Return to menu Passage A Passage B
Return to Menu Passage A Passage B
Passage A Think about t Read About It Talk About It Write About It
Passage A • Think About It • Read About It • Talk About It • Write About It
1. What do you know about copyright? Reference: Open
1. What do you know about copyright? Reference: Open
2. What do you think of piracy Reference: Open
2. What do you think of piracy? Reference: Open
3. What kinds of activities are considered as violating copyright? Reference: Open
3. What kinds of activities are considered as violating copyright? Reference: Open
Read About It Language Points Content Awareness Language Focus
Read About It • Language Points • Content Awareness • Language Focus
10 Big Myths About Copyright 1)If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted. This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it hay'a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's/ works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure
10 Big Myths About Copyright 1)“If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted.” This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure
2)If don't charge for it, it's not a violation. "False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's the main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away-and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesnt include wide-scale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action 3"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain. False Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
2) “If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.” False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s the main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away – and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn’t include wide-scale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. 3) “If it’s posted to Usenet it’s in the public domain.” False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as you have a note from the author/owner saying, I grant this to the public domain 4)"My posting was just fair use! The"fair use"exemption to(U.S) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works Intent and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or
explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” 4) “My posting was just fair use!” The “fair use” exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That’s important so that copyright law doesn’t block your freedom to express your own works. Intent and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you couldn’t find time to write your own story, or
didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? They aren't" fair use" Fair use is usually a short excerpt 5)“ f you don" t defend your copyright you lose it.”-“ Somebody has that name copyrighted! "False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name"or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trademarks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. Like an"Apple"computer. Apple Computer"owns "that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. apple Records owns it when applied to music Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control
didn’t want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? They aren’t “fair use”. Fair use is usually a short excerpt. 5) “If you don’t defend your copyright you lose it.” – “Somebody has that name copyrighted!” False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can’t “copyright a name” or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trademarks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. Like an “Apple” computer. Apple Computer “owns” that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn’t mean complete control
