Tweet
While surfing for some information, I idly clicked on one of "those" sites that offer to tell me all the secrets of EQ. As I scrolled to the bottom of their page I noticed a copyright notice claiming vigorous protection of said copyright.
That is totally laughable. They have no authorization from Sony to hold such a copyright. They even admit that their guide is unauthorized. So I should have any respect for a copyright on material that violates someone else's copyright? And drug dealers should prosecute people who steal their drugs.
They also go on further to state that rewording their guide to reveal their "secrets" will also be construed as a copyright infringement. That would be difficult to pursue as a copyright violation. EQ is a game system. Systems are patented, not copyrighted. Copyrights are for the words contained within a written work. I believe that copyright infringements are also generally only prosecuted in cases where the written work of another is being sold for profit. If this were not true, my students would be in a great deal of legal trouble.
For that matter, anyone could use the "fair use" clause to publish part of their "copyrighted" material in a critique of said material, verbatum. Or use it in an investigative write-up about EQ rip-off websites.
Just something to think about.
That is totally laughable. They have no authorization from Sony to hold such a copyright. They even admit that their guide is unauthorized. So I should have any respect for a copyright on material that violates someone else's copyright? And drug dealers should prosecute people who steal their drugs.
They also go on further to state that rewording their guide to reveal their "secrets" will also be construed as a copyright infringement. That would be difficult to pursue as a copyright violation. EQ is a game system. Systems are patented, not copyrighted. Copyrights are for the words contained within a written work. I believe that copyright infringements are also generally only prosecuted in cases where the written work of another is being sold for profit. If this were not true, my students would be in a great deal of legal trouble.
For that matter, anyone could use the "fair use" clause to publish part of their "copyrighted" material in a critique of said material, verbatum. Or use it in an investigative write-up about EQ rip-off websites.
Just something to think about.
Comment