How can an author ban critique?

[DiveMaven]

I'm not trying to go all Jacques Cousteau on you, but my 80 or so dives in Bonaire are the easiest 80 I've done, and I think a restaurant guide is more indispensable than a guide to dive sites there.

Vladimir, you definitely aren't "going Jacques Cousteau", I can totally see what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but we were first timers to Bonaire earlier this month and BSDME was a wonderful resource (as was Bonairetalk) for us. I doubt that we'll need to use the book as much on our subsequent visits (next summer), but we'll have it as a resource should we need it.

I used Bonairetalk a lot for restaurant suggestions. Found that we agreed with most of the reviews/opinions but disagreed with a couple. We figure that now we have a "foundation" of known good places to patron next year, so we'll venture out and try a few new places to add.

 

[Mossman]

You are correct, I missed the typing out new copy part.

I just read the newer code and the modification itself is a violation under 17 USC subsection 106 "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work"

The lamination would be ok. Retyping is a violation even under older rules. The surprising one is the artwork making it derivative even if not offered for resale or personal use.

Of course the ideas expressed in her book are not copyrightable, nor are the facts. Instead of retyping the dive site descriptions, perhaps the "copier" could avoid infringement by capturing the ideas and facts expressed in the dive site descriptions in his own words? After all, BDSME is mainly a compendium of facts with a few descriptions added for color. There's not much creativity involved in the work that warrants protection.

 

[The Chairman]

She's messing with the God of a virtual world. Who does she think she is? With one keystroke, you can "disappear" her!

God? Not likely and I don't have an affinity for power. That being said, I don't feel that I should bend over backwards when someone threatens me either! She has done fine with her book before ScubaBoard and it's apparent that she does not need the FREE publicity. I am quite OK with that.

You've convinced me to sign up as a supporting member. Add my $3.95 to your legal fund.

New supporting members are always appreciated and welcome. We have enough controversy without incurring more.

I am still waiting for her to tell me precisely what she wants us to do at this point. All we can do at this point is guess what she wants.

 

[underwasser bolt]

I'm not trying to go all Jacques Cousteau on you, but my 80 or so dives in Bonaire are the easiest 80 I've done, and I think a restaurant guide is more indispensable than a guide to dive sites there.

yep, and even though I bought BSDME, I could have made it without it. and like i have already posted, there is a FREE guide that outlines the basics of each dive site available at the airport upon your arrival. the guide is probably in dive shops also. bonaire is pretty easy diving; swim out, dive down to desired depth, determine direction and strength of current; enjoy; swim in. Repeat the process as much as you can want, when you want. that is the beauty of bonaire.

 

[DandyDon]

You are correct, I missed the typing out new copy part.

I just read the newer code and the modification itself is a violation under 17 USC subsection 106 "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work"

The lamination would be ok. Retyping is a violation even under older rules. The surprising one is the artwork making it derivative even if not offered for resale or personal use.

Of course the ideas expressed in her book are not copyrightable, nor are the facts. Instead of retyping the dive site descriptions, perhaps the "copier" could avoid infringement by capturing the ideas and facts expressed in the dive site descriptions in his own words? After all, BDSME is mainly a compendium of facts with a few descriptions added for color. There's not much creativity involved in the work that warrants protection.

You're not likely to change US copyright laws or international copyright treaties. There really is some good info here: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

If you wanted to produce your own original work, that'd be different but rewriting hers is called Piracy. Wm Shakespeare was the third person to write Hamlet I think, but it was different then. RIAA - Piracy: Online and On The Street - July 25, 2008

 

[adurso]

Of course the ideas expressed in her book are not copyrightable, nor are the facts. Instead of retyping the dive site descriptions, perhaps the "copier" could avoid infringement by capturing the ideas and facts expressed in the dive site descriptions in his own words? After all, BDSME is mainly a compendium of facts with a few descriptions added for color. There's not much creativity involved in the work that warrants protection.

In the past I paid close attention to copyright laws, particularly those regarding "fair use" for the classroom. I have been in administration so have fallen behind.

But a quick reading of recent code indicates that the whole issue has become quite complex. The ideas are copyrighted, that is the whole point. The facts are not, but she did it first and so anything that follows might be considered a derivative work, the same with any alterations.

Whether the work is "creative" or not it still falls under the protection of the Act, and as such the author has legal remedies.

A new work would need to be substantially different to avoid infringement, or need the author's permission.

On the other hand, raising a bunch of fuss because a single person wants to laminate and add icons to his own copy is a bit silly.

 

[DandyDon]

I think it got sticky at ...a single person wants to laminate and add icons to his own copy and publish on the net...!

 

[adurso]

I think it got sticky at ...a single person wants to laminate and add icons to his own copy and publish on the net...!

I must have missed the part where he was to publish it on the net. My recollection is that he changed the text to gibberish and uploaded his icons. He seemed to just be someone who was really enthused about what he was doing. Not a budding copyright pirate.

Edit:Just went through the thread again..where does he indicate that he wants to publish anything other than his own icons on the internet?

 

[DandyDon]

I must have missed the part where he was to publish it on the net. My recollection is that he changed the text to gibberish and uploaded his icons. He seemed to just be someone who was really enthused about what he was doing. Not a budding copyright pirate.

So I misunderstood, gotcha - TY

 

[rjchandler]

You're not likely to change US copyright laws or international copyright treaties. There really is some good info here: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

If you wanted to produce your own original work, that'd be different but rewriting hers is called Piracy. Wm Shakespeare was the third person to write Hamlet I think, but it was different then. RIAA - Piracy: Online and On The Street - July 25, 2008

no - it is called infringement. piracy is what johnny depp does.