Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft

[stephen@example.com]

Keith Bawden writes:

 > Wouldn't that be that the actual document, bank card et cetera be the
 > property in question, as opposed to the actual information contained in
 > the passport. Name, address, the names of countries you have been too
 > and so on.

Sure.  Copyright law only pertains to information "as fixed in some
medium".  You can't copyright a brain fart, only its written (sung,
whatever) representation.  So, in the passport example, you're not
allowed to copy the visa you have for being in Japan into another
passport.  It's true that in these cases the physical medium also is
owned by the issuer, but that's a matter of making it easy to withdraw
the information, not because anybody cares about the physical medium.

 > > Also, look up "Westlaw index".  The law in the U.S. is public domain.
 > > The Westlaw indexing numbers (which are required for citation in some
 > > cases) are proprietary.
 > 
 > The data is public domain but in the Westlaw Index case isn't it the
 > mechanism used to present and store the information that is proprietary.

No.  The numbers are proprietary.  You may not use them as metadata
for creating an index of legal citations without a license, or perform
them in public (whatever that might mean :-).

 > In Australia information that a government department holds on a person
 > is accessible under the freedom of information act.

Accessible, yes.  Owned?  Can you make them change that information?
No.  Delete it?  No.  So you don't own it.  FOI is like fair use; it's
a specific privilege granted to others, but has no bearing on who owns
various rights to manipulate the information.

 > In the case of the bitkeeper metadata isn't that data unique to what was
 > put in their by the users?

Doesn't matter.  Why should it?  Any history book contains information
unique to the individuals who "made history", but the copyright
clearly resides in the book's authors (or employers in the case of a
work for hire).

 > By providing access to certain functionality and a providing help
 > documentation wouldn't that imply consent to use the functionality as
 > provided?

Yes.  *Under the license as provided by the rightsholder*.

 > Sort of like how you are not trespassing when you walk onto
 > someone's property to knock on their door.

AFAIK, you are.  There may be some kind of exception for the case you
describe, but if so, it's not a matter of "implied consent", it's a
matter of the state restricting the rights granted in real property.

 > If they withdraw the implied consent by saying "get off my land"
 > you would then be trespassing. As for shoplifting their is no
 > consent - implied or otherwise - to steal.

Which part of "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" are you having trouble
understanding? ;-)  I'm sorry, there is no "implied consent", not for
intellectual property, anyway.  Fair use is not a license, for
example.

Aside: I don't know anything for sure about any doctrine of implied
consent, but as I recall the usage I know of, it's always in the
context of a licensee giving consent to behavior by a licensor (in
fact, invariably the state).  So, for example, a cop can't arbitrarily
demand that you breathe into a tube; that's unreasonable search.  But
if you are driving an automobile, he can in most U.S. states, because
you have given implied consent to such searches by obtaining a license
and driving.