The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Hypothetical IP scenario (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
A song is protected in a lot of independent ways. First, there's the written expression of the song: notes on the page, lyrics, etc.

Then, if the song is recorded, there are a lot of creative aspects that go in to that particular recording. The mixing, the creative interpretations of the artists in that particular performance (e.g., the tempo, the volume, the riffing, etc.). If that song is on an album, there is at least potentially a certain degree of creativity that goes into selecting those particular songs in that particular order.

For example, Mozart's works -- as written down by Mozart or re-published by his contemporaries -- are all public domain, because they're old enough for the copyrights to have expired. But if you go buy a modern recording of one of Mozart's works, you'll still see a copyright notice. What's being protected? Not the notes, but rather the creative aspects of the performer's and/or engineers' contribution to making that recording.


But, to be sure, copyrights only subsist in *tangible* mediums of expression -- written, recorded, etc. So if you independently came up with a song all in your head, performed it live for a group of people, and nobody recorded it, then nothing prevents someone else from performing it elsewhere. It's kind of a silly example practically speaking, but hopefully it's instructive.
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 16:17, kcg5 wrote:
What if you stubbled upon a list of magic PDF's (not enycrypted)? Is it illegal to download from it? Should the user feel the ethical need to tell all the performers/authors?


Far be it from me to say what's ethical. But in terms of copyright law, there's no "intent" requirement to be an infringer. In other words, if you're downloading something copyrighted (or providing something copyrighted for download by others), you don't have to know it's copyrighted in order for it to be copyright infringement.

Nor is there a requirement for the copyright holder to protect their works by encryption or digital rights management technology.

Of course, even though the textbook answer is that you're an infringer, the practical consequences are often another story. But that's another question...
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
And nor is there a requirement for the copyright holder to register the copyright. It exists upon creation.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 16:34, MobilityBundle wrote:
A song is protected in a lot of independent ways. First, there's the written expression of the song: notes on the page, lyrics, etc.

Then, if the song is recorded, there are a lot of creative aspects that go in to that particular recording. The mixing, the creative interpretations of the artists in that particular performance (e.g., the tempo, the volume, the riffing, etc.). If that song is on an album, there is at least potentially a certain degree of creativity that goes into selecting those particular songs in that particular order.

For example, Mozart's works -- as written down by Mozart or re-published by his contemporaries -- are all public domain, because they're old enough for the copyrights to have expired. But if you go buy a modern recording of one of Mozart's works, you'll still see a copyright notice. What's being protected? Not the notes, but rather the creative aspects of the performer's and/or engineers' contribution to making that recording.


But, to be sure, copyrights only subsist in *tangible* mediums of expression -- written, recorded, etc. So if you independently came up with a song all in your head, performed it live for a group of people, and nobody recorded it, then nothing prevents someone else from performing it elsewhere. It's kind of a silly example practically speaking, but hopefully it's instructive.


So you could perform concerts, for paying audiences, comprised entirely of other peoples songs, so long as nothing is recorded?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
Nope. That's a little backwards. Copyrights EXIST only in tangible media, but it's possible to INFRINGE copyrights by performance.

Since you ask, here is the statutory list of no-no's. Doing any of these results in copyright infringement. And, to be sure, the list is non-exhaustive, so at least in principal doing something not on the list can get you in trouble:

"[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

To be sure, in the case of sound recordings and nondramatic musical works, there are some limitations. Basically, you can still "cover" songs, but you must pay licensing fees.

If you want to peruse the specifics of the those limitations, look at sections 114 and 115 in the following link. Or if you want to peruse a little more in general, the following link has all the foundational statutes for copyrights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode......0_1.html

Just an organizational note, sections 101 to 106 lay the groundwork of just when and how copyrights exist. Sections 107 to 122 scale back those rights in certain situations. In other words, sections 107 to 122 provide defenses or exceptions to infringement.

They're generally in decreasing order of importance. So section 107 is the basis of the fair use defense, which is used literally every day by newspapers, critics, etc. This is the defense that makes most of youtube legal. At the other end of the spectrum, section 122 covers secondary transmissions by satellite carriers within local markets. Which I guess is huge if you happen to be a satellite carrier, but not so interesting for the rest of us.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 17:40, LobowolfXXX wrote:
And nor is there a requirement for the copyright holder to register the copyright. It exists upon creation.


Very true. But you do need to register the copyright if you want to recover damages for infringement. (I know YOU knew that Lobo, but I just wanted to make it clear to non-lawyers that registering is a good idea when it comes to potential remedies.)

Good thoughts,

Bob
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
If that's the case, and this is something I have never really understood, way are magic effects not covered like songs are?

Not that I want, in any way shape or form, an expansion in IP law, nor does the magic industry have the clout to buy it's way into regulation like the music and film distributors, but this is something I have wondered for some time.

Can you imagine if magic managed this kind of "protection?" Considering the limitations and troubles that have come from sequences of less than a half dozen notes in songs, progress in magic, particularly specific plots, would grind to a halt.
Just think about how many routines and effects have sequences from other effects/routines/performers?
Magic, of all "art forms," is probably one of the most dependant on derivative works.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2011-05-24 22:15, gdw wrote:
progress in magic, particularly specific plots, would grind to a halt.
Really, has music ground to a halt? It is based on a very small finite number of specific notes.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Tom, apples and oranges.

How many effects and routines are derivative, compared to songs?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2758 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2011-05-22 23:19, gdw wrote:
HeSo, let's say that there was some sort of IP protection for magic effects/methods.


Even hypothetically there can't really be IP protection for an effect. A method certainly but if you can come up with a similar effect without using the exact method, you should be safe. This is similar to a case I read where a hacker (back when the term meant someone who "hacked" at the keyboard until he'd created the program he wanted) created a "Ms. Pac Man" game that was superior to the home released "Pac Man." Atari tried to show that he'd used their code in creating his game. He proved he hadn't and the case was thrown out. (I think Atari may have bought his "Ms. Pac Man" code and released it, but I'm not certain.)

On the other hand, Harlan Ellison has sued and won at least twice for what I thought were awfully thin reasons.

He sued the producers of "Holmes and Yoyo" a comedy show about a mismatched pair of cops one of whom was a robot, claiming it was too close to his own "Brillo" a serious story about a beat cop partnered with a non-humnanoid robot. With his winnings, he bought a billboard that overlooked the studio and had the court decision printed on it.

He also sued the producers of "Terminator," claiming that the story was similar to a short story he'd written which had been made into an "Outer Limits" episode. The episode dealt with a future soldier who'd been blasted back to our time. As he begins to adjust to a world which isn't overwhelmed in constant warfare, he's unaware that an enemy soldier has been blasted back and is tracking him. Winning that one got him a credit inserted into the screen crawl of the video release.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

Profile of MobilityBundle
It's an interesting distinction, Ed, between effect and method. I'm not sure it's a meaningful distinction in patent law, however.

Consider, for example, the ambitious card routine. The effect is that the card keeps coming to the top. The methods can vary wildly, from simple controls to elaborate gimmicks. But if I'm writing a patent for the ambitious card routine, and if I were being aggressive in terms of what I wanted to patent, I could describe the steps like this:

1. Have a spectator select a card;

2. Have the spectator return the card to the deck;

3. Secretly move the selected card to a known location in the deck; and

4. Display the selected card as apparently on top of the deck.

(To be sure, this is somewhat informal language, but you get the idea.)

If I recognize and describe in my patent application that there are a lot of ways to do 3 and 4, then the protection I might get is greater than the ways I explicitly list. I also get protection on "equivalent" methods. Technically, it's not patenting the effect, but it's patenting a WHOLE lot of methods. For example, if I describe all kinds of sleights to do steps 3 or 4, a gimmick probably wouldn't be considered "equivalent," but many other sleights might be.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 08:56, gdw wrote:
Tom, apples and oranges.
Maybe so, but it is YOU who made the comparison.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 13:02, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 08:56, gdw wrote:
Tom, apples and oranges.
Maybe so, but it is YOU who made the comparison.


Not quite the comparison I was making Tom, though I can see the confusion.

As for the idea of replicating an effect (the perceived performance) with different methods (tools and arrangement,) how is that different than performing the same, or similar song but with different instruments, or musical arrangement?

I don't see how that would prevent the "effect" from being protected the way the song is.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Methods in magic = techniques in music.

Instruments in music = props in magic.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 17:22, Tom Cutts wrote:
Methods in magic = techniques in music.

Instruments in music = props in magic.


Your point?
You can play the same song with different technique.

Also, if you change instruments, you'll be using different techniques.

Either way, you can change the musical method equivalent, and still be playing the same song, same as, when changing a method, you can still be creating the same effect.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 18:24, gdw wrote:
You can play the same song with different technique.

Your Point?

Quote:
Also, if you change instruments, you'll be using different techniques.
Not necessarily.

Quote:
Either way, you can change the musical method equivalent, and still be playing the same song, same as, when changing a method, you can still be creating the same effect.
Yup, and it hasn't crippled musical creation.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 19:03, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 18:24, gdw wrote:
You can play the same song with different technique.

Your Point?

My point is that it's the same as how you can change the method and perform the same effect.


Quote:
On 2011-05-25 19:03, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
Also, if you change instruments, you'll be using different techniques.
Not necessarily.


Tom, I'm guessing you've never played any (at least not ore than one) instrument.

Quote:
On 2011-05-25 19:03, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
Either way, you can change the musical method equivalent, and still be playing the same song, same as, when changing a method, you can still be creating the same effect.
Yup, and it hasn't crippled musical creation.


First, that wasn't what that comparison was about. It had nothing to do with the "crippling" of music creation. The comparison had to do explicitly with the idea of "effects" being, hypothetically, protected the same way a song was.

A separate point was made about how such protection, in magic, would drastically limit creativity, as magic is a highly derivative art form, far more so that music, which would be why you bringing the notion of different techniques used to perform the same song/effects and a restriction therein being "crippling" for music vs magic is missing (both) point(s).
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2011-05-25 20:37, gdw wrote:
Tom, I'm guessing you've never played any (at least not ore than one) instrument.
Much like this topic, you couldn't be more wrong. So much so that your statement:

Quote:
magic is a highly derivative art form
only exemplifies your ignorance further. Magic is derivative because if has been allow to be. Stopping that option will NOT stop the creation of magic routines and effects. It will only redirect it toward more original pursuits.

I will repeat, music is composed of the same very few notes, yet it's artistic variation and expression is ever expanding. Magic would be very much the same, if not for the ill minded who take the position that protection of true intellectual property will grind creativity to a halt.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Tom, it wasn't a "statement," it was, as the wording suggests, a "guess."

And Tom, on the instruments, we are probably just talking past eachother. Unless you are talking going from a piano to an electric keyboard, the technique on uses to play each instrument is different.
Technically, if the musician is more than just mildly proficient, then even going from piano to electric keyboard they will be using (if only slightly) different technique.

As for the rest, though plenty of creativity can come from restrictions, it is negligible, particularly when looking at magic, compared to the amount created through the variations of different effects.

Or would you prefer there be only one cups and balls routine?
Ok, bad example as if there were going to be ANY effect in public domain by now, it would be the cups and balls Smile
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Wow, you just keep on steppin'.

Creation and creativity are not the same. Lots of pointless derivation has been "created" in magic, but far less creativity has come to market. I, for one, would love to see the pointless derivative magic go by the waste side so that meaningful advancements can be given the light they deserve.

Feel free to hide behind your grossley misinformed "guess". It is obvious how off base your statement, oops guess, was. But then I actually know which instruments I play. I don't have to make misguided guesses. But it wasn't really a guess. It is plain to see by most that it was a presumption... And a completely off target one at that.

As to playing instruments, the comments you have made (as opposed to a WAG) lead me to consider that you, in fact, probably play none. If that is the case, nothing you have to say on the matter carries any weight.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Hypothetical IP scenario (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL