Dave, strictly on the topic of intellectual property and copyrights, and not on what Ben and Brian decide to do, I don't feel like I can let that go. ;o)
Your example, in my opinion (which I fully realize is probably *contrary* to what the law says about intellectual property), compares apples to oranges, or as a math professor of mine once said, "goats to chickens". We're talking about test questions here. Not a novel, or even a book that contains *original* thoughts and musings as you suggest in your example. So let's take another more analogous example. Let's say that I'm a history teacher, and I'm making a test for my students. I remember some good questions that were asked on a test that I took once upon a time and I pull those tests out and use a few of the questions verbatim on my test. Have I done anything wrong? Not in my opinion. Where did my old teacher get those questions? Don't you suppose that they were asked those questions on some test or other at some point in their schooling? Let me further suggest that if I used my knowledge of what I learned from those past tests, and wrote the questions myself chances are they'd be almost exactly the same anyway. I mean, how many different ways can you ask a student, "When was the war of 1812?", or "Gorge Washington was the first president of the United States. True or False?" To me (and again, I realize this is probably contrary to what the law says, but hey... I'm not a lawyer), test questions aren't (or at least shouldn't be) intellectual property. Do you at least see that this is a better analogy than the one you presented? I also ask: is everyone in the world now prohibited from using the phrase, "Ture or False: You can use more than one <CFCATCH> tag block within a <CFTRY> tag block statement."? Without prior written consent from Brian Simmons (no offense meant, Brian)? Those words are verbatim one of Brian's questions. Do I now own him royalties? Do we seriously think that another intelligent human being setting out to make a test might not think of the same question? What if I'd said, "Can you use more than one <CFCatch> tag block within a <CFTry> block statement?" That's the same question! Does it really matter that I've changed a couple of words? Or if I copyright that test question, can I now expect royalties if anyone uses it? How many different ways could that question be written? It's finite. Once all the different ways have been used is it now impossible for anyone to ask that question without hiring a lawyer? Next, do you realize that you've blatantly plagiarized my intellectual property below? You used my exact words in the precise order that I wrote them, but did not give me credit. The email simply states, "Dave Watts wrote:" and then proceeds with my words. It gives me no credit, and could lead an uninformed reader to believe that you wrote those words. Of course, that's entirely silly, but I'm just making a point. I think people can take this intellectual property thing a bit too far. I'm tired of things like this potentially bogging down an already overworked court system. Do you realize that by now the character Micky Mouse (dare I even write the words lest I be sued by Walt Disney Inc.?) is supposed to be in the public domain? But Disney keeps lobbying congress to increase the length of time that a copyright can last. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act. Here's a snippet from the first paragraph in that article: "The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998---alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act---extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years." "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" *sigh* What is this world coming to...? Keep in mind these are just my opinions, and I know that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind or the law or the course of human events, but... there they are. Anyway, I've got work to do. Interesting discussion, though. Preparing to run for cover from the hail of stones to be thrown, :o) Chris Dave Watts wrote: >> hmm... I guess so. Well, while I see Brian's point, I have to >> agree with you Neil: Any one of us could have come up with >> these questions without prior knowledge of Brian's questions. >> Also, it's obvious that there was no malicious intent, and >> that Ben was *not* trying to achieve any sort of monetary >> gain from his actions. >> >> Again, while fully recognizing Brian's rights in this matter, >> it just seems a little petty to me. If I would have been in >> his shoes, I'd have watched the site and waited to see if Ben >> was going to try and make any money from it. Other wise I'd >> have considered it flattery, and probably just asked him to >> site me as the originator of the questions. But, I understand >> that he may not have been able to do that even if he wanted. >> > > Whether Ben intended to make any money or not, or whether he would've made > any money or not, is completely irrelevant. The value of Brian's > intellectual property - the creation, arrangement, ordering, etc of > questions - is degraded in either case. That's how intellectual property > works. > > For example, lets say I want to write a book. So, I look at the NYT > bestseller list, and choose Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope". I read it > thoroughly, so thoroughly that I can remember it verbatim. Then, I write my > own book, which is identical to his, word for word, except for the title. > For my book, I choose "The Audacity of a Dope, by Dave Watts". Then, I give > away copies. Would you honestly say that it would be petty for Mr. Obama to > complain? > > >> I love how he starts to publicly give away his content when >> he's got a problem with one of his clients publicly giving >> away his content. Anyone else find that a tad strange? >> > > No, that seems perfectly sensible to me, since the content was already given > away. What does he have to lose? I'd have done the same thing. > > With all that said, I can understand how Ben might have done this without > malicious intent - this is pretty common with proof-of-concept stuff - and > would like nothing better than for everyone to put it behind them as soon as > they can. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, > Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. > Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:266779 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
