Talk:Copyfraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Original research 2 Deep linking article violates WP:RS 3 edita.fi site is not in english 4 Move page? 5 Merge to Copyright misuse? 5.1 Still no non-Mazzone sources? 6 Copyfraud mentioned in law articles (LexisNexis Search)

[edit] Original research

This whole article seems to be about a made-up expression which some people use to complain about things they don't like in the world of copyrights. Steve Dufour 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not original research by Wikipedia contributors. This is not about some nebulous things people don't like, but the tangible and clearly defined phenomenon of people falsely asserting copyright over works. The three links at the bottom should be integrated into the article as references, but they clearly explain and demonstrate the concept as it appears in third-party sources. —ptk✰fgs 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I am removing the tag on the article placed by Steve based on Steve's speculations about the nature of the article.--Fahrenheit451 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article. I have no objections now that the subject is better explained. Steve Dufour 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep linking article violates WP:RS

I am removing this edit because, although it may be fact, the citation is from a blog and does not conform to the reliable source guideline.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edita.fi site is not in english

I removed the reference to this web site as it can only be verified by a finnish speaking person. Therefore, it violate WP:V.--Fahrenheit451 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move page?

It seems pretty clear that "copyfraud" has emerged as the dominant term in English (rather than "copyright commandeering", which I hope is not such a mouthful in Finnish!). Perhaps we should request that this article be moved to Copyfraud. —ptk✰fgs 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. -- Petri Krohn 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, but Copyright commandeering should redirect to Copyfraud.--Fahrenheit451 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Petri Krohn 15:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Copyright misuse?

Whereas this title is a rhetorical term of recent vintage (that's a nice way of saying "neologism"), the term copyright misuse is recognized by the court system. It seems that much of the conduct discussed herein would be recognized as copyright misuse in court. --FOo 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyfraud is a special form of copyright misuse, but is notable unto itself, thus deserves it own article. I will put a link to that article however.--Fahrenheit451 21:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as the references seem to lead, the term "copyfraud" is only used in publications by Jason Mazzone. None of the other references use the term. This suggests that it is an idiolect term for some variety of the same behavior which is known in legal terminology as copyright misuse.. --FOo 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, I don't think it is idiolect, but rather a term originated by Jason Mazzone. He does not use any other idiosyncratic terminology, grammar, spelling, etc. with that term. Copyfraud is truly a special case of copyright misuse. The copyright misuse article has different content from the copyfraud article. --Fahrenheit451 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any other sources for this term besides Mr. Mazzone's article? The pages at EFF, law.com, and PC World that are also referenced here do not use the term. They refer to fair use, free expression, chilling effects, and other related ideas, but do not use the term "copyfraud".

I agree that the notion is interesting, but it isn't clear to me that it is recognized by any sources other than Mr. Mazzone as a "special case". --FOo 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the "Copyright misuse" is confined to theoretical discussion of a specific narrow legal doctrine in U.S. law, while "Copyfraud" has wider scope (and doesn't even seem to mention the specific legal doctrine discussed in "Copyright misuse"). AnonMoos 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see any reference for the term "copyfraud" that is not by Mr. Mazzone. --FOo 02:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still no non-Mazzone sources?

There still appear to be no sources for this term other than Jason Mazzone. Anyone? Anyone? --FOo (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is widely used in the Wikipedia and on Commons. There are 73 matches at http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=copyfraud See also http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=566 --Historiograf (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be cited as a reference for Wikipedia articles. The first of your two links, I'm not sure what it is? A summary of blog comments? The second is a blog entry about a Jason Mazzone paper. --FOo (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop this dogmatic nonsense. If the term is used widespread it isn't relevant for the existence of an article COPYFRAUD here if Mazzone has invented it. --84.60.201.81 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Carol Ebbinghouse, "Copyfraud and Public Domain Works," Searcher: The Magazine for Database Professionals, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan 2008, page 40-62 http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan08/index.shtml

[edit] Copyfraud mentioned in law articles (LexisNexis Search)

Copyright (c) 2007 Georgia Law Review Association, Inc. Georgia Law Review, Fall, 2007, 42 Ga. L. Rev. 1, 15889 words, ARTICLE: COLLATERALIZING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , Xuan-Thao Nguyen*

2 Copyright (c) 2007 Hofstra Law Review Association Hofstra Law Review, Spring, 2007, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 1519, 17626 words, RECLAIMING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES OF MEDIA REFORM: OF BLOGS, EBOOKS, AND BROADBAND: ACCESS TO DIGITAL MEDIA AS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, Hannibal Travis*

3 Copyright (c) 2007 Journal of Law and Policy Journal of Law and Policy, 2007, 15 J.L. & Pol'y 1375, 17268 words, NOTE AND COMMENT: DO WE EVEN NEED A TEST? A REEVALUATION OF ASSESSING SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE, Nicole K. Roodhuyzen*

4 Copyright (c) 2006 University of Miami Law Review University of Miami Law Review, October, 2006, 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 87, 31775 words, ARTICLE: Google Book Search and Fair Use: Tunes for Authors, or Napster for Books?, Hannibal Travis*

5 Copyright (c) 2007 Minnesota Law Review Minnesota Law Review, April, 2007, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 989, 22849 words, Article: Can Our Culture Be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving, Diane Leenheer Zimmerman +

6 Copyright (c) 2006 New York University Law Review New York University Law Review, June, 2006, 81 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1026, 27454 words, ARTICLE: COPYFRAUD, Jason Mazzone*

7 Copyright (c) 2007 Southern Methodist University SMU Law Review, Winter, 2007, 60 SMU L. Rev. 55, 21924 words, ARTICLE: The Trademark/Copyright Divide, Laura A. Heymann*

8 Copyright (c) 2007 Regents of the University of California UC Davis Law Review, November, 2007, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 45, 25875 words, ARTICLE: Super-Copyright: Contracts, Preemption, and the Structure of Copyright Policymaking, Viva R. Moffat *

9 Copyright (c) 2007 Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt Law Review, January, 2007, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 135, 22789 words, ARTICLE: Copyright in an Era of Information Overload: Toward the Privileging of Categorizers, Frank Pasquale *

10 Copyright (c) 2007 The Yale Law Journal Company The Yale Law Journal, March, 2007, 116 Yale L.J. 882, 30237 words, ARTICLE: Risk Aversion and Rights Accretion in Intellectual Property Law, JAMES GIBSON --84.60.201.81 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the L-N search!--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)