Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/23/2010 4:56 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Why not read Feist (supra).
>
> Sure. <http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/feist_v_rural.htm>: To qualify
> for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See:
> Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549, 105 S.Ct., at 2223-2224. Original,
> as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was
> independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other
> works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of
> creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright ss 2.01[A], [B] (1990)
> (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite level of creativity
> is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast
> majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some
> creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.
> Id., s 1.08[C] [1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may
> be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as
> the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.
>
> More than stupid. Willfully, obtusely stupid. Don't you get tired of
> it?

Sigh... I'll leave it to you and the SFLC to explain to a federal court
that originality is not a requirement for copyrights and that the
Copyright Act doesn't say:

"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
..."

And that Justice Conner didn't hold that:

"Originality is a constitutional requirement. The source of Congress'
power to enact copyright laws is Article I, s 8, cl. 8, of the
Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "secur[e] for limited Times
to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings." In two
decisions from the late 19th century-- The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S.
82, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349 (1884)--this Court defined the
crucial terms "authors" and "writings." In so doing, the Court made it
unmistakably clear that these terms presuppose a degree of originality."
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
(1991).

Once you slip into your cozy little world of denial there's nothing
further to be said. Solipsism cannot be refuted through rational discourse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)