RE: VERY interesting copyright article

Darryl Wiggers (
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:22:51 -0800 (PST)

> I have a hard time understanding the mentality that says "if I don't
> care for the law, the law be damned, I'm gonna do whatever I want".

Me too. That's not what I'm saying is happening. That's not what Mr.
CleanVideo is claiming.

> You stated that you wanted to see something in writing that says
> what this guy is doing is wrong? This URL is for the Copyright
> Office:

Yeah, I know. I've seen it many times before.

> If you go here and click on the first hyperlink (What is copyright),
> you will see in writing that creating derivative works is the RIGHT
> (this includes granting permission to alter the original) of the
> copyright holder, be that the original author or the publisher to
> whom the copyright belongs. It's real simple: you simply cannot
> change the essential nature of someone else's work without their
> permission.

Good. Now maybe you can do me a favour: reach for your dictionary and look
up "derivative." Better still, look up "derive." Read it carefully. Now my
version for the definition of "derive" starts by saying "to receive or
obtain from a source of origin... to trace from a source or origin... to
produce or obtain from another..." and the definition of "derivative" is
"derived... the act or fact of deriving or of being derived... the process
of deriving..."

It doesn't take a lot of effort to realize that's NOT what Mr. CleanVideo is