This is a separate response to nmego's long post. If you didn't read his (or couldn't get through it), you probably don't want to read this.
So like him, I invite you to skip over this. It's kind of getting a bit out of the original realm and getting into some squeaky points.
nmego wrote:Assuming I had a wealth of experience in life from chess lectures all around, then I grew up to become an amazing chess player and I got asked to give lectures. I remembered the past lectures I had in my life and I recited a couple of them, because they were insightful. Would that violate "copyright"? (It is not written content, but other than that it is the same scenario).
I think it would violate it, yes. It doesn't have to be written - besides, if it was a lecture, it probably was written at one time. (And unlikely you would have it memorized.) There's a difference between quoting pieces out of other material (with credit) and basically reciting someone's entire lecture.
Assuming I had a wealth of experience in life from "READING" chess articles, then I wrote a couple of articles explaining what I understood from them. would that violate copyright?
Writing what you "understand" from something is not the same as simply copying it. Explaining is not copying. I teach. I explain things all the time, all of it having come from other sources. I quote bits and pieces here and there, but I mostly explain in my own words. Did you never have a writing class where they taught you the difference between writing stuff in your own words and simply copying?
You know, I think there is something weird or paradoxical between sharing knowledge and copyright, like the two don't make a lot of sense together.
Sometimes it's just a fine line. No one "owns" knowledge. I can have knowledge of someone else's discovery, but it's their discovery. I merely have knowledge of it. I can pass that knowledge along. I can't lay claim to the discovery. I can know the words of a song and sing along, but having the words in my head is not ownership or rights. And sometimes there is that fine line. That's why things end up in court, because it's not always clear cut and people do disagree of course. Many things in life are like that. Just because it's sometimes difficult doesn't mean we dismiss it.
It is different when you make a nice statue of or art, or make a nice novel, or submit an invention, or create an amazing game, or make a really cool non-open source program. you've worked hard for it. nobody should copy it..
Are you judging how hard someone worked to make a strategy guide? I know that would be a lot of work for me. Are you saying it doesn't matter that it wasn't as difficult as writing a whole novel? And I've seen some art work out there that I don't think was difficult at all. (I've seen some art work that I really didn't think deserved credit for being original. How is a big red circle in the middle of a white canvas original? I could have done that for geometry class, and no one "owns" a circle. By the way, I'm serious.)
Knowledge is like money, it is like when you give money to a poor kid and that kid saw someone poorer than him and shares the money with them...
I'm sorry, WHAT?
Once knowledge enters your mind, it is ENTIRELY YOURS.
As stated above, no one "owns" knowledge. You either have it or you do not. Knowledge is not a set of words put together in a particular way. In a way, you're trying to tell me that if I teach a game based on my knowledge of having read the rules, that's ok because I'm just sharing knowledge. Yes, that's true. But you do realize the rules themselves are copyrighted, right?
I think the problem with statements like this is that you are not accounting for fair use. I have a pdf of a set of rules from some publisher I've forgotten, who used to put these up on their site and no longer do. But I have that copy for myself. (Which I can use
- fair use.) It's been brought up on BGG. I could upload it there. I never have, because it's copyrighted. I would need to find out if this is OK first, because I'm someone who actually cares about that. Quoting bits and pieces (giving credit to the rules) is OK, but is it OK for me to upload my copy and share with everyone? I have quite a few pdf's of rules, but I don't upload any of them.
Assuming there is a really nice book on applied mathematics. that is banned from a country. there is a really smart boy in that country who really wants to read that book. you screenshot-ted the book (or used other means) and managed to deliver its contents to the guy. later on he makes a massive invention that changes the world using the knowledge that he has gained. You could argue that the copyright here was stupid and impractical and you did the right thing. this is in some ways similar to this scenario albiet not entirely similar.
You need to separate the idea of the copyrighted material from the guy's use of that knowledge to invent something. Getting a copy of the book is not the same thing as using knowledge. He could have used the knowledge the same way had he acquired it in a legal way. Everyone uses knowledge to take it one step further, create something else, gain more knowledge, etc. Knowledge builds on knowledge. But knowledge isn't relevant to the conversation.
As to the book itself, I see where you are coming from, and I actually agree with you that it's a little senseless. The dilemma here isn't the guy wanting the book. It's that it's banned and governments controlling people in that manner is not moral to start with. As strongly as I feel about this issue, I think there are times when we have to make decisions between two conflicting ideals. The issue here isn't the guy wanting the book - we don't always get what we want. The issue is finding a way to get it into the country. If you can manage that with an illegal copy, can you not manage that with a legal one? Find another book on the topic, lend one, just buy it. Copying it is not really relevant, though I see your point. But, most cases are not the type of dilemma where two sets of ethics seem to be at odds.