4 ms·

Do you code? How about you send me the source to your best known, commercial product, and then I'll reformat the source, call it a derivative work, and sell it

Do you code? How about you send me the source to your best known, commercial product, and then I'll reformat the source, call it a derivative work, and sell it. That's cool, right? Of course not. I see this as being not that different. Which really brings up the key to this, which is what is considered "derivative". Everyone has a different concept of it, I'm sure, and it's not cut and dried. To me, simply taking a picture someone else took, and digitizing or pixellating it, is not something that I would consider "derivative". I liken it to sampling music to be used in a "derivative" work. In the vast majority of those cases, the samples have to pass through the proper licensing and be released for use before they are resold. And while the guy might not have created the content of the picture, he spent the time and effort to actually go and take the picture. Doesn't matter if he spent a month setting up the content and lighting to get the perfect shot, or sat on his cel-phone camera and it took a great picture as a result of blind luck, it's his picture. If he wants to sell that picture for profit, and has cleared the rights of the content of it, that is his prerogative. I think that the pixellated image would require something similar to a mechanical license that you find in the music industry, where someone creates the song, but then gives the rights for another band to record and sell their version of it.

CountSessine 15y ago
Do you code? How about you send me the source to your best known, commercial product, and then I'll reformat the source, call it a derivative work, and sell it. That's cool, right? Of course not I see this as being not that different. It's completely different. Look at clauses 1 & 4 of the Copyright Act as sited in the article. The spirit of this 'derivative work' concept rests on the contribution of the derivative work to the general state of the art (does it add anything?), and the effect on the existing works (does is take food out of the original artists's mouth?). Taking source code and recompiling it and redistributing it without making any contribution yourself is completely outside the idea of a derivative work. Even modifying it in some significant way, if it deprives me of my livelihood, probably doesn't work. Pixelating a Miles Davis picture is absolutely a derivative work, especially as an adjunct to an 8-bit rework of one of the man's albums. There's no substitutability at all between this pixelated version and the original picture - it would have exactly 0 (zero) effect on the demand or availability of the original photo of Davis. To me, simply taking a picture someone else took, and digitizing or pixellating it, is not something that I would consider "derivative". I liken it to sampling music to be used in a "derivative" work. In the vast majority of those cases, the samples have to pass through the proper licensing and be released for use before they are resold. Yes - and I'm against requiring licensing for music resampling as well. The test should be substitutability and contribution, not establishing arbitrary control over the way intellectual property is allowed to evolve and who is allowed to reshape it.
enneff 15y ago
A more apt comparison: Say you're a game programmer and you wrote an addictive platformer for the 486-era IBM PC. It's a game that brings warm nostalgia to the average 30-something gamer. It's the best game you ever wrote, but a lot of time has passed since then. Some guy comes along and writes a remake for the ZX Spectrum 48k and releases it for a nominal charge. How do you feel? What can you do?
Confusion 15y ago
You know, in forty years, when my reputation is firmly established and your reformatting doesn't threaten my commercial interests in any way, I will send you my best code. See my other comments for why these kinds of analogies are too far off to make a useful point.
vacri 15y ago
And so this justifies starting out with a legal sledgehammer instead of a polite "You don't have the rights here, please stop" letter?

CountSessine 15y ago

Do you code? How about you send me the source to your best known, commercial product, and then I'll reformat the source, call it a derivative work, and sell it. That's cool, right? Of course not I see this as being not that different. It's completely different. Look at clauses 1 & 4 of the Copyright Act as sited in the article. The spirit of this 'derivative work' concept rests on the contribution of the derivative work to the general state of the art (does it add anything?), and the effect on the existing works (does is take food out of the original artists's mouth?). Taking source code and recompiling it and redistributing it without making any contribution yourself is completely outside the idea of a derivative work. Even modifying it in some significant way, if it deprives me of my livelihood, probably doesn't work. Pixelating a Miles Davis picture is absolutely a derivative work, especially as an adjunct to an 8-bit rework of one of the man's albums. There's no substitutability at all between this pixelated version and the original picture - it would have exactly 0 (zero) effect on the demand or availability of the original photo of Davis. To me, simply taking a picture someone else took, and digitizing or pixellating it, is not something that I would consider "derivative". I liken it to sampling music to be used in a "derivative" work. In the vast majority of those cases, the samples have to pass through the proper licensing and be released for use before they are resold. Yes - and I'm against requiring licensing for music resampling as well. The test should be substitutability and contribution, not establishing arbitrary control over the way intellectual property is allowed to evolve and who is allowed to reshape it.

enneff 15y ago

A more apt comparison: Say you're a game programmer and you wrote an addictive platformer for the 486-era IBM PC. It's a game that brings warm nostalgia to the average 30-something gamer. It's the best game you ever wrote, but a lot of time has passed since then. Some guy comes along and writes a remake for the ZX Spectrum 48k and releases it for a nominal charge. How do you feel? What can you do?

Confusion 15y ago

You know, in forty years, when my reputation is firmly established and your reformatting doesn't threaten my commercial interests in any way, I will send you my best code. See my other comments for why these kinds of analogies are too far off to make a useful point.

vacri 15y ago

And so this justifies starting out with a legal sledgehammer instead of a polite "You don't have the rights here, please stop" letter?