New Hand Converter

[bigredlemon]

Remember that you are claiming a copyright in the code, not a patent. (You cannot claim a patent on the hand converter script as it was publicly used.) With a copyright, a person is allowed to create an identical work that is an exact replica so long as that person reached the result independently.

Thus proving that GRB's code is an exact duplicate of your own converter is irrelevant in reaching a finding of copyright infringement. Rather, you need to prove that the new code was based upon the original code, and that the new convert was not sufficiently transformed from the original to amount to a new work.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember that you are claiming a copyright in the code, not a patent. (You cannot claim a patent on the hand converter script as it was publicly used.) With a copyright, a person is allowed to create an identical work that is an exact replica so long as that person reached the result independently.

Thus proving that GRB's code is an exact duplicate of your own converter is irrelevant in reaching a finding of copyright infringement. Rather, you need to prove that the new code was based upon the original code, and that the new convert was not sufficiently transformed from the original to amount to a new work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not entirely irrelevant. If grb's code is identical (including some interesting quirks that greenage put into the code), then that would definitely be relevant in determining whether the code was copied. However, even if he could prove copying, to enforce his copyright in court he's going to have to overcome other hurdles, like (a) a pretty serious fair-use defense, and (b) show some actual harm.

In all reality, greenage's complains sound more like trademark issues than copyright issues IMHO.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember that you are claiming a copyright in the code, not a patent. (You cannot claim a patent on the hand converter script as it was publicly used.) With a copyright, a person is allowed to create an identical work that is an exact replica so long as that person reached the result independently.

Thus proving that GRB's code is an exact duplicate of your own converter is irrelevant in reaching a finding of copyright infringement. Rather, you need to prove that the new code was based upon the original code, and that the new convert was not sufficiently transformed from the original to amount to a new work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not entirely irrelevant. If grb's code is identical (including some interesting quirks that greenage put into the code), then that would definitely be relevant in determining whether the code was copied. However, even if he could prove copying, to enforce his copyright in court he's going to have to overcome other hurdles, like (a) a pretty serious fair-use defense, and (b) show some actual harm.

In all reality, greenage's complains sound more like trademark issues than copyright issues IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

where's the mark?

there's some 4 factor test for fair use, but I have blocked most of law school out of my memory (even though I wrote a 25 page paper on the subject for my journal). A biggie is the amount of the material taken though, so if he took the whole thing and just deleted some portions of it then there may not be fair use

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]


where's the mark?

there's some 4 factor test for fair use, but I have blocked most of law school out of my memory (even though I wrote a 25 page paper on the subject for my journal). A biggie is the amount of the material taken though, so if he took the whole thing and just deleted some portions of it then there may not be fair use

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said there was a mark, but greenage's complains sound like them--relating to the look of output, etc. I have blocked most of law school as well [thankfully], but another factor courts would definitely look at was that grb was not using the copy for profit (assuming such copying even took place, of course).

[Bartholow]

I wouldn't be surprised if he sat down with some hands from your converter just to have a quick guide for what the final output should look like.

Not that I believe in IP anyway [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[beset7]

man i lurk here to get away from law school everybody stop it.

where's a thread-locking moderator when you need him. I'll do my part and bump the thread [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
I will give you one day to respond to this charge before I notify 2+2 that I believe a copyright violation has occurred and request that any hands posted with your converter be deleted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Money makes strange bedfellows.

One day you're a friend of the forum offering your services for free; the next you're a sellout and talking to your fellow 2+2'ers like they're criminals.

[djr]

[ QUOTE ]
One day you're a friend of the forum offering your services for free; the next you're a sellout and talking to your fellow 2+2'ers like they're criminals.

[/ QUOTE ]

a bit harsh. But I can't say I totally disagree.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will give you one day to respond to this charge before I notify 2+2 that I believe a copyright violation has occurred and request that any hands posted with your converter be deleted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Money makes strange bedfellows.

One day you're a friend of the forum offering your services for free; the next you're a sellout and talking to your fellow 2+2'ers like they're criminals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet there are tons of college age 2+2ers who could put a different group first if the price was right. And lets face it, college folk are mostly poor.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
where's the mark?

there's some 4 factor test for fair use, but I have blocked most of law school out of my memory (even though I wrote a 25 page paper on the subject for my journal). A biggie is the amount of the material taken though, so if he took the whole thing and just deleted some portions of it then there may not be fair use

[/ QUOTE ]
Is the amount taken really relevent though? I recall Scientology where a critic pretty much quoted an an entire existing internal Scientology manual with comments every few paragraphs. The court found fair use. There's also that marching band case where replaying a 10 second clip of a full song was found to amount to infringement. I think the latter applies here as we are not claiming fair use of the code itself (we can't, since our use is directly completing with greenage's group) but rather we are claiming fair use on the output of the code, whose copyright is not being disputed.

So far, greenage still hasn't revealed what he plans to do with the code. I doubt there is any significant market for it so I presume his partners are trying to compete with 2+2 by creating a new forum where the code can be used for free.

In any case, I think the simplest solution for 2+2 is for someone other than me to create a new converter using PHP without looking at the code and without input from anyone who has. ASP is problematic in that it is almost identical to the vbscript greenage uses. A new converter written in PHP can only be completely different. On a side note, I think that even if I or someone else who has looked at greenage's code decides to write a new one in PHP, it will be sufficiently transformative to defeat a copyright claim, thouogh avoiding this line can save some headache later.