Originally Posted by DavidW
Newspaper do not copyright the "information" they report. They copyright the articles that reports the "information".
Articles in newspapers are not in "public domain". If they were, you would be legally free to use it "word for word". "Public domain" has a legal meaning in copyright law. And it's doesn't just mean "out in the public". If you use an article just for "reference" then you can just state where you got your "information" from. But if you cite enough of the article "word for word" then you must ask for permission from the article author (or the copyright holder). It's the same as getting a license to use some else's copyrighted work.
You are not protected by free speech if you change the heading from "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Archipellago Times" and then go out market it as such. Not even if you paid for every copy of "The Wall Street Journal" that you changed to "The Archipellago Times".
You are not protected by free speech if you cut out an article from "The Wall Street Journal" and replace it with your own and then go out and sell it as though it's "The Wall Street Journal". Not even if you paid for all the copies of "The Wall Street Journal" that you changed.
You are not protected by free speech if you photocopy an original copy of "The Wall Street Journal", change a few articles on the photocopy and then sell the photocopy. Not even if you include a paid copy of "The Wall Street Journal" with every photocopy that you sell.
Is any of this getting through to you yet?
Archipellago;1386625if you re-read my wording, you will see that we agree on this point, congratulations.
So you agree that when you buy a copy of "The Wall Street Journal", there are restrictions. Even though you paid for that original copy, you can not do anything you want with that copy. You do not "own" any of part of that "The Wall Street Journal" except the paper it's printed on. All you did was pay for a "license" to read it.
Were you informed of these restrictions BEFORE you paid for that copy?
Were these restrictions spelled out to you BEFORE you opened up the newspaper and began reading it?
Are these restrictions even printed some where in the newspaper itself?
And it sure seems like it was a sale and not just a license to read it. Doesn't it?
So how is it that you know about these restrictions and how are the people at "The Wall Street Journal" going to defend their case against you if you decide to do something that is restricted by them?
Well it's simple. On every copy of "The Wall Street Journal" is a little "c" in a circle, followed by "Copyrighted" and a date. (and some wording pertaining to Copyright protection) That's all "The Wall Street Journal" needs to put on their newspaper to be able to bring you to court for violating any of these restrictions. They don't even have to inform you of what those restrictions are, BEFORE you paid for it. You are expected to know that because it's part of the Copyright law that protects all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if it's a book, newspaper, photograph, artwork, speech, music or software.
OSX is copyrighted. The little "c" in a circle is on the bottom of the retail box of OSX. You can see this BEFORE you buy it. And BEFORE you open it. You are expected to know what the Copyright law restricts you from doing and what it allows you to do with that copyrighted material. It does not have to be spelled out for you.
If you violate any of the restrictions and play dumb by saying you didn't know. You must stop what it is you're doing once you're informed by the copyright holder that you are violating their copyright. If you persist, the copyright holder can sue you for damages in a court of law.
Never mind the EULA. Psystar will lose just because they are violating basic Copyright laws. Why do you think Psystar defense is that OSX is not protected by Copyright laws by claiming that Apple failed to properly copyright it?
Psystar is not challenging any EULA (at least no longer challenging the EULA). They know that they will lose on those grounds because the judge already toss that out of their defense. Only small minds think that Psystar will win base on some notion that an EULA can not be enforced. What's going to bring down Psystar is violation of Copyright laws. Those same laws that restrict you from doing anything you want with your paid copy of "The Wall Street Journal". Those same copyright law restrictions that you seem to know about but have never seen written down on any copyrighted material that you paid for.
So explain to me (or us here) the difference between paying for the license to read the copyrighted words written in "The Wall Street Journal", to hear the music encoded on a Beatles CD and to use the codes written for OSX. Many of us here want to know just what part of the Copyright law you don't understand.