4 ms·

I wonder why there aren't copyright trolls similar to patent trolls. They could just release huge libraries of computer generated music with all of these inter

I wonder why there aren't copyright trolls similar to patent trolls. They could just release huge libraries of computer generated music with all of these interesting combinations of notes. Then do automated comparisons of popular songs to find "violations." Could also be another one of those cases of getting an absurd law revoked by exercising it.

lmkg 17y ago
One of the main differences between copyrights and patents is that in order to infringe on a copyright, you have to be willfully imitating it. Coincidentally creating an identical work is not copyright violation if you didn't know about it.
- goodness 17y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem consistent with any other law in the US. Ignorance is never an excuse. Also, the first result from a google search for 'copyright infringement willful' yields this: http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html which says: 'Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer; "innocent" infringement is infringement nonetheless.' As with patents though, I think the intent does play a role in determining damages.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    But coincidence is not copying. The quote you've excerpted is when someone actually copies something, but thought it was alright to do so.
  - cduan 17y ago
    Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but ignorance of the facts is frequently an excuse. "Innocent" copyright infringement can occur when you think it is legal to copy something (e.g. the copyright has expired, it is fair use, etc.), but it turns out that you are mistaken. However, for copyright to apply, you actually have to copy something. If you coincidentally come up with the exact same song that someone else wrote already, but you never heard about the other person's song, you would not infringe copyright in the other person's song. In contrast, patents infringement is "strict liability," meaning that you can infringe a patent without even knowing that the patent exists.
    - goodness 17y ago
      If this is really the case, then it seems to be a loophole for a reverse scenario. You write a computer algorithm to generate vast collections of music. Since the computer, pretty much by definition, is ignorant of other music then you can claim copyright over everything it generates. Wait for it to produce "copies" of popular melodies and then you can publish cheap clones or license popular songs to people for a fraction of the cost of the originals. If there is an objection that the computer isn't considered a person, then form a corporation and copyright the songs to the corporation. The corporation is equally ignorant of any other music. Human judgment is only exercised by a second corporation that searches the first corporations extensive database to find popular melodies to license.
      - gojomo 17y ago
        Courts are not computers; they apply subtle judgments based on a total reading of scenario. If your intent was to discover and then market tunes identical to popular copyrighted tunes, a court can view the totality of your system as 'copying' existing works. If your two corporations exist to obscure the real intent of the people behind them, a court can treat them as co-defendants.
  - lmkg 17y ago
    IANAL either, but I think you're misunderstanding. Ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse for breaking the law. But if you're not copying the original copyrighted source, you're not breaking the law in the first place. Copyright only protects against copying, and unlike patents, does not protect against independently creating the same or similar work (operative word "independently"). Relevant quotes from wikipedia: > "... two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that the duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other." > "Infringement requires... that the defendant copied the protected work... 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." So in the example the poster above gave, you can't just own the copyrights. You also have to get your work distributed widely enough to claim that the author was aware of your work, from which you can build a troll-ish infringement claim.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    I am a lawyer, and I can tell you that you're wrong. Copyright infringement is entirely dependent on the state of mind of the infringer: you have to know that a work exists, and deliberate copy from that work, in order to be guilty of copyright infringment. The reason: it's possible for people to independently come up with the same "art", especially in music, so infringement is infringement only if its deliberate. Courts have come up with degrees of deliberateness, ranging from intentional to accidental. (Yes, that defeats the point of using the word "deliberate".) Accidental infringement (knowing of a work in the back of your mind, and copying it, without conscious decision) usually results in minimal damages. On another note, any person who hires a law firm (ladas.com) that doesn't understand basic copyright law deserves to lose their case.

lmkg 17y ago

One of the main differences between copyrights and patents is that in order to infringe on a copyright, you have to be willfully imitating it. Coincidentally creating an identical work is not copyright violation if you didn't know about it.

goodness 17y ago
I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem consistent with any other law in the US. Ignorance is never an excuse. Also, the first result from a google search for 'copyright infringement willful' yields this: http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html which says: 'Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer; "innocent" infringement is infringement nonetheless.' As with patents though, I think the intent does play a role in determining damages.
- gojomo 17y ago
  But coincidence is not copying. The quote you've excerpted is when someone actually copies something, but thought it was alright to do so.
- cduan 17y ago
  Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but ignorance of the facts is frequently an excuse. "Innocent" copyright infringement can occur when you think it is legal to copy something (e.g. the copyright has expired, it is fair use, etc.), but it turns out that you are mistaken. However, for copyright to apply, you actually have to copy something. If you coincidentally come up with the exact same song that someone else wrote already, but you never heard about the other person's song, you would not infringe copyright in the other person's song. In contrast, patents infringement is "strict liability," meaning that you can infringe a patent without even knowing that the patent exists.
  - goodness 17y ago
    If this is really the case, then it seems to be a loophole for a reverse scenario. You write a computer algorithm to generate vast collections of music. Since the computer, pretty much by definition, is ignorant of other music then you can claim copyright over everything it generates. Wait for it to produce "copies" of popular melodies and then you can publish cheap clones or license popular songs to people for a fraction of the cost of the originals. If there is an objection that the computer isn't considered a person, then form a corporation and copyright the songs to the corporation. The corporation is equally ignorant of any other music. Human judgment is only exercised by a second corporation that searches the first corporations extensive database to find popular melodies to license.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      Courts are not computers; they apply subtle judgments based on a total reading of scenario. If your intent was to discover and then market tunes identical to popular copyrighted tunes, a court can view the totality of your system as 'copying' existing works. If your two corporations exist to obscure the real intent of the people behind them, a court can treat them as co-defendants.
- lmkg 17y ago
  IANAL either, but I think you're misunderstanding. Ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse for breaking the law. But if you're not copying the original copyrighted source, you're not breaking the law in the first place. Copyright only protects against copying, and unlike patents, does not protect against independently creating the same or similar work (operative word "independently"). Relevant quotes from wikipedia: > "... two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that the duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other." > "Infringement requires... that the defendant copied the protected work... 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." So in the example the poster above gave, you can't just own the copyrights. You also have to get your work distributed widely enough to claim that the author was aware of your work, from which you can build a troll-ish infringement claim.
- fatdog789 17y ago
  I am a lawyer, and I can tell you that you're wrong. Copyright infringement is entirely dependent on the state of mind of the infringer: you have to know that a work exists, and deliberate copy from that work, in order to be guilty of copyright infringment. The reason: it's possible for people to independently come up with the same "art", especially in music, so infringement is infringement only if its deliberate. Courts have come up with degrees of deliberateness, ranging from intentional to accidental. (Yes, that defeats the point of using the word "deliberate".) Accidental infringement (knowing of a work in the back of your mind, and copying it, without conscious decision) usually results in minimal damages. On another note, any person who hires a law firm (ladas.com) that doesn't understand basic copyright law deserves to lose their case.