In article ,
WillR wrote:
TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.

WRONG. What law does "approaching the store" violate? There is _no_
violation of _copyright_ laws, until a "copying" is performed.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.

It is.

WRONG.

A 'copying' of a piece of furniture _may_ involve a breach of copyright
law, or it MAY NOT.

A 'blanket' statement *either*way* is demonstrably false.


Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

Correct.

WRONG. Copyright protects a specific "expression" of an idea.
If "someone else" comes up with that *exact*same* idea, entirely independently,
and "expresses" it in exactly the same manner, That expression is *NOT*
an infringement on the copyright on the other expression of that idea.
"Proving" that it is an "independently, parallel, development" and not
'derived from' nor 'based on' the prior copyrighted work can be difficult
and messy. However, there _are_ cases in the legal record where this *has*
been done.

There are some notable cases arising from the pop music industry -- where
two different artists have _independently_ developed nearly identical tunes,
without any knowledge of, or exposure to, the other's work. It took lawsuits,
going all the way through actual trial, to establish conclusively that the
works _were_ 'independent developments' and that neither one infringed on
the other.

Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.

Since I have had occasion to research it (U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Denmark,
Switzerland, and a few other countries), I can state with some authority
that you would be surprised at the size of the differences. The majority
of them come under the areas of: "fair use exemptions", ability to
'disclaim' copyright (i.e., to 'place in the public domain'), "moral
rights", "work done for hire", and "lending libraries".

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
a, copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...

The Berne Convention is applicable *ONLY* to the extent that any particular
country has incorporated it into statute.

The country-to-country differences *are* significant.

Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N






TR



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek