|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > December 2000 > What consitutes a copyright Breech?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What consitutes a copyright Breech?
|
|
|
| Here is my understanding of Copyright:
The article/publication must contain original(not copied) facts or details pertaining to whatever the article/publication pertains to. The key here is ORIGINAL FACTS or DETAILS, which means that anyone/company re-writing the facts is actually breaching the original issuers copyright because of the following:
1. They have failed to produce original material pertaining to the article in question.
2. They have duplicated the FACTS which themselves are copyrighted by the original publisher.
So all in all, any books, magazines, Webpages and the like which purport to have copyrights on information/articles which only re-write the facts not the content have breech international copyright rules. Therefore any person or company who produces a book/CD/article/webpage or the like risks being prosecuted for breech of copyright held by the likes of Microsoft, Novell, CISCO..etc.
The basis of this thread is that recently our site was removed on the basis of a copyright violation from BrainBuzz, however having consulted with solicitors (Attorneys) on this issue the law clearly states that which is outlined above.
So the moral to this tail, basically any reproduced "facts" in what ever format is a breech of the originators copyright and anyone/company who tries to claim copyright on facts about certifications/article/etc and is not the original vendor is breaching there copyrights and is able to be prosecuted for it.
So, ExamNotes, BrainBuzz and all such sites beware none of your study guides are legal and you could be prosecuted by any of the major vendors for having breached there original copyrights.
This leads to one interesting question, that being; We have all breached each others copyrights who the devil sues who? Additionally to what end will it help us the users of such information apart from creating jobs for the lawyers and costing us all a fortune!
This article was the result of someone(who we have tracked and is now being watched) having tried to claim copyright on facts issued by Microsoft who are the ORIGINAL copyright holders, whom are actually themselves in breech of the international copyrights on the subject/matter/facts.
To conclude, don't try to take MCSE2000 on in a copyright issue, we do our homework first and should you feel that you can then please try we welcome the challenge.
Yeti the Legally Aware Copyright Officiendo  http://www.mcse2000.plus.com or http://www.yetigbr1.plus.com
Mailto:yeti@zerg.com | |
|
| Yeti,
That's terrible! I can't believe someone did that to your site. Listen, send me a detailed e-mail at traceyrosenblath@examnotes.com, and I'll try to help. I don't really know what I can do, but I'll try.
------------------
Sincerely,
Paisleyskye
Best wishes and peace to all!!!
(MOUS,A+,MCPx4) | |
|
| Please consult this link for more information: http://www.benedict.com/basic/basic/notice.htm#Top
And excerpt from this site: http://www.benedict.com/ Copyright website
What Copyright Does not Protect:
However, not absolutely everything is eligible for copyright. These are items that by their very nature are not eligible for copyright protection:
Ideas
Facts ****** (Very interesting)
Titles
Names
Short phrases
Blank forms
So basically all these websites that say their study guides are copyrighted and all they quote are FACTS as they do in ExamNotes & BrainBuzz I'm afraid Tough they are not copyrighted simply because they are facts re-written from the original vendors facts i.e. Microsoft, Novell, Cisco, A+, etc....
This begs the question how in gods name can a web designer copyright their work? Answer: Create it with ORIGINAL graphics, design and content, any part which re-writes facts are not copyrightable only the original content of the page(s) and design.
Thus in conclusion the only way ExamNotes and similar sites can ensure there work is copyrightable is to place it in a graphic/design media, that is either a pdf like Troytec do or design their pages using a unique style (which means you cannot use standard fonts or expressions they MUST BE UNIQUE)...Bummer now that I have found all this copyright knowledge out I may just go an a crusade to enlighten people.
Pasleyskye thanks for the offer of help but as you may see I'm rather resourceful when it comes to legal issues. I'm not sure you could help me but I do appreciate the offer very much.
This makes you wonder if copyright was invented by the legal profession just to make us plebs think we are safe & to make money of us all.
Yeti the Well Informed Copyright Fur Ball
http://www.mcse2000.plus.com or http://www.yetigbr1.plus.com
Mailto:yeti@zerg.com | |
|
| The first thing I want to say is that I am in the process of getting my I.T. certs, but my profession, first and foremost, is that of an attorney....and I take offense at a few of the remarks you directed at us, Yeti.
Next, I will explain that copyright/trademark law is very complex. It is not black and white, and it is in a state of flux, as the technological world is very dynamic. It is hard to have the laws keep up with all the changing technology. Moreover, the rapid technological changes have made this a truly global arena...and all jurisdictions have differing laws and regulations. It's very difficult to make heads or tails of the "rules" by which we must play.
Finally, I will say that you also need to be aware that an original work has copyright protection, even if the author NEVER applies for a formal copyright. Insofar as "ideas" are concerned....it's more the process, or the method, than simply an idea.
I will close by saying that intellectual property law is very complex. The certification exams are simply trying to point out some basic concepts of which you should be aware. However, when it comes to ACTUAL questions about the legality of an action, or Website content, PLEASE consult an attorney who is licensed in your primary state of business.
----thischick, Esq. | |
|
| I know that if I write an article for my site (or if an independent writer writes if for me) the article is protected by copyright laws.
When someone writes exam notes, and if the work is original, then you are not violating copyright laws.
Also, It may sound strange, but when someone posts to a newsgroup (or the forums) the website gets the copyright to the post, so the person who originally made the post, may be violating copyright laws when he reposts his own post to another forum. Confusing isn't it?
Copyright laws are complex, I agree.
I suggest you check the official copyright office website. It has some great explanations and examples.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#wci
Yeti-GBR1, what is your website? I sure would like to look at it and see for myself why would Brainbuzz remove your site?
------------------
Webmaster and founder of this site and of
<A HREF="http://www.cert21.com"" TARGET=_blank>Cert21.com</A>
MCSE+I, CNA, A+, N+, I-NET+ | |
|
| Thank you for your responses to this thread. I'd like to apologize to ThisChick, I did not mean to offend anyone what so ever. But you have to admit (tongue in cheek here, it does sort of lend itself to job creation for the lawyers.)
Ok the apology over lets move on, I agree that copyright law is to say the least "complex and fluid and best left to the lawyers" but having said that the rules still apply that "FACTS" can not be copyrighted by individuals/companies other than by the originator of the facts, in this case Microsoft. It even states that on the link that Webmaster posted (and my I say a very good resource reference there Webmaster). Which I cannot duplicate for fear of copyright infringement...j/k 
With regards to the item brought up by Webmaster, it depends on the content of the article as to weather it is covered in whole or part. With reference to your link look under the section about what is not copyrightable and I think you will find that FACTS are in there. If you ask me the whole state of affairs is nuts. I do agree that copyrighting is important but with reference to what I did (for the record was copy the WHOLE including the credits & source study guides and represent it on mine/our site without claiming we wrote it what so ever). Now I admit that I have written to BrainBuzz on no less than 3 occasions about using them officially and to date I have had no response what so ever. Now I'd agree that I used them without consent, but Jesus I was giving them full credit for the content and displaying/advertising their site at the same time.
Ok I think I have learnt a lot here and that I/we should move on, since my aim was not to provoke people just to make them aware and hopefully I have done that.
I value all opinions in the forums regardless who there from, since we can all learn far more from one another than by ourselves.
Right I hope that this concludes this thread on a positive note: Excellent work on the ExamNotes site Webmaster keep it up and ThisChick welcome to the world of IT Boffins'.
Yeti the Humbled
------------------
MCNE MCPx3 SCO ACE LCP Compaq ASE (CCIE wannabe and General Fur Ball)
http://www.mcse2000.plus.com or http://www.yeti.plus.com or http://www.nes-ncs-ltd.demon.co.uk
Mailto:yeti@zerg.com
PS. The problem is as it states that there is no such thing as an "International Copyright" and that each country has its own interpretations of the concept, I agree that they all abide by some similar rules.
[This message has been edited by Yeti-GBR1 (edited 12-15-2000).] |
|
|
|
|