|
 |
Digitizing FSI | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Language Programs, Books & Tapes |  | |
| mtwalker Newbie United States imageray.net Joined 7184 days ago 26 posts - 26 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 113 of 237 07 May 2005 at 2:36am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
excepts from:
www.copyright.gov NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works. Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b. The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice. Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected. The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. Position of Notice The copyright notice should be affixed to copies or phonorecords in such a way as to "give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright." The three elements of the notice should ordinarily appear together on the copies or phonorecords or on the phonorecord label or container. The Copyright Office has issued regulations concerning the form and position of the copyright notice in the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR Section 201.20). For more information, request Circular 3, "Copyright Notice." Publications Incorporating U. S. Government Works Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. For works published on and after March 1, 1989, the previous notice requirement for works consisting primarily of one or more U. S. Government works has been eliminated. However, use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement as previously described provided the notice also includes a statement that identifies either those portions of the work in which copyright is claimed or those portions that constitute U. S. Government material. Example: © 2002 Jane Brown. Copyright claimed in Chapters 7-10, exclusive of U. S. Government maps Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, that consist primarily of one or more works of the U. S. Government should have a notice and the identifying statement. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| onebir Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7163 days ago 487 posts - 503 votes  Speaks: English*, Mandarin | Message 114 of 237 08 May 2005 at 12:08pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
This relates to the point I was making earlier about whether audioforum could actually enforce copyright. The one audioforum FSI course I've seen doesn't identify the bits they actually originated themselves (I'm pretty sure this is because it would have to say 'none'.) Given this, based on the above, we could claim 'innocent infringement' - because they haven't identified the parts over which they have a valid claim - if there was actually any infringement (which seems very unlikely). However there might still be the possibility of them making a claim - resulting in in legal costs for the site host. And anyway, a little bit of legal knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does anyone even have a friend who's a US lawyer? Edited by onebir on 08 May 2005 at 12:11pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| djoseph Newbie United States Joined 7139 days ago 2 posts - 2 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Mandarin | Message 115 of 237 09 May 2005 at 12:09pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
You guys are in luck! :)
I'm a brand new forum member, I only found this site a couple of days back but I'm interested in this project of digitizing various language works. Anyway, I currently work at an intellectual property law firm as a paralegal, so I'd be very happy to relay any questions you might have. So this is what I ask of you: come up with a list of well thought out questions that is comprehensive. Well thought out - so I dont look like an idiot in front of my boss Comprehensive - so I dont have to keep bugging him about this. And I'll be very happy to help. The admin or whoever contact me by email or just reply to this post. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| administrator Hexaglot Forum Admin Switzerland FXcuisine.com Joined 7376 days ago 3094 posts - 2987 votes 12 sounds Speaks: French*, EnglishC2, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian Personal Language Map | Message 116 of 237 09 May 2005 at 3:40pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Djoseph, welcome to the forum!
We need to work out a list of questions about FSI copyrights. Here is my own: -Are all of the language programs developped and produced by the US federal government copyright free? -Does this apply to those programs when they are copied on tapes and sold by commercial firms (provided they did not add any original material)? By this we mean, can we digitize a program from a government-produced tape or from a commercial release indifferently? -If we digitize those programs and share them, is there a way for us to prevent quick-buck-operators to take our files and bundle them into a new package they would then sell? I'll make a compilation and we'll send it to Djoseph when we have a complete and sensible list. Edited by administrator on 09 May 2005 at 3:44pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| mtwalker Newbie United States imageray.net Joined 7184 days ago 26 posts - 26 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 117 of 237 10 May 2005 at 12:56am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
One of the best ways to keep someone from exploiting the files would be
to keep the quality at the absolute minimum. Mono, low bit rate, etc. This way it would be hard for anyone to repackage them. If they tried to modify them to be a "derivaitive work" that they could copyright, the quality would be even worse because re-encoding low quality mp3s is more destructive than re-encoding high quality ones. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| onebir Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7163 days ago 487 posts - 503 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin | Message 118 of 237 10 May 2005 at 5:03am | IP Logged | ||||||||
To Djoseph - we are in luck! I think without you this could well have stalled. Thanks (from all of us I think) for your very kind offer.
Could it read 'is there any definitive way to establish whether any given US govt produced publication is in the public domain?'? (djoseph's boss may not know about fsi language courses etc)
How about: 'Does the copyright notice give any legal protection when applied to an simple copy of a public domain work? When applied to a largely public domain work, does it protect this in it's entirety, or only the non-public domain portions? And is there a possibility of vexacious litigation even where no valid claim seems to exist. The latter point is quite important - FX presumably doesn't want risk having to fend off legal threats even if they're ill-founded. If these are likely, we might want to choose a way of posting the courses that doesn't give existing publishers an easy legal target (ie multiple individuals posting to multiple sites in multiple countries, or to a peer-to-peer network).
Don't we just want people to be able to get good language-study material cheaper? If quick-buck-operators do jump in, they're bound to compete down the prices the existing publishers can charge for FSI works. (Particularly if they offer downloadable versions - which I think is likely.) They'll also market the courses - with a larger budget than this site has - spreading the word about their effectiveness. As for discouraging derivative works, I think this would be a serious mistake. It seems that many of the courses could benefit from updating a la Platiquemos. If we can lower the costs involved in doing this, we as consumers should get more choice. At the same time, competition from free FSI direct copies should keep prices of updated versions down (even in the absence of this the price for Platiquemos seems quite reasonable) as will availability of multiple variants. Reviews on this site/forum could help people pick out the updated versions worth paying for. spot the economist ;-) Edited by onebir on 10 May 2005 at 5:12am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Nick Newbie United States Joined 7147 days ago 23 posts - 23 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French | Message 119 of 237 10 May 2005 at 8:22am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I agree with onebir about the derivative works issue. If we are able to distribute the FSI recordings in a digital format, I can see no harm in leaving them open to the public for whatever use they can find. If that means selling them, then so be it. Some people might find comfort in purchasing the lessons as opposed to a free download. (Hey, if it's free, it can't be that good, right?) Plus, I think the main effort here should be allowing others to access quality language learning materials not worrying about whether they drop a few dollars for them or not. Also, the argument concerning Platiquemos is somewhat valid. Although it would seem that most willing to add that much content would also be willing to rip the tapes themselves, maybe some people without the resources to do so will expand/edit the original FSI materials.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| onebir Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7163 days ago 487 posts - 503 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin | Message 120 of 237 10 May 2005 at 8:36am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
This thread in chinese forums says the Mandarin FSI course is already available for download at www.ezmandarin.com.
I couldn't find it, but I've asked the poster if s/he knows.
I know some chinese teachers in beijing who could do a great job of updating the mandarin course if it didn't involve investing a year's salary... Anyone who's been to a language school in a less developed country could probably identify teachers in a similar situation. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
