8 ms·

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but wouldn't this open the door to allowing someone to copy just portions of a copyrighted work if the work is only copyrigh

by jamroom 14y ago

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but wouldn't this open the door to allowing someone to copy just portions of a copyrighted work if the work is only copyrighted as a "whole"? Would this require a company (or individual) to copyright every sub system in a larger system? I'm certain I am overlooking something as that seems an unreasonable burden.

cheald 14y ago
The issue here is that Oracle can't assert copyright on the individual pieces because they didn't write them. They were contributed by others. Oracles only copyright is on the work as a whole. To that end, you could go ahead and copy pieces of the copyrighted work, but you would still be subject to lawsuits by the people that wrote the original individual piece. You just wouldn't be subject to lawsuits by Oracle. It's still infringement, but Oracle isn't the infringed party.
- jamroom 14y ago
  Thank you - that makes sense. I must have glossed over the part that the 37 API's in question were not copyrighted by Oracle. Thanks!
  - telcodud 14y ago
    Actually, 37 packages are in question. See https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/195596382982258691 https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/19559638298225869...
- seldo 14y ago
  I was unaware that the APIs were contributed by others. Do you have any idea who might be some of the (theoretical) copyright holders of the individual APIs?
  - foamdino 14y ago
    There is significant code in the Java libraries that was first written by people outside of Sun/Oracle. Back in the Java5 days some APIs provided by Java were simply javax.something wrapped around org.apache code.
- bo1024 14y ago
  But that would seem to imply that, for example, the RIAA can't sue someone for downloading half a song (or all but the last 5 seconds).
  - jerf 14y ago
    A single song is not a "collective work". If anyone is tempted to start spinning the English meaning of the term "collected" to point out how in some sense a song is often a collection of a lot of other elements that may be further copyrighted, stop. The English meaning is not the relevant one, the legal meaning is. A single song is not, legally, a collected work, it is a single work. If anyone is tempted to construct some exceptional song-like thing that is also a collected work, yes, very good, you've got your thesis topic for your copyright class all laid out, but it is an exception, not the rule.
    - Arelius 14y ago
      Curious, would this case be different if the song was a Mashup? I suspect so, right?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jerf 14y ago
        A mashup would be a derivative work of several original works, not a collection of works. Also, for the record, that wasn't the question I was trying to forestall with my last paragraph. I was more after someone doing something bizarre like creating a multi-hour "song" where each "instrument" is a full other song loaded as one big sample or something. Generally speaking the answer to this sort of trickery is "You're a programmer, and you're using thought processes designed to slip things past computers. Judges are human." There are certainly ways to "slip things past" a human judge as well, but they are very different. Human judges generally react poorly to outright sophistry, where computers don't mind it one bit.
        14y ago

by jamroom 14y ago

cheald 14y ago

The issue here is that Oracle can't assert copyright on the individual pieces because they didn't write them. They were contributed by others. Oracles only copyright is on the work as a whole. To that end, you could go ahead and copy pieces of the copyrighted work, but you would still be subject to lawsuits by the people that wrote the original individual piece. You just wouldn't be subject to lawsuits by Oracle. It's still infringement, but Oracle isn't the infringed party.

jamroom 14y ago
Thank you - that makes sense. I must have glossed over the part that the 37 API's in question were not copyrighted by Oracle. Thanks!
- telcodud 14y ago
  Actually, 37 packages are in question. See https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/195596382982258691 https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/19559638298225869...
seldo 14y ago
I was unaware that the APIs were contributed by others. Do you have any idea who might be some of the (theoretical) copyright holders of the individual APIs?
- foamdino 14y ago
  There is significant code in the Java libraries that was first written by people outside of Sun/Oracle. Back in the Java5 days some APIs provided by Java were simply javax.something wrapped around org.apache code.
bo1024 14y ago
But that would seem to imply that, for example, the RIAA can't sue someone for downloading half a song (or all but the last 5 seconds).
- jerf 14y ago
  A single song is not a "collective work". If anyone is tempted to start spinning the English meaning of the term "collected" to point out how in some sense a song is often a collection of a lot of other elements that may be further copyrighted, stop. The English meaning is not the relevant one, the legal meaning is. A single song is not, legally, a collected work, it is a single work. If anyone is tempted to construct some exceptional song-like thing that is also a collected work, yes, very good, you've got your thesis topic for your copyright class all laid out, but it is an exception, not the rule.
  - Arelius 14y ago
    Curious, would this case be different if the song was a Mashup? I suspect so, right?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jerf 14y ago
      A mashup would be a derivative work of several original works, not a collection of works. Also, for the record, that wasn't the question I was trying to forestall with my last paragraph. I was more after someone doing something bizarre like creating a multi-hour "song" where each "instrument" is a full other song loaded as one big sample or something. Generally speaking the answer to this sort of trickery is "You're a programmer, and you're using thought processes designed to slip things past computers. Judges are human." There are certainly ways to "slip things past" a human judge as well, but they are very different. Human judges generally react poorly to outright sophistry, where computers don't mind it one bit.
      - 14y ago