Copyright Quotations

I am outraged that the Gorillaz have infringed the copyright of my song 'Time Warp,' claiming their song 'Stylo' to be an original composition.

The marketplace can handle this. The laws are there. The courts have shown a consistent ability to find a balance between copyright owners and copyright users.

Big Tech's nonchalance about copyright violation tramples over people like my wife and me, who strive to make a living in the great tradition of the creative realm.

Traditional copyright has been that you can't make a full copy of somebody's work without their permission.

On scores of sites, users can upload illegal files of my books. As per 1998's toothless Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I bear the burden of discovering and reporting each theft.

Whether I build a character from the ground up or develop one, whether within my own copyright or in licensed work, I can step into that character's mind. It takes a kind of voluntary dissociation akin to method acting, military planning, marketing, or detective work: to think like the other guy and work out what he's going to do next.

But here's the thing: what you do as a screenwriter is you sell your copyright. As a novelist, as a poet, as a playwright, you maintain your copyright

You grow great crops in great soil. And the soil is the commons. Increasingly, we have monopolistic companies that try to take as much as they can for themselves. And we have a patent and copyright regime that makes sure that nothing goes back into the commons unless by an extraordinary act of generosity. This is not fertile soil for innovation.

As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the development and distribution of our culture.

When you have a group of engineers and designers, they are not exactly the best to deal with copyright law.

If you don't move to protect copyright, if you don't move to protect our children, it's not going to sit well

More recently there has been a greater awareness of the sanctity of copyright. More people are offended by someone who is ripping off the copyright owner.

Now the copyright has been extended 20 years, but prior to that they paid no attention to these people, and some of them really need help.

If this takes off, it could steamroller the copyright protection on CDs the labels are pushing.

If we're talking about someone creating something new, those rights are fairly well defined (in the United States, at least) under existing copyright law. But then there's often discussion about the rights of people who produce works under work-for-hire arrangements, which can be far more subtle and nuanced.

If they are allowed to unilaterally change the copyright law and copy anything unless somebody tells you 'no,' it will be impossible for people in the intellectual property community to operate. They keep talking about doing this because it is going to be good for the world. That has never been a principle in law. They 'do no evil' except they are stealing people's property.

Leaving aside the copyright issue, the source code is simply not needed.

Legal or illegal, Napster doesn't feel right, ... It doesn't give the copyright holders their share.

We need copyright protection but we must not stifle technology to get it.

Most TV and radio stations view the Internet as an opportunity to enhance their service to listeners and viewers. There are some issues that have to be addressed like copyright protection, which is critical for broadcasters and some legal issues. But ultimately broadcasters will be huge players in the Internet.

I can't imagine they really want to ostracize companies that use DRM. There are highly legitimate interests of copyright holders involved,

I don't think it's particularly close under copyright law. You're not allowed to copy works for commercial purposes without a license, and that's precisely what they're doing.

We're now at a point where we are starting to send signals, on behalf of the entire copyright community, that there are some problems (with Bill C-60),

We're on the path of creating monopoly business practices out of copyright law.

We're in the process of defining link protection. It allows for protected commercial content to move between devices across the DLNA network, and respects the rights of both copyright owners and content providers.

This was not someone illegally downloading a song. These were copyright violations on a massive scale.

There is no copyright in ideas. It's just about how words are expressed.

My opinion is that Brown probably doesn't have much to worry about because it's hard to copyright history. The same thing happened with 'Roots.' Anybody who has a best-selling novel, people tend to come out of the woodwork.

Many young artists today only experience copyright as an obstacle, a source of incomprehensible demands for payment, cease and desist letters, legal transaction costs. This is a shame because copyright can be a valuable tool for artists and creators of all kinds -- even for those who are trying to share their work without charge.

Our legal folks say we don't have copyright clearance. Graphics artists are working on it as we speak.

I think the threat of potential copyright suits by Hollywood and the recording industry makes it difficult for new businesses to compete. Small businesses simply won't bother to enter the fray or will fold at the first threat of a suit even when what they are doing is legal.

I think there is a fast and loose game being played by many people who are aggregating video online and selling advertising on their Web sites. And I think that there will be a day of reckoning. I don't believe you can build a sustainable business on copyright infringement.

I think art is the only thing that's spirtual in the world. And I refuse to forced to believe in other people's interpretations of God. I don't think anybody should be. No one person can own the copyright to what God means.

It confirms what the Societe has said all along, which is that the Societe is the owner of the copyright and that any reproduction or even possession of plasters, molds and bronzes is a copyright violation,

Today the Supreme Court has unleashed a new era of legal uncertainty on America's innovators. The newly announced inducement theory of copyright liability will fuel a new generation of entertainment industry lawsuits against technology companies. Perhaps more important, the threat of legal costs may lead technology companies to modify their products to please Hollywood instead of consumers.

We have talked with foreign copyright associations, and China plans to join two international copyright protection treaties to bring it into line with world standards.

We have built upon the 'all rights reserved' concept of traditional copyright to offer a voluntary 'some rights reserved' approach.

The Amazon programs are the way copyright is supposed to work.

Wherever you are, you can hear it. Nobody on the team can imitate it. I don't think anyone has ever tried. He's got the copyright on that whistle.

Wherever modern translations of marked excellence were already in existence efforts were made to secure them for the Library, but in a number of instances copyright could not be obtained.

We must protect the rights of the creator, but we cannot in the name of copyright unduly burden consumers and the promising technology the Internet presents to all of us,

There are no copyright issues with these. There are no impediments at all. It's a common heritage, and they will be available to anyone to look at.

Take away from English authors their copyrights, and you would very soon take away from England her authors.

We are confident that this project complies with copyright law. This project represents an enormous leap forward in the public's ability to search and find knowledge.

We are only including copyrighted content with the express permission of the copyright holder.

We prefer to work with the publisher for in-copyright material, ... would never show a full page without the right from a copyright holder.

The demand for Japanese entertainment content by European audiences is growing substantially and we are pleased to partner with Copyright Promotions Licensing Group to bring exposure and mainstream acceptance of this genre to diverse demographic groups throughout Europe. We believe that our partnership with CPLG, with their expertise in publishing, merchandising and promotions across Europe, coupled with our access to the best content and our experience in the U.S. and Japanese markets, will assure the success of this new venture.

One of the convenient things about literature is that, despite copyrights [...] a book belongs to the reader as well as to the writer.

There has to be a better scrutiny both in terms of copyright issues and in terms of taste and decency, if only to make sure that no one is breaking any criminal law.

Napster was predicating its business model on violation of copyright.

To rebroadcast something without a license would be considered to most owners of those licenses a violation of copyright law.

What's really important here is that documentary commitment to telling the truth is being compromised by the need to accommodate perceived intellectual and copyright constraints.

We believe what we're doing is fully consistent with copyright law.

Web sites that attract users by flagrant copyright infringement we don't see as a business.

The point of copyright law is not to give people absolute control over everything they write. It's to compensate artists and authors for the works that they create.

Ultimately publishers and copyright holders will get to make those decisions about how much those pages cost,

VCs aren't going to fund something that will extend copyright infringement,

Ultimately for each individual book, pricing will be up to the copyright holders, ... The copyright holders are the ones who get to make these decisions.

Conservatively speaking, my understanding of the law is that if Google went to scan in a book without the author's permission, then that would be a violation of copyright law. I think it would be great to be able to search text electronically, but you have to get the copyright permission.

Copyright and copyright violations are projections in the image of the reflection of another projection and the projection be it technology or information that is a data base.

Copyright for the most part is an international subject.

Copyright laws are being enforced and upheld in countries all over the world and when you facilitate the illegal file swapping of millions of people around the world, you are subject to those laws. The torrent and torrent tracker is something that points people to various files that make up a copyright that is protected under the law.

Copyright law says they have to get my permission, not that I have to go out of my way to opt out. Google must be stopped. If they are allowed to get away with this, it would be horrendous for every author and publisher.

Is the Copyright Office not going to accept AOL users?

It would resolve a sticking point of who owns the copyright of pictures going forward, and that might still be somewhat of a sticky issue.

The special operation has to some extent played a deterrent role in curbing Internet piracy and copyright violations. But one campaign cannot solve the problem.

We feel strongly that copyright holders should get to make these decisions.

We think most publishers and authors will choose to participate in the publisher program in order to introduce their work to countless readers around the world. But we know that not everyone agrees, and we want to do our best to respect their views too. So now, any and all copyright holders . . . can tell us which books they'd prefer that we not scan if we find them in a library.

There is nothing ambiguous about what Arts-Studio.com is doing. It is a clear and blatant violation of copyright law. When you use something for your own financial gain that someone else created, that is stealing.

To me, Congress would have been wise to say 'If you build a system that approximates the balance of rights with copyright itself, we'll protect it. If you go overboard, you are on your own,' ... It would have been a harder act to create because it would have had a gray zone ... but that's what we pay legislators to do -- to write subtle legislation.

Even if the central themes were copied, they are too general or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law.

People go on and on about the copyright issue, and that is central to what is going on now. Someone sent me an article from the Register this morning about this person named Fisher who has proposed an extra $6 per month on every broadband user's bill that would supply enough revenue to pay all the money that is earned from records and films.

As an industry we recognize the need for more innovation in the area of portability and copyright protection. We want people to be able to enjoy movies on various home entertainment devices without infringing on copyright laws, and we will continue to look for ways to marry those concepts so people can get movies hassle free at a reasonable cost.

Putting a patent on taro is like putting a copyright on Jesus, and every time you pray to him you have to pay me with bread and wine.

The Philippines copyright enforcement is weak and and we are concerned it has the potential of becoming a center of pirate optical media production in Asia given the doubling in the number of production lines for compact discs (CDs) and other optical media during the past year,,

This really stands copyright law on its head. There are hundreds of years of tradition that go the other way.

This case raises important questions of how the copyright laws are to be applied to this new medium,

This 'commitment' is poisoned - they do it in a way that worsens the situation for free software: because that source code is under Microsoft copyright, developers who have seen the source code cannot re-implement it in Free Software for fear of copyright violation.

This case arises out of the government effort to protect children. But there will be other cases involving other crimes or national security or copyright infringement or other matters.

This is a significant step forward in the effort toward inter-industry cooperation in addressing the serious problem of copyright infringement over the Internet,

This is an unusual decision based on a procedural anomaly. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case or the substance of copyright law. We have filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. To date, we have won the only two court decisions on the merits of our cases. The basic fact remains: Regardless of age, if you violate the law and steal from record companies, musicians, songwriters and everyone else involved in making music, you can be held accountable.

This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.

This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law. It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied.

In all likelihood, the Library of Congress and Dr. Billington will be consulting closely with the U.S. Copyright Office housed in the Library of Congress,

I'm going to copyright myself so he can have that distinction, sell them off.

The basic idea of copyright law is to encourage authorship. To encourage people to invest the necessary resources to develop books and music and art. If you are downloading for free what everyone else is paying for, you are probably violating the law, which means you are violating the honor code.

Any and all copyright holders ... can tell us which books they'd prefer that we not scan if we find them in a library.

It's not clear that anyone could even make 'Eyes on the Prize' today because of rights clearances, ... What's really important here is that documentary commitment to telling the truth is being compromised by the need to accommodate perceived intellectual and copyright constraints.

Creating an easy-to-use index of books is fair use under copyright law and supports the purpose of copyright: to increase the awareness and sales of books, directly benefiting copyright holders. This short-sighted attempt to block Google Print works counter to the interests of not just the world's readers, but also the world's authors and publishers.

It's pretty clear who won. We always knew that this free trading of all this copyright material couldn't go on. It just wouldn't work.

The copyright bargain: a balance between protection for the artist and rights for the consumer.

The copyright law allows us as students and educators some wiggle room for scholarly use.

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 required us to create a pre-registration system for certain works, and we have to have that system up and running by 24 October. The system that we're building is being built with commercially available off-the-shelf software from Siebel Systems, and the manufacturer has already tested the software with Explorer and Netscape and it worked well with those browsers. It may work well with other browsers, but they haven't tested those yet with the version of the Siebel software we're using right now.

It's very simple. The question is who owns the copyright. Ed Condren and I say the instructors do. So do UCLA Extension and OnlineLearning.net -- now. But in the bundle of rights which is called copyright is distribution rights. And the legal owner of the copyright has to have somehow assigned that right to someone -- either directly to OnlineLearning or indirectly via the university -- in order for OnlineLearning to have that right. In other words, how can two things be true: The instructor owns all the rights and OnlineLearning has some rights?

The U.S. government's request for information on the administrative, civil and criminal actions to enforce China's intellectual property rights obligations is critical to ensuring China's international commitments and to protecting the rights of the U.S. copyright industries,

I guess to us that suggests not much faith in the copyright law, ... It seems to us, the moment anyone starts to do things that have an actual harm, copyright law is very well designed to deal with that. It is hard to understand exactly what is the harm.

Internet copyright infringement activities have been increasingly rampant.

In the rush to crack down on pirates, we risk eliminating a critical consumer right the right to use copyrighted material, without the permission of the copyright owner.

I love the fact of the dual association of how long an artist can last and reinvent himself and with the right copyright and arrangement, how many ways a song can be reinvented.

How can a user turn around and sue for this? They're the ones who decided to commit copyright infringement.