papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/25/90)
Darren, as usual you give out a lot of misinformation. In article <20234@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >If it is on a dealer's disk without a copyright, at least >in this country up to a short time ago and maybe even now, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >it was public domain. Since March of 1989 there is NO requirement for a copyright notice to maintain copyright. >You published it without a copyright >and hence you made it PD. (Nowadays, you may need to >put an explicit "this is PD" depending on exactly what >the Berne convention says. You're confused :-) You published without a copyrigth notice --> this does NOT make it public domain. Read the Berne Convention. >I know a patent lawyer; I'll >ask him.) A patent lawyer is not the same as a copyright lawyer. The two things (copyrights and patents) are QUITE different. You mix apple and oranges. >This does not need to be hashed out on USENET... >It's already been hashed out by the lawyers, courts, etc. What we don't need is the kind of misinformation you give out. If you know your stuff, say it. If you don't, ask your lawyer and then say it. Otherwise, you look like a dork :-) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (05/25/90)
In article <24885@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Darren, as usual you give out a lot of misinformation. I take offense at that. Is there any way I can add me to your kill file? I don't think you want to see all this "misinformation". >In article <20234@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >>If it is on a dealer's disk without a copyright, at least >>in this country up to a short time ago and maybe even now, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>it was public domain. > >Since March of 1989 there is NO requirement for a copyright notice to >maintain copyright. Ok. I stand informed. Please note the "maybe" in my future posts. > >>You published it without a copyright >>and hence you made it PD. (Nowadays, you may need to >>put an explicit "this is PD" depending on exactly what >>the Berne convention says. > >You're confused :-) You published without a copyrigth notice --> this does >NOT make it public domain. Read the Berne Convention. Depends on when you published it, doesn't it? Eh? I'm not confused, merely underinformed. However, at least when I am wrong, I make it clear that I might be... unlike some others around here. Actually, do you have an online version of the Berne Convention? Can you tell me where to get hardcopy? >>I know a patent lawyer; I'll >>ask him.) >A patent lawyer is not the same as a copyright lawyer. The two things >(copyrights and patents) are QUITE different. You mix apple and oranges. Better to ask a patent lawyer than an insurance lawyer. Actually, this guy does both. Especially, better to ask a patent lawyer than a software developer :-) >>This does not need to be hashed out on USENET... >>It's already been hashed out by the lawyers, courts, etc. >What we don't need is the kind of misinformation you give out. If you know >your stuff, say it. If you don't, ask your lawyer and then say it. Otherwise, >you look like a dork :-) I beg to differ! I did NOT give misinformation as I clearly stated the circumstances under which I would be wrong (the acceptance of the Berne Convention) and the method of determining whether I was wrong (look at the Berne convention if it has been passed). I also stated that this doesn't need to be discussed on USENET because the lawyers have already answered it (implying that the lawyers are the ones to ask, not you and I). You even underlined the "maybe" above and then tell me that I'm giving misinformation. I challenge you to email me the exact sentence from my article that was incorrect and then tell me I give out misinformation (especially "as usual"). If you can't, I expect a public appology. Geeze, after the **** I got for misattributing a quote to you (especially when I think it was you who misread the ">"s), I would think you would be more careful about calling somebody an "as usual" liar. -- Darren > >-- Marco >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/26/90)
In article <20300@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >I challenge you to email me the exact >sentence from my article that was incorrect and then tell me I give out >misinformation (especially "as usual"). If you can't, I expect a public >appology. Nah, no apology (with one 'p':-) I stand by my statement. I hope you'll read the references I sent you, before speaking up on the subject next time. All the ones from the Copyright Office are free. Have fun reading :-) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/27/90)
menzies@altitude.CAM.ORG (Stephen Menzies) writes: >In article <00tK02X.a9Ii01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >> My impression is that the included animations were already declared to be >> "Freely Redistributable" by their authors. Hence their inclusion in various >> collections, such as the FishDisks, etc. > RGB is RGB, Video is something else. When I distribute work on the >public domain it is freely distributable providing it remains INTACT and >UNALTERED with the intention that this work will be be displayed by an Amiga Sorry guy, but when you distribute work into the public domain, you no longer have ANY control over it, period. If you want control, then claim a copyright on it, then make it freely distributable, with conditions. Public Domain means you don't own it any more. You gave up all rights and anyone can do anything they want to with it. Including selling it. Freely Distributable means you still claim ownership and rights to the program but are allowing free distribution of the software, usually with a few restrictions. Sharware is software that is usually freely distributable (see above) but the Author wants you to pay him for it if you find it useful. In return you usually get support in the form of upgrades, manuals, non-crippled version, etc. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/27/90)
Today as promised, at the PAX Developers meeting I had the occasion of asking Brad Schenk, the author of Sentinel and the winner of the last two Badge Demo contests, his ideas about the status of his animations with respect to distributing them on VHS media instead of floppies. He pointed out that there is a difference between last year and this year rules on Badge submissions. Last years' rules required public domain stuff, and as such he feels that what he submitted is public domain no matter what media is used. This year's rules did not require public domain, and he does not consider Sentinel to be public domain. Note also that the lack of a copyright notice on Sentinel does not make it public domain, due to the fact that this item is no longer required to mantain copyright. While he feels that his animation can be freely redistributed on floppy media, he claims that NOBODY has the right to use his animation on videotape compilations without his permission. AmigaWorld asked for his permission to include Sentinel in the AW videotape. In fact, he really does not have any problem in ALLOWING videotape versions, as long as his release is sought and he can get some kind of assurance that his work is propely credited. There you have it. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
po87553@tut.fi (Ojala Pasi Juhani) (05/27/90)
Hello there! I had a PD-version of QED and I *REALLY* liked it. Unfortunately my lousy hard disk decided to have an error right on the spot where the QED was - so I don't have it any more... 8( And now I'm asking if anyone knows where to get this fabulous product. I really can't remember from where I got it but I think it was some Fishdisk. Please somebody help me!!! (Yeah, I've tried to find it via Aquarium but without any results..).. -Juha
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/28/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >consider Sentinel to be public domain. Note also that the lack of a copyright >notice on Sentinel does not make it public domain, due to the fact that this >item is no longer required to mantain copyright. While he feels that his >animation can be freely redistributed on floppy media, he claims that NOBODY >has the right to use his animation on videotape compilations without his >permission. Partially true. While ommision of a copyright no longer causes you to lose complete control over the copyright, or even the exclusive rights to it, it *does* make it impossible for you to win a copyright infringement case if the infringer claims Innocent infringer" status. More importantly though is the fact that this protection is only extended to US Copyright Law. On the international level, the copyright would probably be found invalid unless the country in question has signed the Berne Convention. -jack-
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/28/90)
In article <1409@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>consider Sentinel to be public domain. Note also that the lack of a copyright >>notice on Sentinel does not make it public domain, due to the fact that this >>item is no longer required to mantain copyright. While he feels that his >>animation can be freely redistributed on floppy media, he claims that NOBODY >>has the right to use his animation on videotape compilations without his >>permission. > >Partially true. While ommision of a copyright no longer causes you to lose >complete control over the copyright, or even the exclusive rights to it, it >*does* make it impossible for you to win a copyright infringement case if the >infringer claims Innocent infringer" status. Well, the infringer cannot just claim "innocent" infringement. He has to "prove" it, which is quite different. Given the fact that it is likely that he would be contacted in case he goes along and releases the tape, not stopping subsequent shipments would certainly drop the possibility of innocent infringement. And I am sure that by now he's found out about it from his net connections. >More importantly though is the fact that this protection is only extended to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >US Copyright Law. On the international level, the copyright would probably ^^^^^^^^ >be found invalid unless the country in question has signed the Berne Convention. Well, to be nice, I'd say that the above is "incorrect": The truth is, since the US joined the Berne convention, beginning March 1, 1989 copyright in the works of U.S authors will be protected automatically in ALL members of the Berne Union (as of September 1988, there were a total of 79 members in the Berne Convention. At last count, all countries in which Commodore sells machines are now signatories of Berne). -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/30/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>Partially true. While ommision of a copyright no longer causes you to lose >>complete control over the copyright, or even the exclusive rights to it, it >>*does* make it impossible for you to win a copyright infringement case if the >>infringer claims Innocent infringer" status. >Well, the infringer cannot just claim "innocent" infringement. He has to >"prove" it, which is quite different. Given the fact that it is likely that >he would be contacted in case he goes along and releases the tape, not stopping >subsequent shipments would certainly drop the possibility of innocent >infringement. And I am sure that by now he's found out about it from his net >connections. Grab a copy of "How to Copyright Software" ISBN: 0-87337-102-X It was really good reading. Proof is in the fact that a complete, not partial, ommision of copyright has taken place. What's more, it would appear that the copyright holder has not taken *any* measures to correct this. If not, it is doubtful that he can do anything other than to get a legal "cease and desist" order for subsequent infringement, and absolutely little, if any, measure of relief via damages. -jack-
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (05/30/90)
In article <1415@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: > >Grab a copy of "How to Copyright Software" ISBN: 0-87337-102-X It was >really good reading. > Was this book published before or after the US signed the Berne Convention regarding copyrights? -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/31/90)
In article <1415@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>Well, the infringer cannot just claim "innocent" infringement. He has to >>"prove" it, which is quite different. Given the fact that it is likely that >>he would be contacted in case he goes along and releases the tape, not stopping >>subsequent shipments would certainly drop the possibility of innocent >>infringement. And I am sure that by now he's found out about it from his net >>connections. > >Grab a copy of "How to Copyright Software" ISBN: 0-87337-102-X It was >really good reading. You might want to get a version updated to include the revisions to the copyright laws enacted on March 1, 1989 when US joined Berne. >Proof is in the fact that a complete, not partial, ommision of copyright has >taken place. What's more, it would appear that the copyright holder has not >taken *any* measures to correct this. Since Berne, "omission" does not make you lose your rights. > If not, it is doubtful that he can do >anything other than to get a legal "cease and desist" order for subsequent >infringement, and absolutely little, if any, measure of relief via damages. That's actually not true, since one CAN register for copyright subsequently (which is a required step for suing), than contact the infringer and ask him to "cease publication" of the material that infringes. In case publication is not ceased, the guy can be sued and innocent infringment will not be admissable. You're also wrong about the damages. Damages depend on date of registration vs. date of publication: (from Circular 93 -- Hightlights of U.S. Adherence to the Berne COnvention) "Presumption of copyright validity. The copyright owner who registers before or within 5 years of first publication receives the benefit of legal presumption in court, called prime facia evidentiary weight. [...] Statutory damages and attorney's fees. Another benefit of timely registration is that the copyright owner of works registered for copyright protection within three months of publication or before infringment, is eligible for an award of attorney's fees and statutory damages. [..] The Berne COnvention Implementation Act doubles statutory damages to: * a range between $500 and $20,000 for ordinary infringment. * a maximum of $100,000 for willful infringment; and * a minimum of $200 for innocent infringment" (end of quote) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (06/01/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>Grab a copy of "How to Copyright Software" ISBN: 0-87337-102-X It was >>really good reading. >You might want to get a version updated to include the revisions to the >copyright laws enacted on March 1, 1989 when US joined Berne. Check the ISBN, that *is* the updated version. >>Proof is in the fact that a complete, not partial, ommision of copyright has >>taken place. What's more, it would appear that the copyright holder has not >>taken *any* measures to correct this. >Since Berne, "omission" does not make you lose your rights. I did not say "lose your rights" with respect to the copyright itself. But, as per pg. 7/11, para. E., the complete omission of a copyright, *without* any measures taken to correct it, hurts your ability to get damages for infringement. >> If not, it is doubtful that he can do >>anything other than to get a legal "cease and desist" order for subsequent >>infringement, and absolutely little, if any, measure of relief via damages. >That's actually not true, since one CAN register for copyright subsequently >(which is a required step for suing), than contact the infringer and ask him >to "cease publication" of the material that infringes. In case publication >is not ceased, the guy can be sued and innocent infringment will not be >admissable. Uh, what did I say that isn't true? You said the same thing, only you worded it differently. A "cease and desist" order is a legal remedy to cause some party to cease operations, if they don't, then you can sue. But, you can't sue for past infringement, only subsequent infringement. >You're also wrong about the damages. Damages depend on date of registration vs. >date of publication: >(from Circular 93 -- Hightlights of U.S. Adherence to the Berne COnvention) >"Presumption of copyright validity. The copyright owner who registers before >or within 5 years of first publication receives the benefit of legal >presumption in court, called prime facia evidentiary weight. [...] Hey Marco, one slight flaw here. You can't register a copyright if it isn't *in* the work. This is what we're talking about here. The omission of it. He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until. -jack-
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/01/90)
In article <1421@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>(from Circular 93 -- Hightlights of U.S. Adherence to the Berne COnvention) >>"Presumption of copyright validity. The copyright owner who registers before >>or within 5 years of first publication receives the benefit of legal >>presumption in court, called prime facia evidentiary weight. [...] > >Hey Marco, one slight flaw here. You can't register a copyright if it isn't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >*in* the work. This is what we're talking about here. The omission of it. ^^^^ ^^ >He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until. You are using a language that doesn't make any sense. Nobody can "register a copyright", one "registers WORKS". What "is *in* the work"? Do you mean a copyright notice? If you do, then you're dead wrong" "MANDATORY NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT IS ABOLISHED -- Mandatory note of copyright is abolished for works published for the first time on or after march 1, 1989. Failure to place a notice of copyright on copies or phonorecords of such works can no longer result in the loss of copyright." (Circ. 93) You say: "The omission of *it*. He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until." The omission of what? If it is the omission of copyright notice that you mean, you're dead wrong there too. As of March 1, 1989 a person can legally REGISTER with the copyright office works that bear NO copyright notice WHATSOEVER. So the phrase "He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until." is just b.s. Capisce? -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (06/01/90)
In article <25022@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes... ^In article <1421@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: ^>papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: ^>>(from Circular 93 -- Hightlights of U.S. Adherence to the Berne COnvention) ^>>"Presumption of copyright validity. The copyright owner who registers before ^>>or within 5 years of first publication receives the benefit of legal ^>>presumption in court, called prime facia evidentiary weight. [...] ^> ^>Hey Marco, one slight flaw here. You can't register a copyright if it isn't ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^>*in* the work. This is what we're talking about here. The omission of it. ^ ^^^^ ^^ ^>He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until. ^ ^You are using a language that doesn't make any sense. Nobody can "register ^a copyright", one "registers WORKS". ^ ^What "is *in* the work"? Do you mean a copyright notice? If you do, then ^you're dead wrong" Er...just following the thread and it really seems that you two are in some sort of basic agreement but are wording things different enough to make you think you aren't. I think he means a register of a complaint rather than a work or copyright. Well...that what it looked like in context. His basic train of thought was that the copyright IS valid even without the notice BUT that it would be difficult to get anything BUT a cease and desist order. After that the author could sue for damages if the transgressor did not stop. ie: You don't lose your rights if the little (c) deelybob isn't somewhere on your work but it may be difficult to get damages. Has enough been said on this topic? It's important and all but... ^ ^-- Marco ObQ: Marco...which Tek Emulation does your program support. I'm looking for a Tek 4111 emulator (best case scenario) or a Tek 4107 emulator (ehhhh sort of solution). These would be useful when I push for getting an Amiga instead of a Mac. Vlt doesn't quite emulate the 4107 as well as VersaTerm Pro does on the Mac. Or at least I haven't been able to hit the correct settings to get it to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
FVEST@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU (Floyd Vest) (06/05/90)
Stephen Menzies <menzies@altitude.cam.org> wrote: > RGB is RGB, Video is something else. When I distribute work on the >public domain it is freely distributable providing it remains INTACT and >UNALTERED Unfortunately, this is not the law. When you place work in the PUBLIC DOMAIN you relinquish these rights. What you want to do is retain the rights to *derivative rights*. Release your animation with a notice that reads: Copyright 1990, Stephen Menzies. This material may be freely distributed as long as is is not altered or distributed in any form other than as an executable program (or whatever it is). I am not a lawyer...hell, I don't even like lawyers :-) //========================================================================\\ || Floyd Vest // WAR \\ fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu || || Auburn University \\ EAGLE // FVEST@AUDUCVAX.bitnet || \\========================================================================//