is protected free speech. There is solid legal precedent for this. However, the line between parody and plagiarism is not as clear as many people would like.

Irving Berlin, the famous composer, once sued MAD magazine because they used Irving Berlin's tunes in their articles. However, they did not reproduce the lyrics or sheet music. They simply gave their own joke lyrics, preceded by the phrase, "Sung to the tune of…"

Berlin did not get far in court; he got shot to bits by the judge, who made the famous statement, "Irving Berlin does not own iambic pentameter."

Weird Al Yankovic is a parody artist, largely, but he DOES use the same sheet music that the original artists use. He simply changes the lyrics and does his own cover. I was under the impression that he paid the original artists a royalty for the use of their music; I don't see how he could avoid being eaten alive by crazed Hollywood lawyers if he didn't.

If this is so, I don't see how Coolio could have sued him. Then again, Coolio is someone I wouldn't want mad at me, legal or no legal.

There have been lawsuits against bar bands for doing covers of copyrighted songs, lots of times. Usually, though, the record companies don't bother because it's like trying to kill an ant infestation by stomping two or three ants at a time. On occasion, though, a label has gone sue-happy on this issue. The usual trigger is when a band attempts to profit from a cover on a large scale (as 2 Live Crew, in the above example). Taking money for playing in a bar, on the other hand, is generally beneath the notice of the big labels (although they and the RIAA will gladly lecture you about the illegality of lounge singers).

Disney simply sues anyone (or issues cease-and-desist notices) who uses any of their characters for any reason whatsoever, including day care centers who try to show the kids copies of "The Lion King" or decorate the windows with Donald Duck stickups. This is not because Disney is evil; there is legal precedent for "abandoned" copyright being snarfed up by those wishing to use the material. Disney is simply demonstrating their willingness to defend their copyrighted material in court. Their vociferousness about it, though, has resulted in most people being not so eager to parody their characters (google "Air Pirates" for an example; Wikipedia has a pretty good article about them, too).

Ironic using Lion King as an example as many people believe Disney stole it from a Japanese animator.

Ironic or not, Disney did sue a day care center for just that. Said that if the day care center charged to keep children there, then it was the same as charging admission to see Lion King… and therefore illegal.

DrB, the Disney v. daycare center thing was a put-up test case, done because certain third parties were claiming that showing Disney's (and other company's) films at daycare centers that charged for attendance voided the copyrights and trademarks on those films. A court ruling was needed to destroy those claims.

rmaker – but there is also at least one case of a daycare centre being sued for having unauthorized pictures of Disney characters painted on its walls.

Pictors Studio "Your theoretical cancer cure is difficult to understand because of all of the processes a cure for cancer would have to go through to be approved for human use, never mind the papers published on the pure science of it."

Yep, that's right. You can't argue against it, so try to shred the example.

Sorry, that doesn't work. Make it any useful thing. A new food preservative, a new fertilizer, whatever. DO you have the moral right to hold back progress? I think any intelligent person would say no.

rmaker "VT, your comparison is flawed. Any medical device, drug, or procedure is under patent, not copyright law."

No. Anything that is patentable can be kept as a trade secret instead.

@ Void Trekker

It seems a little bit of a stretch to compare the cure for cancer and copying a Rogue Trader rule book. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The cure for cancer will effect the life of billions of people while you are talking about ignoring a law in order to accomplish something selfish. You should come up with a much better comparison.
The cure for cancer is progress your copying the Rogue Trader rulebook isn't. Now that aside I find it funny that people would have a problem with you making a copy of something you purchased for your own personal use. Would those same people have a problem if I made photocopies of my Rogue Trader book so that I could use the rules and read the book without wearing it out?