Librarian: ‘Da Vinci’ Lawsuit Lacks Merit

Well
A retired librarian who helped novelist Dan…

One would expect that an interested party would make such a self-serving statement.

For example, OJ Simpson’s mother said that the charges against her son were baseless.

Re:Well
“…hardly constitutes an “interested party” in the book and its prospects, in any usual sense of the word.”

Huh? He assisted one side, he didn’t assist the other side. He is offering his un-objective opinion.

Perhaps there is nothing there, but that is what will be resolved in the case. If you steal an idea from someone, it doesn’t matter if it benefits the victim. Come on, people’s property rights are involved.

Re:Well

So, if I assist the patron who comes to the library and asks for reference help, I’m showing bias by not tracking down everyone else who ever published on that subject and actively offering them reference assistance too? Huh? Are you a librarian? Do you have any faintest idea how libraries work?

No, you are not showing bias in doing the job as a reference librarian in assisting an author researching a novel; however, you ARE biased when it comes to offering an OPINION about the merits of a trial about whether someone infringed another’s copyrighted materials. Surely you can see the difference, can’t you? Go back and re-read the posts.

Yes, I am a librarian and I am also an attorney. Yes, I understand how libraries work. Even though I don’t practice ip law and I have a limited knowledge of copyright law, I do know enough to understand that you are incorrect in stating that copyright is a NOT property right. That is why they group copyrights, patents, trademarks & trade dress into the area known as intellectual property. And yes, I understand the idea-expression dichotomy in 102(b) of the copyright act; however, I didn’t think I would have to explain it in a very quick comment on Lisnews. I also don’t know British copyright law; however, I suspect it is similar to ours due to the fact that we borrowed the concept a couple hundred years ago.

Direct quotes, use of material original to the authors, etc., could violate their rights. Use of their book as an information resource about ideas and theories that have been in circulation for a thouand years does NOT violate their rights. Particularly as Mr. Brown has never claimed that any of the woo-woo history is original with him; only his plot and characters which use that woo-woo history as a backdrop.

You may well be correct in your conclusions about Mr. Brown and that is for the British court to decide. As I implied in the original comment, there may or not be merit to this case but the librarian who is offering opinions about this case is an interested party and therefore biased.

Re:Well
You admit you don’t know much about copyright law, but you’re sure it’s a “property right.” In fact, the idea that copyrights, patents, and trademarks are “property” is very recent and the product of a deliberate campaign over the last quarter-century by large corporate holders of copyrights and patents. It has no foundation in the history of copyright, patent, or trademark law, and it’s a pernicious idea directly contrary to the foundational purpose of those laws.

Let’s see:

1. Blacks’ Law Dictionary (8th ed): copyright, n. 1. The right to copy; specif., a property right in an original work of authorship (including literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and architectural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and sound recordings) fixed in any tangible medium of expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform, and display the work.

2. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) discusses the property rights of copyright holders.

3. Marshall Leaffer’s Understanding Copyright Law (4th ed.)on page 2 states, ” In the broadest sense, copyright law creates a system of property rights for certain kinds of intangible products, generally called works of authorship.”

4. 13 Corpus Juris, Copyrights & Literary Property page 996-98 (1917) provides a pretty lengthy discussion of how copyrights are incorporeal property rights.

5. Weatherbyv. International Horse Agency Ltd, 2 Ch. 297 (1910) states that, ” Copyright is personal property and is protected as such.

6. The English Statute of Anne in 1790 created a property right in copyright.

But hey, Lis states that copyrights and patents aren’t “property” or if they are, they are a late-20th century (Disney) creation of big corporations.

Which one should someone go with?

You admit you don’t know much about copyright law, but you’re sure it’s a “property right.”

I was being modest and it is a property right. And let’s take those ” ” out of it.

BTW, I suspect you now understand my original point that this person’s opinion regarding this case is from an interested party.