Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/23/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote:
> > An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are
> > applicable to any computer program.
>
> What's that they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
>
> Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit 
> September 22, 1997 124 F.3d 1366, 44 USPQ2d 1172 
> <http://digital-law-online.info/cases/44PQ2D1172.htm> Notwithstanding
> our endorsement of abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis, we
> emphasize that the approach is valuable only insofar as it aids the
> court in distinguishing protectable elements of a work from those
> that are unprotectable. Not every case requires an extensive 
> abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. Rather, “the appropriate 
> test to be applied and the order in which its various components are
> to be applied . . . may vary depending upon the claims involved, the 
> procedural posture of the suit, and the nature of the [works] at 
> issue.” Gates Rubber Co.,  9 F.3d at 834 n.12. <124 F.3d 1373>
>
> Where, as here, the alleged infringement constitutes the admitted 
> literal copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a
> work, we need not perform complete abstraction-filtration-comparison
> analysis.
>
> > BusyBox is not a large complex program owned by someone. It is a
> > virtually untraceable amalgam of patches to source code modules by
> > a hundred or more authors that stretches over a span of more than
> > ten years and millions of source code bytes under different
> > licenses.
>
> It's origins are irrelevant,

You may fervently wish so Hyman but that don't make it so. Originality
is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.

"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship. . ."

> as long as some antecedent version permitted the creation of
> derivative works and of combined works without restricting the
> license under which such derivative and combined works could be
> distributed.
>
> > Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat
> > this fact. Let me repeat this fact:
> >
> > Erik Andersen is not the "owner" of any version of BusyBox as you
> > imply.
>
> Erik Andersen is the owner of a derivative and combined work starting
> with the version of BusyBox which contains his changes.

I'll leave to you to tell the judge about combined derivative joint
works. I'm sure he'll listen eagerly to your ramblings.

That's a fantasy Hyman. You will never be able to separate ownership
claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.
You could count the grains of sand on Coney Island easier. A defendant
has every legal right to challenge the validity of a plaintiff's
copyright ownership and require him to identify the exact work. The
defendants in Best Buy have already done so in their Answers.

I truly hope Erik Andersen attempts to claim he has combined copyright
in a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivativeof a derivative of a
derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a
derivative (repeat several thousand times) of a joint work. The Judge
will toss him out on his ass and let him pay the defendants' attorney fees.

> That is the nature of copyright law with respect to the creation of
> derivative and combined works.
This is the nature of derivative works:

"A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”."

> You are free to dislike that law, but you are not free to ignore it.

I'm not ignoring it Hyman *you* are.

> 17 USC 103 
> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000103----000-.html>
>  The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends ... to the
> material contributed by the author of such work ... The copyright in
> such work is independent of ... any copyright protection in the
> preexisting material.

As long as you can identify and properly register the work that *you*
own.

Sincerely,
RJack :)