In article ,
WillR wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
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.

Conspiracy, Intent - unless you _don't_ copy. Criminal provisions often
treble any settlement. The fact that you _knew_ you were duplicating
copyright or patented property can _treble_ the settlement.

Let me count the errors:

1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* for one person to engage in "conspiracy",

2) There is no such crime as 'intent'. To take an extreme example,
approaching a store with "intent" to rob it is *not* -- in and of
itself -- illegal. If you do _commit_ the robbery, there was still
nothing illegal in 'approaching' the store.
"Intent" comes into play with regard to some types of torts and crimes,
where the _action_ must be done with particular _intent_ in mind.
"intent" without "action" is *not* a violation.

3) Unsuccessfully "attempting" a proscribed action may be regarded at law
as similar (or equivalent) to succeeding at it.

4) Copyright statute has provisions that specifically _allow_ copying for
various reasons. *IF* the 'approach' for one of _those_ reasons, there
is not even any 'potential' criminal act involved.

5) post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. arguing that that which happens
first is a crime _because_ of what happens afterwards.

Note also, that you did acknowledge that just 'approaching' the store is not
illegal in any way.

This is one case where ignorance is safer. If you don't know that you
duplicated patented or copyrighted work at best people can get "normal"
damages. At least in the land of the free home of the brave - or whatever.

Completely disregarding the existence of those situations where you *are*
legally permitted to duplicate patented or copyrighted work without the
permission, knowledge, or consent of the rights holder.

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.

I hope you don't consult in this area.

The feeling is mutual.

Would you agree that simple 'generic' furniture -- be it a simple cutting board,
a milk-crate, stackable boxes, etc. -- _lacks_ the "original, creative"
element required for copyright protection?

Would you agree that if the furniture is *not* eligible for copyright
protection -- whether due to 'lack of originality' or any other reason -- that
copying it is not a breach of copyright laws?

Would you agree that _that_ conflicts with the statement that copying of _any_
piece of furniture *MUST* be a breach of copyright laws?

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

Well prove it -- copy the piece of an irate artist.

And, what would _that_ prove?

Copying a work of an artist who does not object, does not prove that it
is never a breach to copy an artists work.

Copying a work of an artist who does object, does not prove that it is
always a breach to copy any artist's work.

BTW, I _have_ had occasion to "reproduce" the work of an irate artist.
Despite their impassioned objections. And there wasn't a d*mn thing they
could do about it. I knew it, and *they* knew it. Said reproduction was
clearly covered under one of the 'fair use' exemptions in statute.
end of story.

I did not make
blanket statements by the way. A specific question was asked.

You asserted the factual correctness of blanket claims made by others, e.g.,
that copying a piece of furniture *MUST* involve breach of copyright.

Don't get so excited. :-)

Don't spread misinformation. grin

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.

You're sidetracking here.

Review the original. I'm not sidetracking anything.

Yes, the beginning of the original article postulated intent to copy,
Then 'another answer' was referenced (by the OP) that made an assertation
that was tangential to the query. Which involved _unintentional_ copying.

You then asserted that that tangential response was correct.

Not the issue under discussion. Intent to copy
was admitted.

How is 'intent to copy' involved in the statement that:
".....if a carpenter copies a piece
*UNINTENTIONALLY*, then he'd break a copy right law. " (emphasis added.)
=================

Or were you simply not paying attention to what was written?
And which you then asserted _was_ "Correct"?

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.

Then there wasn't copying was there?

*BINGO* Neither is there any copying, if a carpenter "unintentionally"
produces a work that is happens to be an exact duplicate of something he
has never seen.

Yet you "confirmed" that that _was_ illegal.

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".


Correct on this much. Are you up to date? I get into this regularly,
write contracts and would not dare claim your level of expertise.

You're a lot more comfortable making 'absolute' statements about what
"must" be a breach, and what "is" illegal, than I am. I know where the
swamps, pitfalls, and uncertainties are. And they are many.

Review the record. I've been pointing out that 'things are not that simple'.
I have a d*mn good understanding of where the questions lie, that influence
the determinations. I would *not* try to predict the outcome on any but
the most clear-cut set of detailed facts.

I always suggest that people read the acts and make up their own mine.

_That_ is very *BAD*ADVICE*(TM)

The acts are only a very *minor* part of the legal corpus that must be
considered. Almost all the 'important stuff', regarding 'where' and 'how'
the lines on copyright are drawn is in the 'case law' on point.

The acts give utterly _no_ assistance as to what, for example, constitutes
'creative' effort sufficient for copyright protection. It took _Feist_
to begin to clarify that issue, in the U.S..

If there is a 'real' issue surrounding a particular question of application,
the only sensible thing to do is t consult a legal *professional* who works
in that area full-time.

*PLUS! I always caution that Copyright violation is in the eye of the
original creator. *

*THAT* is also totally wrong. Copyright violation is "in the eye of the
court." grin It is, unfortunately terribly difficult to get _any_
"feel" or guidance from the courts for 'general case' situations. They
go out of their way _not_ to be helpful on the matter -- usually stating,
in almost these words, that 'this decision is relevant only to the facts
of this case, and should not be relied on as precedent for any other set
of facts."

Suggest you be more careful at claiming expertise unless your contracts
stand up in court. Mine do -- and I still won't make the claims you do.

I suggest you review what I have _actually_ claimed. It can be summed up
as: 'No simple answers. Any actual determination depends on details of
_that_ situation."