手机APP下载

您现在的位置: 首页 > 大学英语 > 大学教材听力 > 大学体验英语综合教程 > 体验英语综合教程第四册 > 正文

大学体验英语综合教程第四册Unit3:Passage A:Big Myths About Copyright

来源:本站原创 编辑:alex   可可英语APP下载 |  可可官方微信:ikekenet
  下载MP3到电脑  [F8键暂停/播放]   批量下载MP3到手机

10 Big Myths About Copyright

)"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.  

 2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation." False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's the main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away - and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include wide-scale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action.

  3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain."

 4) "My posting was just fair use!" The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works. Intent and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times web site? They aren't "fair use". Fair use is usually a short excerpt.  

  5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." - "Somebody has that name copyrighted!" False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trademarks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control. 

 6)"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me." False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" - works based on or derived from another copyrighted work - is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.  

7)"They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!" Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would not be charged with a crime, but usually get sued.

 8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?" Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright

violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. On the other hand, this is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquitted because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

 9) "It doesn't hurt anybody - in fact it's free advertising." It's up to the owners to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owners or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.  

? 10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it." To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not unless previously agreed. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.

重点单词   查看全部解释    
strictly ['striktli]

想一想再看

adv. 严格地

 
previously ['pri:vju:sli]

想一想再看

adv. 先前,在此之前

 
pirate ['paiərit]

想一想再看

n. 海盗,盗印者,侵犯专利权者
v. 侵犯版

联想记忆
explicitly [ik'splisitli]

想一想再看

adv. 明白地,明确地

 
rationalize ['ræʃənəlaiz]

想一想再看

vt. 使合理化,合理地说明,[数]给 ... 消根

 
exception [ik'sepʃən]

想一想再看

n. 除外,例外,[律]异议,反对

 
statute ['stætju:t]

想一想再看

n. 法令,法规

联想记忆
defend [di'fend]

想一想再看

v. 防护,辩护,防守

 
sue [su:]

想一想再看

vt. 控告,起诉
vi. 请求,追求,起诉

 
anonymous [ə'nɔniməs]

想一想再看

adj. 匿名的,无名的,没特色的

联想记忆

    阅读本文的人还阅读了:
发布评论我来说2句

    最新文章

    可可英语官方微信(微信号:ikekenet)

    每天向大家推送短小精悍的英语学习资料.

    添加方式1.扫描上方可可官方微信二维码。
    添加方式2.搜索微信号ikekenet添加即可。