Expert.C.Programming.pdf

[Nathan Wagner]

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
"...use of a copyrighted work is noncommercial, defeating a fair use defense
requires 'proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it
should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for
the copyrighted work.'"

Fair use is rather more complicated than this snippit would imply. First,
fiar use is an affirmative defense. I don't have to defeat a fair use
defense if fair use isn't established in the first place. See 17 USC 107
for a statutory list of factors to be considered in determining fair use.

I think you've misquoted Sony as well...

"Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively
an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of
the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a
noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the
particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would
adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present
harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder
with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with
certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm
exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be
presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be
demonstrated." 464 US 417 at 451.

This isn't "defeating a fair use defense", it's challenging a non-commercial
use.

Sony isn't really about fair use anyway. It's about whether a product
that has significant non-infringing uses still infringes if it can be
used to infringe.

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors,
but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' . . . To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by
a work."

Also not a fair use case. Feist is about copyright of underlying facts
in a database.

See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 (1994) for a Supreme
Court decision about fair use. This is 10 years after Sony, and perhaps
significantly, after the US joined the Berne Convention.

If anyone cares, here's the statute. Go read the cases for explaination.

17 USC 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use
if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Talk to a lawyer licensed in your
jurisdiction if you think any of this may become directly relevant to you.
ObCaveat: I am half-way through law school, am concentrating on intellectual
property, and am currently writing my note on copyright ownership of
open-source software.

 

[Nathan Wagner]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.

But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.

 

[Jordan Abel]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.

But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.

That's hardly reasonable, though, for a book titled "Expert C
Programming" - Such a discipline has not existed at all, let alone
existed for long enough that there are people who can be called
"experts", long enough for any work about it to have had its copyright
expired.

 

[Keith Thompson]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are
different.

A valid point.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.

True in general, but not in this specific case. The book in question,
_Expert C Programming_ by Peter van der Linden, was published in 1994.
It's vanishingly unlikely that the PDF copy was anything other than
copyright infringement.

I've already informed the publisher, so we needn't worry about it here
(we could even talk about C if we wanted to).

 

[Al Balmer]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.

True, in your world. In my layman's world, "theft of intellectual
property" is a commonly used phrase, whether or not accurate in the
legal sense.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.

I should not have used absolutes here. But we are not talking about
archives of general works, such as the Gutenberg collection, we're
talking about technical works with current applicability and
usefulness, which are pretty much guaranteed to be post-Berne and have
decades to go before expiration.

Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.

Yes. Even now, enforcing a copyright and being compensated for
infringement is easier if notice is given and the copyright is
registered.

 

[Joe Wright]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.

But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.

NAIAL (Nor am I a lawyer)
Copyright protection is afforded to authors more or less automatically.
In most cases the author only declares the copyright. It is not 'applied
for' and then 'granted' by any agency.

 

[CBFalconer]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably)
copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're
looking for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that
are different.

But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on
the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public
domain.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.

Is there no provision to the general effect that, by default,
publishing something in a public place releases any copyright to
that material? As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a
newsgroup is automatically public, and public domain, barring only
use of otherwise copyrighted material.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Chris Hills]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are
different.

A valid point.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created.

Most work is automatically copyrighted by default as it is written in
most areas where there is copyright law.

Prior to joining the Berne

True in general, but not in this specific case. The book in question,
_Expert C Programming_ by Peter van der Linden, was published in 1994.
It's vanishingly unlikely that the PDF copy was anything other than
copyright infringement.

I've already informed the publisher, so we needn't worry about it here
(we could even talk about C if we wanted to).

C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!!

 

[Chris Hills]

[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably)
copyrighted book.

Which aided and abetted a thief.

Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're
looking for. Or should be looking for at any rate.

Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that
are different.

But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on
the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public
domain.

Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.

Is there no provision to the general effect that, by default,
publishing something in a public place releases any copyright to
that material?

Not at all. In fact the exact opposite! Every book and newspaper and web
site is "published" however it is ALL AUTOMATICALLY copyright (where the
copyright law applies) this includes NG's. This is why there is the GNU
GPL and "Copy Left " statements on the open source software removing
some of the copy right restrictions that AUTOMATICALLY apply to anything
published,

As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a
newsgroup is automatically public,

Correct (and automatically copyright)

and public domain,

Correct (and automatically copyright)

barring only
use of otherwise copyrighted material.

Incorrect. (IANAL)

ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author
(assuming the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country
in the Berne convention). It is in the public domain and copyright.
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright. This is
how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the public
domain. they are copy right. That is the whole point of it.


If it was private and not published copyright would not be an issue.
Copyright only works on published items.

If you write something in 2000 but keep it private and I write and
publish something virtually identical in 2005 I have the copyright. The
way round this is you post it you yourself (or a solicitor etc.) in a
sealed envelope and get it signed for etc.

Publishing or communicating it to another is part of the copyright
process.

 

[Nathan Wagner]

I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but the following is flat
out wrong on some points, and is a grand-child of one of my posts,
so I felt the need to correct.

The poster appears to be from Britain, and I will be discussing US copyright
law. Both are Berne Convention countries. It is conceivable that some
of what I will take issue with would be correct in Britain, but I doubt
it. If anyone is really, really interested, send me an email and I'll
see what I can find out about British law.

Not at all. In fact the exact opposite! Every book and newspaper and web site
is "published" however it is ALL AUTOMATICALLY copyright (where the copyright
law applies) this includes NG's.

I'm not sure if a web site is "published" or not. However, it doesn't matter.
Being published is not a requirement for copyright.

This is why there is the GNU GPL and "Copy Left " statements on the open
source software removing some of the copy right restrictions that
AUTOMATICALLY apply to anything published,

No. Copyright applies to a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It
inheres as soon as the work is fixed.

A quick glance of the British Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988
doesn't appear to have the same language, but section 154(4)(a) refers to
unpublished works, and is similar in effect, referring to the time that the
work was made.

Correct (and automatically copyright)

Correct perhaps, but not relevant to the copyright.

Correct (and automatically copyright)

Manifestly and absolutely incorrect. "public domain" and "copyrighted" are
antonyms. If something is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain. If
something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be both.

Incorrect. (IANAL)

Probably correct. I can think of several likely defenses to an infringement
suit based on copying a newsgroup posting.

ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author (assuming
the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country in the Berne
convention).

Probably true. There is enough caselaw that posting to a newsgroup almost
certainly qualifies as having been fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

It is in the public domain and copyright.

This sentence is an oxymoron. It can't be both.

Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright.

Not in the US. Here the reason for having copyright is "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the
Constitution.

In Britain the original purpose was to protect publishers under the statute of
Anne. The purpose has changed since then.

This is how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the
public domain. they are copy right.

This is just so wrong. How they are protected is by reserving certain rights
to copyright holders by statute.

If it was private and not published copyright would not be an issue.
Copyright only works on published items.

Not in the US and not in Britain either. My guess is not in any Berne
Convention country as well, but I haven't read it recently.

Being "published" is not necessary for copyright protection.

If you write something in 2000 but keep it private and I write and publish
something virtually identical in 2005 I have the copyright.

True. You have the copyright to yours, and I have the copyright to mine. They
are both copyrighted by their respective authors. Copyright protects
*copying*. No copying, no infringement.

The way round this is you post it you yourself (or a solicitor etc.) in a
sealed envelope and get it signed for etc.

I'm not going to chase down British case law, but in the US, this is garbage.
You might be able to use this as evidence, but it has no direct legal
significance.

Publishing or communicating it to another is part of the copyright process.

No. Not at all.

Please read up on copyright law before you post about it. Repeating rumors and
urban legends that you heard somewhere doesn't help anyone.

I'm almost certainly skirting the line of topicality on the wrong side. I
appologize for that. Despite having been posting to usenet since 1992, I'm not
entirely sure if ettiquette allows me to post off-topic corrections to a
grand-child of one of my posts. Given how terribly wrong the information in
the post was, and its conceivable legal significance to ownership of posts to
the group or code written, I thought it would be a greater dis-service to allow
it to stand un-corrected.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Correct (and automatically copyright)


Correct (and automatically copyright)


Incorrect. (IANAL)

ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author
(assuming the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country
in the Berne convention). It is in the public domain and copyright.
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright. This is
how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the public
domain. they are copy right. That is the whole point of it.

Chris, I think you've got the terminology wrong here.

My understanding (IANAL) is that the term "public domain"
refers specifically and only to any materials *not* covered by
copyright. It applies only to materials on which the copyright
has expired and materials that have been *explicitly* released to
the public domain by their authors. Examples of public domain
works are the plays of Shakespeare and Doug Gwyn's q8 library
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/q8/>, and CBFalconer's ggets.
Most free software is *not* public domain.

Let me emphasize again that I am not a lawyer. Nobody reading this
should assume, without further research, that I'm right and Chris is
wrong.

The misc.int-property newsgroup would probably be a better place for
this discussion.

 

[Rod Pemberton]

I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but the following is flat
out wrong on some points, and is a grand-child of one of my posts,
so I felt the need to correct.

The poster appears to be from Britain, and I will be discussing US copyright
law. Both are Berne Convention countries. It is conceivable that some
of what I will take issue with would be correct in Britain, but I doubt
it. If anyone is really, really interested, send me an email and I'll
see what I can find out about British law.

I'm not sure if a web site is "published" or not. However, it doesn't matter.
Being published is not a requirement for copyright.


No. Copyright applies to a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It
inheres as soon as the work is fixed.

A quick glance of the British Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988
doesn't appear to have the same language, but section 154(4)(a) refers to
unpublished works, and is similar in effect, referring to the time that the
work was made.


Correct perhaps, but not relevant to the copyright.


Manifestly and absolutely incorrect. "public domain" and "copyrighted" are
antonyms. If something is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain. If
something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be

both.

No. A copyright is a right of property. So, it must be owned and
transfered, under my understanding of US law (from my IP attorney brother).
For "public domain", the copyright is owned by the "public domain." This
ownership can be granted by the original copyright holder or the work can
transfered to the "public domain" by law, such as at the end of a copyright.

Probably correct. I can think of several likely defenses to an infringement
suit based on copying a newsgroup posting.


Probably true. There is enough caselaw that posting to a newsgroup almost
certainly qualifies as having been fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

This sentence is an oxymoron. It can't be both.

No. "public domain" works are copyrighted but owned by the "public domain."
(see above)

Not in the US. Here the reason for having copyright is "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the
Constitution.

In Britain the original purpose was to protect publishers under the statute of
Anne. The purpose has changed since then.


This is just so wrong. How they are protected is by reserving certain rights
to copyright holders by statute.


Not in the US and not in Britain either. My guess is not in any Berne
Convention country as well, but I haven't read it recently.

Being "published" is not necessary for copyright protection.


True. You have the copyright to yours, and I have the copyright to mine. They
are both copyrighted by their respective authors. Copyright protects
*copying*. No copying, no infringement.


I'm not going to chase down British case law, but in the US, this is garbage.
You might be able to use this as evidence, but it has no direct legal
significance.
process.

No. Not at all.

Please read up on copyright law before you post about it. Repeating rumors and
urban legends that you heard somewhere doesn't help anyone.

Comments above.


Rod Pemberton

 

[Al Balmer]

both.

No. A copyright is a right of property. So, it must be owned and
transfered, under my understanding of US law (from my IP attorney brother).
For "public domain", the copyright is owned by the "public domain." This
ownership can be granted by the original copyright holder or the work can
transfered to the "public domain" by law, such as at the end of a copyright.

Nathan is correct. A work is public domain iff the copyright no longer
exists, either by expiration or renunciation by the copyright holder.
There is no transfer of ownership (usually called assignment of
copyright) to some entity known as "the public domain." What would be
the point?

There is another meaning of "public domain" which applies to real
property owned by governments.

Here's an interesting summary of some modern copyright issues:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/cmpe080n/Fall03/Copyright.pdf

 

[Richard G. Riley]

Nathan is correct. A work is public domain iff the copyright no longer
exists, either by expiration or renunciation by the copyright holder.
There is no transfer of ownership (usually called assignment of
copyright) to some entity known as "the public domain." What would be
the point?

There is another meaning of "public domain" which applies to real
property owned by governments.

Here's an interesting summary of some modern copyright issues:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/cmpe080n/Fall03/Copyright.pdf

Al, I would be grateful if you could reply to your own post and remind
yourself that this is *painfully* off topic and that "the folks" in
"*.legal" would be far more interested in this.

 

[Al Balmer]

Al, I would be grateful if you could reply to your own post and remind
yourself that this is *painfully* off topic and that "the folks" in
"*.legal" would be far more interested in this.

I did that already, a couple of days ago. Didn't work.

 

[maigork]

Thank U verry much.

 

[maigork]

Please include your entire question in the body of your message; not
all newsreaders display the subject header in a convenient manner.

Sorry for non including my entire question in the bgody of my
message, I'll doo it next time.

There is a published book by Peter van der Linden called _Expert C
Programming_. As far as I know, it's available only on paper. If
there are soft copies available, they're probably illegal.

I haven't knew that there is only published version of this book.
but i know other : I'm from Croatia (if u know where it is and whats
economic situation in it), I'm student and even if there is published
this book at my place I will probably go for borow it if I can and do a
copy of it--- it's much cheaper (around 75%) than buying a new book.
I'm at universitiy that I dont pay (it's payed by my country) and I
have to have books to study from. How i get to that books my profesors
dont care they only care that i have to know what they ask on exam.
Eg. at my first year there was a subject named programming where we
have studied whole basic of cbrom beginning a program, input, outputand
at the end working with files (open, close, sort- basics). At he second
year theres a subject named algorithms and structures of data where we
study funstions that are calling themselves, stacks, sorts, lists and
every operation with them.
At my language theres no any good book about it so i ask u how to study
that and be good in that if u don't have money for buying books?
And belive me I wont do this if i have other choice.

 

[Randy Howard]

mai wrote

wherefrom can I download it?

You can buy it from a bookstore.

 

[Randy Howard]

Chris Hills wrote

C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!!

There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Chris Hills wrote


There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...

I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the river,
and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time to dry them
before burning, and they're quite dead already, but apart from that,
great fun. ;-)