|
in reply to Fair Use When Referring to Book Answers?
I think that in general, so long as you cite the source, copying small snippits of code to answer someone's questions is fine. Technically, copyright law is supposed to protect an author's economic rights to profit from their work. So if you tried to sell code that is protected by copyright, or used it in order to produce something that you would sell (for instance, taking code right out of a book and putting it into software that you intend to sell), that's stealing. But, referencing a book when teaching someone something (assuming you are not charging them for the teaching) should be okay. Consider that the person asking the question would probably not go out and buy the book simply because you tell them that the Cookbook has an answer to their question, so you're not exactly taking money out of the pockets of authors. But, if the Cookbook answer is helpful, they might be more inclined to buy the book in case it come in handy the next time they get stuck.
ivory |
Re: Re: Fair Use When Referring to Book Answers?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Nov 19, 2000 at 18:11 UTC
|
Actually (in the US) the purpose of copyright law is to
promote the production and dissemination of knowledge into
the public domain. Preserving the ability of the author
to make a profit is mechanism, not purpose.
In point of fact it is a spectacular failure at its intent
because it has proven too easy for the owners of
intellectual property to manipulate the laws. It also does
not matter on a practical level either. The laws are the
laws and they apply whether or not you or the author planned
to make money - or even if the author intended (using the
GPL) to subvert the whole system! | [reply] |
|
|
Although quite a few philosophers, etc. have talked about this sort of purpose in theory (think Nozick, Mill, etc.), I still think that the main purpose of copyright law (and patent law) is to preserve the author's (or inventor's) ability to profit from their work.
In general, these older legal traditions were created with the sole intention of allowing the wealthy to retain their wealth, in this case by expanding our normal understanding of property rights to include intellectual property. The idea with property rights in general, be they real or intellectual property rights is, first and foremost, retention of economic interest.
ivory
| [reply] |
|
|
The reasons for allowing copyrights and patents vary by country. In some (particularly in Europe) the reasoning is as you present. But within the US though we have excellent records of the original reasoning behind allowing it and my statement is a correct presentation of it. For a random instance here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject. A sample:
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
This is why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution reads, To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;.
There it is, in the Constitution, precisely said. The purpose of copyrights and patents in the US is to promote the progress of science and useful arts by giving authors and inventors a limited opportunity to attempt to make a profit. This must be balanced against the fact that government supported monopolies are in and of themselves generally a loss to society. Hence the importance of the limit, and the importance of having the intellectual property pass into the public domain.
The current copyright laws have so far forgotten the intent of the Constitution as to be a sick joke. :-(
| [reply] |
|
|
