SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (09/19/89)
On Tue, 19 Sep 89 03:08:09 GMT you said: > "Although use of a notice is not required to obtain copyright >protection or to avoid losing it, owners should continue to place this >notice on their works so they can defeat claims of *innocent* >*infringement*. This occurs when someone copies, publicly performs, or >otherwise exercises an owner's exclusive right, without authorization, >for a protected work that does *not* feature a notice. When a claim of >innocent infringement is defeated, the copyright owner can obtain all >available remedies for infringement, including injunctive relief... It'll be REAL interesting when someone tries to claim that redistribution of something found on a BBS in a 'public domain library' without a copyright not was NOT innocent infringement. I suppose 'please do not distribute' *might* have some chance of defeating a claim of innocent infringement, but if an author doesn't want uncontrolled distribution, why not a direct statement of copyright? I'd GUESS that the reason for the change in the law is the recognition that it's rather easy to delete a copyright statement from computer software and other electronic work. If someone finds a copy of, say Xenocide, on their local BBS (even with an altered name, such as Zenocide) without a copyright statement, the argument will be that they can not claim innocent infringement because they *should* know that the file actually is an altered copy of a protected work (we've all seen the "all rights are gone" type statements in pirateware at one time or another). Isn't that argument likely to be difficult when the software in question 1) isn't a widely recognized popular program, and 2) doesn't have some pretty obvious statement identifying it as pirated? If someone redistributes an old copy of TIC (which DOES contain a copyright statement and has been withdrawn from shareware distribution), how easy would it be to demonstrate that the distributor should have known that the 'shareware' in the old copy no longer applies? Do Chris Chung and I (as 'owners' of APPLE2-L) run some risk if we don't verify the status of everything that passes through (that'll slow distribution down some!)? We prefer software directly from the authors (for more reasons than just copyright issues), but that's not always possible. Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)