[Fsfe-ie] Previous meeting with MEP Brian Crowley

[Kevin O'Riordan]

> > Thus, copyright required newness ... On later research, I read that
> > Harrison never claimed not to have heard the song ...

> If I am correct then copyright does not require 'newness'

Here's what appears to be the Judge's summation of the 1976 case:

    http://tinyurl.com/55kh8

And here's three snippets that I think are of note:

    "his subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his
     conscious mind did not remember"

    "George Harrison, a former member of The Beatles, was aware of
     He's So Fine.  In the United States, it was No. 1 on the
     billboard charts for five weeks ...  For seven weeks in 1963,
     He's So Fine was one of the top hits in England."

    "Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine?  I do
     not believe he did so deliberately.  Nevertheless, it is clear
     that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with
     different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This
     is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so
     even though subconsciously accomplished"

The Judge decided that Harrison's work was _not_ an independent
invention, but rather an unintentional breach of copyright.

hth,
-kor

-- 
    You'd think that with a name like "GigaFast," the WF717-APR
    router would deliver a great performance, but you'd be
    GigaWrong. Buy this one and you'll end up GigaSad in no time.
        -- PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp)