I’ve done that. Recently, even. I think it’s generally the debate failure mode, as you suggested—if I wasn’t caught up in the argument, I wouldn’t have even considered saying it.
(For the record: it was claiming that derivative works based on material still in copyright was illegal. Which I know is not true.)
IANAL, but in the US some derivative works based on material still in copyright are considered infringing. For example, taking Microsoft’s source code for Windows, adding some functionality, and selling it as your own OS would be infringing.
a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.
Edit: Outside the US, of course, the rules may vary.
Upvoted for honesty. I think lying to advance a position shows much less than the OP claims, because I think the vast majority of people do this at times in the heat of argument, even when they in fact have good reasons for their position.
Now that is very interesting—I had heard of such cases, but I wasn’t thinking of them when I spoke. They derive from the very common (legally incorrect) idea that derivative works are always illegal, of course.
Unfortunately, it isn’t really a defense for me—I felt, as I spoke, that I was engaged in false rhetoric, because I didn’t believe what I was saying.
I’ve done that. Recently, even. I think it’s generally the debate failure mode, as you suggested—if I wasn’t caught up in the argument, I wouldn’t have even considered saying it.
(For the record: it was claiming that derivative works based on material still in copyright was illegal. Which I know is not true.)
IANAL, but in the US some derivative works based on material still in copyright are considered infringing. For example, taking Microsoft’s source code for Windows, adding some functionality, and selling it as your own OS would be infringing.
You’re right—according to this PDF on copyright.gov, the requirement is that
Edit: Outside the US, of course, the rules may vary.
Upvoted for honesty. I think lying to advance a position shows much less than the OP claims, because I think the vast majority of people do this at times in the heat of argument, even when they in fact have good reasons for their position.
In practice you were right. Derivative works fairly frequently draw lawsuits even when they are largely original.
See as examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Done_Gone
Now that is very interesting—I had heard of such cases, but I wasn’t thinking of them when I spoke. They derive from the very common (legally incorrect) idea that derivative works are always illegal, of course.
Unfortunately, it isn’t really a defense for me—I felt, as I spoke, that I was engaged in false rhetoric, because I didn’t believe what I was saying.