VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
abalashov at evaristes...
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
 |
|
Hi folks,
I am curious for your thoughts on US HR 5889:
http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
While I am sure that the implications of this bill, as it appears to be
constructed, have no significant implication on Asterisk as such, it could
potentially injure the community of open-source addons, modules, and
helper applications surrounding it and essential to its use in many
scenarios.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tilghman at mail.jeffa...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
|
|
On Saturday 05 July 2008 18:33:50 Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | I am curious for your thoughts on US HR 5889:
http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
While I am sure that the implications of this bill, as it appears to be
constructed, have no significant implication on Asterisk as such, it could
potentially injure the community of open-source addons, modules, and
helper applications surrounding it and essential to its use in many
scenarios.
|
After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors of
that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it. HR 5889 makes clear
mention of the diligence that is required, and, if notified of the
infringement, the infringer must cease to make use of the work, unless
he pays the copyright owner a price that the owner demands. Furthermore,
the existence of an active email account on the copyrighted work in question
would completely negate any claim of due diligence, by the plain language
of the bill.
Additionally, the blog piece completely misses the qualification of the
commercial database: to qualify, they must contain all authors and all
contact information, and if any contact information is readily available, and
they do not put it in their database, they stand to lose certification as a
copyright database. So much for having to pay to register your work. In
short, this bill is very well balanced, and I certainly hope it becomes law.
--
Tilghman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tompoe at fngi.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
|
|
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
| Quote: | On Saturday 05 July 2008 18:33:50 Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | I am curious for your thoughts on US HR 5889:
http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
While I am sure that the implications of this bill, as it appears to be
constructed, have no significant implication on Asterisk as such, it could
potentially injure the community of open-source addons, modules, and
helper applications surrounding it and essential to its use in many
scenarios.
|
After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors of
that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it. HR 5889 makes clear
mention of the diligence that is required, and, if notified of the
infringement, the infringer must cease to make use of the work, unless
he pays the copyright owner a price that the owner demands. Furthermore,
the existence of an active email account on the copyrighted work in question
would completely negate any claim of due diligence, by the plain language
of the bill.
Additionally, the blog piece completely misses the qualification of the
commercial database: to qualify, they must contain all authors and all
contact information, and if any contact information is readily available, and
they do not put it in their database, they stand to lose certification as a
copyright database. So much for having to pay to register your work. In
short, this bill is very well balanced, and I certainly hope it becomes law.
|
Then again, Lessig felt strong enough about the bill to publish an op-ed
in the NYT. By the way, are you familiar with the senator that authored
the bill?
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abalashov at evaristes...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
|
|
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
| Quote: | After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors of
that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it. HR 5889 makes clear
mention of the diligence that is required
|
What would it take to retroactively conjure the due diligence?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tilghman at mail.jeffa...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
|
|
On Saturday 05 July 2008 20:01:19 Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | Tilghman Lesher wrote:
| Quote: | After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors
of that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it. HR 5889 makes
clear mention of the diligence that is required
|
What would it take to retroactively conjure the due diligence?
|
The bill makes it clear that evidence must be provided that the due diligence
was done prior to the infringement or else the defense is not valid. It would
be fairly difficult to forge phone records or a record that an email was sent
and have it stand up in court. Any person who wants their diligence to stand
up in court is going to have to be very careful.
I have some history with the other side of this question. I've been active
with the Apple II community in the past, and finding legitimate titles in
print has been very difficult. Remaining on the correct side of the law for
many of these works is very difficult, where even the author doesn't know if
they have the rights to the title or if their publishing company, long out of
business, has those rights. Without a clear law to distinguish how a
reproduction right can be established, many of those software titles might be
lost forever. Tracking down the rights holders is very difficult, time-
consuming, and has no guarantee of success.
In certain cases where both the publisher and the author are able to be
contacted, sometimes neither are willing to grant the rights, because they
simply aren't sure who owns the copyright. The author points at the
publisher, and the publisher points back to the author. Neither wants to be
on the wrong side of the law.
By the way, just to keep this on topic, Mark long ago printed out the source
code to Asterisk and registered the code with the Copyright Office. What is
there now can be considered a derivative work of that original piece, so the
Asterisk source is fairly safe from these techniques. So as Alex correctly
pointed out, even if this were a problem to other projects, Asterisk is safe.
--
Tilghman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tilghman at mail.jeffa...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] HR 5889. |
|
|
On Saturday 05 July 2008 19:59:25 Tom Poe wrote:
| Quote: | Tilghman Lesher wrote:
| Quote: | On Saturday 05 July 2008 18:33:50 Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | I am curious for your thoughts on US HR 5889:
http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
While I am sure that the implications of this bill, as it appears to be
constructed, have no significant implication on Asterisk as such, it
could potentially injure the community of open-source addons, modules,
and helper applications surrounding it and essential to its use in many
scenarios.
|
After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors
of that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it. HR 5889 makes
clear mention of the diligence that is required, and, if notified of the
infringement, the infringer must cease to make use of the work, unless he
pays the copyright owner a price that the owner demands. Furthermore,
the existence of an active email account on the copyrighted work in
question would completely negate any claim of due diligence, by the plain
language of the bill.
Additionally, the blog piece completely misses the qualification of the
commercial database: to qualify, they must contain all authors and all
contact information, and if any contact information is readily available,
and they do not put it in their database, they stand to lose
certification as a copyright database. So much for having to pay to
register your work. In short, this bill is very well balanced, and I
certainly hope it becomes law.
|
Then again, Lessig felt strong enough about the bill to publish an op-ed
in the NYT.
|
I am not familiar with that. Perhaps you would be kind enough to mention the
URL?
| Quote: | By the way, are you familiar with the senator that authored
the bill?
|
The bill in question is HR 5889. That is a House notation, and therefore,
this bill was introduced by a Representative. There may be a similar bill
before the Senate, but that is not this one. Perhaps you have the legislation
confused with another bill? It is not uncommon for the provisions for a
similar bill in purpose to be vastly different between the House and Senate
versions. I can only speak to the bill I read.
--
Tilghman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
