Good luck to all my friend in MMU!study hard
Wish you all get good marks in the final exam!
Merry X'mas to all of you! 
2009年12月17日星期四
10 Big Myths about copyright explained-part 2
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 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.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited 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 owner 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 owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. 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, secret. 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. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.
In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
copyright is greater important in our life , we must build this common sense to protect ourselves.
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based 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.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited 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 owner 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 owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. 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, secret. 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. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.
In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
copyright is greater important in our life , we must build this common sense to protect ourselves.
10 Big Myths about copyright explained-part 1
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. You might want to look into Creative Commons style licences if you want to grant wide rights.
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See EFF notes on fair use and links from it for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:
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 vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. 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 needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
These rules apply to content you pull from the internet as well. If you wanted to criticise the poker strategy advice on pokerlistings.com, you could reproduce sections of that advice in your criticism as fair use. Just copying it to make your own poker site would probably be plain old copyright infringement.
This advice brought to you by Pokerlistings.com Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.
Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough
See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.
China changes registration rules - will spam changes follow?
Big news from China with regards to their domain name registration policies.Readers of the blog know that I have regularly complained about criminals from around the world abusing the services of Chinese domain name registration companies. We have also commented on the practice of "bullet-proof hosting", for instance in our story Spam Crisis in China.I am happy to report that the fine people at the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) have taken action to address this situation! Thanks to Robert McMillan from IDG for giving me the Twitter tip-off on this story!Many Chinese news sources are reporting the story:Individuals banned from .cn application is the report from the Shanghai Daily
China barred individuals from applying for Chinese domain names, ending with .cn, from yesterday as part of a national campaign against pornographic content spread online, the industry regulator said.Applicants for domain name registration are required to hand in written application forms, with a business license and the applicant's identity card, according to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC).The new application system will help the CNNIC better regulate the Internet environment in the country and crack down on improper content online, experts said.CNNIC decided to screen applicants' qualifications strictly to stop individuals obtaining domain names using fake information, said Liu Zhijiang, vice director of the regulator."The applications in written form can help us do our work more accurately," media reported quoting Liu.Reading the recent announcements from China Internet Network Information Center we can see that changes began to be introduced on November 30.In the article, With Regard to Complaints from the Public Domain Name Registration Services two new requirements are given to all Domain Name Registration Services:1) they must prominently display a link to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technolgoy along with their MIIT approval number to do business in this area.2) they must prominently display information on how to make a domain name registration complaint to the CNNIC, including their email, telephone, and fax number for CNNIC.In their own version of security through journalism (the term we use in the US is called "Krebsing"), CNNIC revealed in their letter of December 10th that further changes would be coming as a result of a television documentary on the CCTV program "Focus" and other media reports that indicated that criminals using false information were registering websites to carry out illegal activities. They announced in their open letter, On the strengthening of domain name registration service management, that changes would be coming to crack down on "pornographic websites", stating that "CNNIC has a duty to the country as the domain name registration authroity to take responsibility to stop this illegal activity."As part of this letter, they announce that "in the face of rampant phishing, they have joined the internet community to establish an "anti-phishing website union" more than a year ago, and in the previous year have shut down more than 8,000 phishing websites to protect the public interest."As part of their plans, the CNNIC has pledged to shutdown companies performing registrations for illegal activities, and to enhance their manpower and resources to address complaints more rapidly. They have also provided a 24 hour Customer Service Telephone number and an email that can be used to report illegal domain activity:7 x 24 hour Customer Service Tel: 010-58813000E-mail: supervise@cnnic.cnFax: 010-5881266An announcement followed also on December 10th, With regard to domain name registration: Information to carry out notification of special treatment. In this announcement the rule was made that any domain name must contain "true, accurate and complete domain name registration information" and that any domain name registration that was untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete would result in the domain name being terminated. This new ruling specifically extends to previously registered domains as well - any previously registered domain reported to have false registration information is to be cancelled within five days. Any agents acting on behalf of the registration company (the phrase is "lower-level agents" - I believe this specifically refers to resellers) are also to be held to these requirements.In a second announcement on December 11th, Domain name registration information on further strengthening the audit notice CNNIC also announced that effective at 9 o'clock on December 14th, all domain name registrations would need to be submitted ONLINE AND IN WRITING and include:- a copy of the registration application stamped with the official seal of the applicant- a copy of the enterprise business license- optionally, an organization certificate (for non-businesses)- a photocopy of the applicant's identity paperworkThe announcement state that the Domain Name Registration Service must then carefully examine the written materials and send a copy to CNNIC.The online registration is allowed to proceed in realtime, but if the written materials are not received within five days, the domain name must be canceled.
We will anxiously await measurement of the results of this new policy. There are several news stories referring to particular registration companies being banned from future .cn registration until they come into compliance.
According to John Leyden's article Chinese domain crackdown targets smut sites
these include:unndc.comnamerich.cnxinnet.com
(John was quoting Global Times of China)
http://garwarner.blogspot.com/2009/12/china-changes-registration-rules-will.htmlMegnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock
An interesting case in Malaysia about the case for copyright.
In the lawsuit Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock, plaintiff manufactures and markets security systems for cars with brand THEF-PRO, it has developed and has drawings of all elements in the system.Soon Lian Hock started selling metal elements of the systems which are identical to those of the plaintiff's drawings. This is the reason why Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd accused Soon Lian Hock in violation of copyright.In its decision The High Court accepted that the controversial drawings of the metal elements are copyright as author showed enough creative effort.The Court accepts that there is a breach of copyright claimant further that the metal elements are an essential part of security systems. All this leads to distortion and the reputation of the plaintiff, a producer of systems.information a Michael Soo and Lin li Lee for International Law Office.
http://ipestonia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/copyright-in-malaysia
In Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of anti-theft systems for a certain brand of cars sold under the trademark THEF-PRO since 1991, asserted that it was the owner of copyright subsisting in certain drawings of the metal components of the anti-theft system and three-dimensional reproductions of the drawings.(1)
The plaintiff adduced evidence that the defendant, a sole proprietor selling car accessories, had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's works by selling and offering for sale metal components of an anti-theft system which were entire or substantial reproductions of the works without the plaintiff's licence or consent. The plaintiff had previously obtained consent judgment against other parties for infringement of its works.
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim after finding copyright subsisted in the works on the grounds that the author (ie, the artist) had expended sufficient effort and skill in the creation of the works.
The High Court found that the author of the works, who was the managing director of the plaintiff, was also the plaintiff's employee. Since the works were made in the course of his employment, copyright in the works were deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff.
The High Court took the view that the fact that the author was the managing director of the plaintiff did not mean that he was not an employee of the plaintiff, reasoning that (i) he was paid a salary to create the works, and (ii) in a typical small-scale family business, it was common for a managing director or an executive director to manage the entire business by him or herself.
The High Court found that there was infringement as the defendant's metal components had copied a substantial part of the plaintiff's works.
The High Court also held that the defendant had committed the tort of unlawful interference with trade. The defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's trade unlawfully by selling and offering for sale an anti-theft system which infringed the plaintiff's copyright. This had resulted in injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and consequently had adversely affected sales of the plaintiff's products. The High Court granted the plaintiff an injunction, an order for delivery up and an order for disclosure, damages, interest and costs. Damages were assessed at RM644,400 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment (December 22 2008) to the date of realization.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=c3474291-f0fc-48c8-8a9d-d79f74bb6aae
About the Injunction souce:
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Injunction - Application for - Restraining defendant from infringement and interference with plaintiff's trade of business - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Whether injunction and damages granted
COPYRIGHT
Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Restitution in integrum - Whether plaintiff should be awarded damages。
http://www.cljlaw.com/CLJ_Bulletin/Bulletin_11_2009.htm
In the lawsuit Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock, plaintiff manufactures and markets security systems for cars with brand THEF-PRO, it has developed and has drawings of all elements in the system.Soon Lian Hock started selling metal elements of the systems which are identical to those of the plaintiff's drawings. This is the reason why Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd accused Soon Lian Hock in violation of copyright.In its decision The High Court accepted that the controversial drawings of the metal elements are copyright as author showed enough creative effort.The Court accepts that there is a breach of copyright claimant further that the metal elements are an essential part of security systems. All this leads to distortion and the reputation of the plaintiff, a producer of systems.information a Michael Soo and Lin li Lee for International Law Office.
http://ipestonia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/copyright-in-malaysia
In Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of anti-theft systems for a certain brand of cars sold under the trademark THEF-PRO since 1991, asserted that it was the owner of copyright subsisting in certain drawings of the metal components of the anti-theft system and three-dimensional reproductions of the drawings.(1)
The plaintiff adduced evidence that the defendant, a sole proprietor selling car accessories, had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's works by selling and offering for sale metal components of an anti-theft system which were entire or substantial reproductions of the works without the plaintiff's licence or consent. The plaintiff had previously obtained consent judgment against other parties for infringement of its works.
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim after finding copyright subsisted in the works on the grounds that the author (ie, the artist) had expended sufficient effort and skill in the creation of the works.
The High Court found that the author of the works, who was the managing director of the plaintiff, was also the plaintiff's employee. Since the works were made in the course of his employment, copyright in the works were deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff.
The High Court took the view that the fact that the author was the managing director of the plaintiff did not mean that he was not an employee of the plaintiff, reasoning that (i) he was paid a salary to create the works, and (ii) in a typical small-scale family business, it was common for a managing director or an executive director to manage the entire business by him or herself.
The High Court found that there was infringement as the defendant's metal components had copied a substantial part of the plaintiff's works.
The High Court also held that the defendant had committed the tort of unlawful interference with trade. The defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's trade unlawfully by selling and offering for sale an anti-theft system which infringed the plaintiff's copyright. This had resulted in injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and consequently had adversely affected sales of the plaintiff's products. The High Court granted the plaintiff an injunction, an order for delivery up and an order for disclosure, damages, interest and costs. Damages were assessed at RM644,400 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment (December 22 2008) to the date of realization.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=c3474291-f0fc-48c8-8a9d-d79f74bb6aae
About the Injunction souce:
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Injunction - Application for - Restraining defendant from infringement and interference with plaintiff's trade of business - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Whether injunction and damages granted
COPYRIGHT
Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Restitution in integrum - Whether plaintiff should be awarded damages。
http://www.cljlaw.com/CLJ_Bulletin/Bulletin_11_2009.htm
Facebook face privacy
Facebook faces privacy questions
Facebook is to be quizzed about its data protection policies by the Information Commissioner's Office.
The investigation follows a complaint by a user of the social network who was unable to fully delete their profile even after terminating their account.
Currently, personal information remains on Facebook's servers even after a user deactivates an account.
Facebook has said it believes its policy is in "full compliance with UK data protection law".
"We take the concerns of the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and our user's privacy very seriously and are committed to working with the ICO to maintain a trusted environment for all Facebook users and ensure compliance with UK law," said a statement from the site.
"We take the concerns of the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and our user's privacy very seriously and are committed to working with the ICO to maintain a trusted environment for all Facebook users and ensure compliance with UK law," said a statement from the site.
Protecting principle 
At present, Facebook users who wish to remove their profile from the site are given the opportunity to deactivate their account.
But once deactivated the information, though no longer accessible, remains on Facebook's computers.
This is useful if you might reactivate your account later, but not the same as full deletion.
Users who wish to completely delete their information must, according to the automated response from Facebook's Customer Service, ¿log in and delete all profile content".
For some users that can be a very laborious process and that concerns the ICO.
"One of the things that we're concerned about is that if the onus is entirely on the individual to delete their data," Dave Evans, Senior Data Protection Practice Manager at the ICO told BBC Radio 4's iPM programme.
"An individual who has deactivated their account might not find themselves motivated enough to delete information that's about them maybe on their wall or other people's site."
The over-riding data protection principle motivating the ICO is that organisations should only hold information as long as necessary.
Facebook maintains it is in compliance with all data protection legislation and says it does not use information from deactivated accounts.
But once deactivated the information, though no longer accessible, remains on Facebook's computers.
This is useful if you might reactivate your account later, but not the same as full deletion.
Users who wish to completely delete their information must, according to the automated response from Facebook's Customer Service, ¿log in and delete all profile content".
For some users that can be a very laborious process and that concerns the ICO.
"One of the things that we're concerned about is that if the onus is entirely on the individual to delete their data," Dave Evans, Senior Data Protection Practice Manager at the ICO told BBC Radio 4's iPM programme.
"An individual who has deactivated their account might not find themselves motivated enough to delete information that's about them maybe on their wall or other people's site."
The over-riding data protection principle motivating the ICO is that organisations should only hold information as long as necessary.
Facebook maintains it is in compliance with all data protection legislation and says it does not use information from deactivated accounts.
Network problem
Mr Evans said that he believed that Facebook were committed to being seen to do as much as possible to safeguard people's privacy.
"We've agreed with Facebook to discuss with them issues around what they do with my information if I wish to deactivate my account".
In addition, he said that the ICO would look at Facebook's privacy policy, the rights to data the company asserts and the privacy implications of applications embedded in Facebook.
Although Facebook and many other social networks are based outside of the UK, Mr Evans believes that UK law could still apply.
"They are established in the UK for UK legislation to cover their activities."
He said it was the clarity of information users receive on signing up with social networking sites that is the central concern of the ICO.
"One of the things that we'll be working with the sites to achieve is to get better quality information to users to make it absolutely clear to people what exactly will happen to their information once it's posted."
Mr Evans said that he believed that Facebook were committed to being seen to do as much as possible to safeguard people's privacy.
"We've agreed with Facebook to discuss with them issues around what they do with my information if I wish to deactivate my account".
In addition, he said that the ICO would look at Facebook's privacy policy, the rights to data the company asserts and the privacy implications of applications embedded in Facebook.
Although Facebook and many other social networks are based outside of the UK, Mr Evans believes that UK law could still apply.
"They are established in the UK for UK legislation to cover their activities."
He said it was the clarity of information users receive on signing up with social networking sites that is the central concern of the ICO.
"One of the things that we'll be working with the sites to achieve is to get better quality information to users to make it absolutely clear to people what exactly will happen to their information once it's posted."
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7196803.stm
Facebook's 40 million users should not worry that personal details will be available to anyone searching the net.
That was the message from executives at the social network who are in London to set up their first overseas office.
Facebook's plan to make user profiles available to search engines has provoked anxiety amongst some users and attacks from privacy campaigners.
But the firm's head of privacy said that the idea that personal data would be exposed was "completely wrong".
"The only data that will be available is your profile picture and your name - and then only if you agree that your profile should be searchable," said Chris Kelly.
Common sense
Facebook announced the move to open users' profiles to search engines such as Google in early September.
In addition, the firm has added a public search function to its site which will initially allow anyone, even if they are not registered with the site, to search for a specific personFacebook announced the move to open users' profiles to search engines such as Google in early September.
At the time of the announcement, Om Malik, an influential blogger, wrote: "This is yet another small step in the overall erosion of personal privacy."
"We are slowly leaving digital litter all over the web, and some day it is going to cause problems."
"We are slowly leaving digital litter all over the web, and some day it is going to cause problems."
But Mr Kelly insisted that the company offered new users plenty of advice on protecting their profiles from unwanted visitors, and 20% had changed their privacy settings.
But he said people had to use common sense: "You would not walk down the street with your mobile phone number written on your forehead, and you shouldn't do that on Facebook either."
Facebook had been working with the Home Office in Britain on child protection and privacy issues, he added.
Facebook had been working with the Home Office in Britain on child protection and privacy issues, he added.
Word score
Later this month Facebook will open an office in London's Soho, the first overseas operation for a firm whose 300 staff are mostly based in Palo Alto, California.
With 5.2 million users active in the last month, the UK is Facebook's fastest growing market.
Other sites are more popular than Facebook in the UK
It is attracting rather older users than in the USA, where it started as a network for college students. 54% of UK users are over 25, and the over-35s are the fast growing age group.
"The service is now incredibly diverse," said Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook's Vice-President for Product Marketing.
Later this month Facebook will open an office in London's Soho, the first overseas operation for a firm whose 300 staff are mostly based in Palo Alto, California.
With 5.2 million users active in the last month, the UK is Facebook's fastest growing market.
Other sites are more popular than Facebook in the UK
It is attracting rather older users than in the USA, where it started as a network for college students. 54% of UK users are over 25, and the over-35s are the fast growing age group.
"The service is now incredibly diverse," said Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook's Vice-President for Product Marketing.
"75% of our users are outside college - a significant majority are in the 30 plus age demographic. It's a social utility that has become very pervasive and useful for a wide variety of people."
Mr Palihapitiya also revealed that Facebook now aimed to have 60 million active users worldwide by the end of this year, having already passed its original 2007 target of 40 million users.
Mr Palihapitiya also revealed that Facebook now aimed to have 60 million active users worldwide by the end of this year, having already passed its original 2007 target of 40 million users.
This year's rapid expansion has been partly fuelled by the opening up of Facebook to outside software developers in May.
So far they have created 3000 applications, and 80,000 developers around the world are working on new ones, in effect transforming the social network into an operating system for no payment.
Chamath Palihapitiya points to the two young Indian developers who have produced a Facebook scrabble game that is now amongst the most popular applications: "You have Fortune 500 companies doing this and you've got two kids in India. It's very empowering for the whole community."
Social battleground
But the big question for those developers and for the Facebook management is how to introduce more sophisticated advertising to the site, to generate more revenue without annoying users.
But the big question for those developers and for the Facebook management is how to introduce more sophisticated advertising to the site, to generate more revenue without annoying users.
The Facebook executives are vague about their plans but it is clear they want to give advertisers more opportunities to target individuals according to their interests.
So someone who lists Forty year Old Virgin as one of their favourite films could find a trailer for Knocked Up popping up on their page.
While Facebook is attracting all the attention at the moment, it is worth remembering that it is still not the most popular social network in Britain.
That is either MySpace or Bebo, according to whether you believe Nielsen netRatings or Comscore.
But Nielsen is predicting that Facebook will overtake MySpace in the UK this month.
Social networking is now a very big business and the UK market is a key battleground
Social networking is now a very big business and the UK market is a key battleground
Top Ten Tips to Protect Your Personal Information and Identity
When you go online for emailing, instant messaging (IM), shopping, and banking, you often communicate personal information such as addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, usernames, and passwords. Unfortunately, you risk having this personal information and possibly even your identity stolen, or having your PC used as a launching pad for hackers to attack others.
Follow these top 10 tips to protect yourself and your computer:
Invest in trusted, multi-faceted security software. Look for comprehensive, multi-faceted PC security software that protects you from viruses, spyware, adware, hackers, unwanted emails, phishing scams, and identity theft. Choose a brand that you can trust.
Always access the Internet from behind a firewall. A firewall adds a security layer between your PC and the Internet, and helps stop hackers from stealing your identity, destroying your files, or using your PC to attack others.
Use a PC you know is secure. Hackers can easily retrieve sensitive data that is sent over an unsecured Internet connection. If you need to send sensitive information or make an online transaction, use a PC that you know is secure and remember that there are many flavors of security. Some computers only have the bare minimum while others, like those with band software Total ProtectionTM, have comprehensive security.
Watch out for phishing scams. Phishing scams use fraudulent emails and Websites, masquerading as legitimate businesses, to lure unsuspecting consumers into revealing private account or login information. Even if you have PC security, you still might visit a malicious Website without knowing it. Legitimate businesses will never ask you to update your personal information via email. Always verify Web addresses before submitting your personal information.
Secure your wireless network. You are at risk if you access the Internet from a Wi-Fi network. Since your wireless network's radio waves travel through walls, a hacker with a simple antenna could attack you from miles away to steal your information and use your wireless network for their own communication. Always use additional Wi-Fi security protection.
Never install potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) like spyware or adware on your PC. Many free programs that you download via the Internet, while appearing to be harmless, are specifically designed to be malicious and monitor your keystrokes, track your Internet logins, transmit your confidential information, or redirect your browser to fake sites. Some of these programs, can also be installed on your machine simply by clicking on an advertisement link on the Internet.With security software, you can stop these programs from installing. Never willingly install programs unless you are familiar with the Website and program, and have read the end-user license agreement thoroughly.
Do not answer chain email. Even with PC security, some chain email forwarded by your friends might ask for personal information. Do not download files from friends and family unless you know the content of the file and know that it is secure.
Monitor your credit reports and be aware. At least once a year, check your credit history. This is one of the best ways to find out if someone is using your personal finance information without your knowledge.
Monitor your children's online activity. Limit your children's time spent online. Install and use parental controls software that allows you to monitor your children's online activity, as well as prevent them from accessing undesirable Websites and sharing personal information via online communications.
Make regular backups of critical data. Keep a copy of important files on removable media such as Zip disks or recordable CD-ROM disks (CD-R or CD-RW disks). Use software backup tools if available, and store the backup disks in case of an emergency
reference:http://www.sovereignbank.com/personal/security-center/identity-theft-protection.asp
Follow these top 10 tips to protect yourself and your computer:
Invest in trusted, multi-faceted security software. Look for comprehensive, multi-faceted PC security software that protects you from viruses, spyware, adware, hackers, unwanted emails, phishing scams, and identity theft. Choose a brand that you can trust.
Always access the Internet from behind a firewall. A firewall adds a security layer between your PC and the Internet, and helps stop hackers from stealing your identity, destroying your files, or using your PC to attack others.
Use a PC you know is secure. Hackers can easily retrieve sensitive data that is sent over an unsecured Internet connection. If you need to send sensitive information or make an online transaction, use a PC that you know is secure and remember that there are many flavors of security. Some computers only have the bare minimum while others, like those with band software Total ProtectionTM, have comprehensive security.
Watch out for phishing scams. Phishing scams use fraudulent emails and Websites, masquerading as legitimate businesses, to lure unsuspecting consumers into revealing private account or login information. Even if you have PC security, you still might visit a malicious Website without knowing it. Legitimate businesses will never ask you to update your personal information via email. Always verify Web addresses before submitting your personal information.
Secure your wireless network. You are at risk if you access the Internet from a Wi-Fi network. Since your wireless network's radio waves travel through walls, a hacker with a simple antenna could attack you from miles away to steal your information and use your wireless network for their own communication. Always use additional Wi-Fi security protection.
Never install potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) like spyware or adware on your PC. Many free programs that you download via the Internet, while appearing to be harmless, are specifically designed to be malicious and monitor your keystrokes, track your Internet logins, transmit your confidential information, or redirect your browser to fake sites. Some of these programs, can also be installed on your machine simply by clicking on an advertisement link on the Internet.With security software, you can stop these programs from installing. Never willingly install programs unless you are familiar with the Website and program, and have read the end-user license agreement thoroughly.
Do not answer chain email. Even with PC security, some chain email forwarded by your friends might ask for personal information. Do not download files from friends and family unless you know the content of the file and know that it is secure.
Monitor your credit reports and be aware. At least once a year, check your credit history. This is one of the best ways to find out if someone is using your personal finance information without your knowledge.
Monitor your children's online activity. Limit your children's time spent online. Install and use parental controls software that allows you to monitor your children's online activity, as well as prevent them from accessing undesirable Websites and sharing personal information via online communications.
Make regular backups of critical data. Keep a copy of important files on removable media such as Zip disks or recordable CD-ROM disks (CD-R or CD-RW disks). Use software backup tools if available, and store the backup disks in case of an emergency
reference:http://www.sovereignbank.com/personal/security-center/identity-theft-protection.asp
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
