3 ms·

The definition of what constitutes copyright violation (changing variable names? functionally similar code with a differing structure?) [...] is hazy. I was un

The definition of what constitutes copyright violation (changing variable names? functionally similar code with a differing structure?) [...] is hazy. I was under the impression that this was generally pretty clear-cut. What's relevant is not primarily the content of the works but how they came about, i.e. whether or not one of them is a derived work of the other. Proving that it is or isn't a derived work can be difficult, but I don't think that's a problem with the law itself. (as usual: not a lawyer) The definition of fair use is arguably hazy though, I agree on that.

wmf 17y ago
In addition, most proprietary source code is also secret, so it's hard to infringe something that you can't even see.
jellicle 17y ago
> What's relevant is not primarily the content of the works but how they came about, i.e. whether or not one of them is a derived work of the other. No. What's relevant is the content of the works, not how they came about. If you've been locked in a soundproof, opaque box since birth with nothing but a typewriter, and you manage to type out part of the screenplay of Star Wars without ever having seen it, you've still violated copyright. There are many, many cases where no actual copying was ever proved and yet copyright violation was found.
- dandelany 17y ago
  While this is true of patents, it is not true of copyrights. Independent creation is a valid defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Inf... "[If] two individuals both create a story that by pure coincidence is nearly identical, but each without knowledge of the other, there is no infringement since there is no copying."
  - jellicle 17y ago
    Quoting Wikipedia for legal matters is better than nothing, I suppose, but hardly decisive. In this case, Wikipedia is wrong, as I have noted: many courts have found copyright infringement without any proof at all being presented that anything was copied. With the facts given - two individuals creating by pure coincidence a story that is nearly identical - whoever published it first is going to win the court case, and the court will presume that the other party copied it, even if no one testifies that they saw the other party reading, editing, and copying from the first story. If you by pure chance happen to have a music file on your hard drive that decodes to play "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and you claim that you created it independently and have never heard of the song before, I assure you the court will rule against you and the music publisher will not be required to submit any proof that you copied it from, say, a CD of Jackson songs. The "copy" in copyright is NOT copying the other person's work. It's producing the copy you made. So in the story example, the second person's published story is the infringing copy, "Copying" from the first story is not the copying that is covered by copyright; it's the creation of items that appear to be copies. Wikipedia is simply wrong here and it's kind of sad that HN is so ignorant about copyright law.
    - dandelany 17y ago
      Sorry, but quoting Wikipedia is better than quoting no evidence at all, which is what you've done.

wmf 17y ago

In addition, most proprietary source code is also secret, so it's hard to infringe something that you can't even see.

jellicle 17y ago

> What's relevant is not primarily the content of the works but how they came about, i.e. whether or not one of them is a derived work of the other. No. What's relevant is the content of the works, not how they came about. If you've been locked in a soundproof, opaque box since birth with nothing but a typewriter, and you manage to type out part of the screenplay of Star Wars without ever having seen it, you've still violated copyright. There are many, many cases where no actual copying was ever proved and yet copyright violation was found.

dandelany 17y ago
While this is true of patents, it is not true of copyrights. Independent creation is a valid defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Inf... "[If] two individuals both create a story that by pure coincidence is nearly identical, but each without knowledge of the other, there is no infringement since there is no copying."
- jellicle 17y ago
  Quoting Wikipedia for legal matters is better than nothing, I suppose, but hardly decisive. In this case, Wikipedia is wrong, as I have noted: many courts have found copyright infringement without any proof at all being presented that anything was copied. With the facts given - two individuals creating by pure coincidence a story that is nearly identical - whoever published it first is going to win the court case, and the court will presume that the other party copied it, even if no one testifies that they saw the other party reading, editing, and copying from the first story. If you by pure chance happen to have a music file on your hard drive that decodes to play "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and you claim that you created it independently and have never heard of the song before, I assure you the court will rule against you and the music publisher will not be required to submit any proof that you copied it from, say, a CD of Jackson songs. The "copy" in copyright is NOT copying the other person's work. It's producing the copy you made. So in the story example, the second person's published story is the infringing copy, "Copying" from the first story is not the copying that is covered by copyright; it's the creation of items that appear to be copies. Wikipedia is simply wrong here and it's kind of sad that HN is so ignorant about copyright law.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    Sorry, but quoting Wikipedia is better than quoting no evidence at all, which is what you've done.