[ad name=”Adsense”]
A two-purpose post…. First, the need for a “common sense clause” in the legal system. This clause would give the jury or judge (the party employing this “common sense” clause, judge or jury, would override the other) the option to legally enforce a “you all need to go to your rooms and think about what you’ve done” verdict for the case. When would this be used? If someone spills a hot beverage on themselves and thinks they can sue the distributor of said beverage… And isn’t there some story floating around about an RV company being sued because the driver didn’t know that cruise control differed from “automatic pilot”? Enough of this paragraph, it is barely related to the second issue (and inspiration of this pointless rant)….
The post’s second purpose….to criticize an instance of excessive legality with which we are all too familiar. Everyone has seen the “don’t publish any little bit of this book” statement in the copyright page of nearly every publication. Naturally, I will not directly quote any part of it for fear of breaking the law. But you can read it here if you want (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22No+part+of+this+publication%22). Someone needs to address some inherent problems with this statement. Maybe we can write a more appropriate one.
Read the statement….yep, the link above….ok…..what constitutes a part of a book? One might rightly fear a lawsuit after copying a complete sentence of a book. One might irrationally fear a lawsuit after realizing that many of the words they write everyday are also found in said book… Or what about common knowledge/conventional phrases/ stuff that just doesn’t matter/etc.? A self-constructed list of common expressions in a foreign language should certainly not be considered a copyright infringement against numerous language resources (which happen to be infringing on each other).
Is this all over the top? Yes…. Section 107 of the Copyright Act prevents against the possible confusion detailed above. Nevertheless, the all too familiar warning at the beginning of many books has way too many words in it….that’s all I really want to say. And the picture these words portray is unnecessarily restrictive. Can’t transmit anything, by any means? Come find me as I recite a sentence from my favorite novel to my friend over the telephone. Why use legal jargon when the multitude of mumbo-jumbo adds up to something impractical and unfeasible? How ’bout something like….”Don’t do anything with this book that violates the Copyright Act. If you’re unsure if an action is in violation, it is suggested that you put the book down, grab a snack from the fridge, and vegetate until you forget what you were going to do in the first place.” At least this wording is accurate and clear!
Feel free to copy as much of this post as you want.
[ad name=”Adsense”]