trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) (03/29/91)
bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes: > Court Rules Phone Books Unprotected; Justices: Copyright Law Doesn't > Apply [Moderator's Note: I think we are witnessing the end of an era > of accurate, reliable telephone directories from the Bell telcos. > Obviously from this point forward instead of maintaining a detailed > and highly technical directory bureau, all telco needs to do is copy > some other directory and put their name on the cover each year. PAT] I think you are wrong. How do you think a local directory is assembled by the phone company? They have their subscriber's names and addresses on their billing computers; dump the names, addresses and phone numbers into a file, sort them, massage them a little, and send the results to a postscript typsetter; voila, instant white-pages. I'd be shocked if the phone companies did it any other way! Since the telcos have the customers, and assign the numbers, and need to have the details in order to run their businesses, there is no reason for their directories to be innacurate. I do have some qualms about the court decision, however. The phone company does spend money to create the entries in the white pages, and it seems to me that rival directory companies are getting a free ride on the back of Ma Bell. Also, who is going to define what an "original work" is? There are a lot of complicated privacy issues here. It would be nice if it were the case that each subscriber "owned" his telephone number, and had the right to decide how it was distributed. That would force the whole industry to get real when it comes to a wide variety of privacy issues; alas, it will never happen. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Well, the court decision was just another in the series of 'dump on Ma Bell' decisions for which the federal judiciary is well-known. Of course telco spends a great deal of time and money to verify their directories and insure accuracy. Most of the other fly-by-night one shot directory publishers make no attempt to verify anything. They just copy from telco. This can be easily proven as Illinois Bell has done a couple times: IBT puts 'ringers' in their directories; that is, here and there a totally made-up entry which does not exist. This disproves any claims of 'carefully researched and compiled' directories by other publishers. When a competitor's directory comes out (or a new Haines Criss-Cross book) IBT checks it out looking for their 'ringers'. If they find any (ringers), the competitor gets sued for copyright violation. At least they did in the past. I guess now telco gets to do the work for the other publishers for free. If *I* had anything to do with telco directory compilation and distribution, my response to the Supreme Court would be to abolish phone directories entirely. That would wipe out the leeches in the directory-publishing industry overnight and prevent any futher theft of my work, whether the Supreme Court liked it or not. PAT]
"Daniel R. Guilderson" <ryan@cs.umb.edu> (03/31/91)
> PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: [stuff deleted] > If *I* had anything to do with telco directory compilation and > distribution, my response to the Supreme Court would be to abolish > phone directories entirely. That would wipe out the leeches in the > directory-publishing industry overnight and prevent any futher > theft of my work, whether the Supreme Court liked it or not. PAT] That would be a counterproductive response for a company which was in the business of pleasing its customers. Publishing a directory probably doesn't cost the phone company a whole lot relative to the entire business. Since it is great public relations and great advertising, it would be prudent to keep producing and distributing them. Another thing to consider is that the cost of compiling and checking the directory information is probably miniscule compared to the cost of manufacturing and distributing the directories. My last thought on this is that the competing directory publishers have to get the information somehow. I would think that it would be easier and cheaper to buy the information directly from the phone company, probably in electronic form. I say this because of all the different white page directories I have ever seen, I have never seen one that wasn't reformatted to fit in more advertising. With that in mind, I would imagine that the cost of buying the electronic info would be small compared to the cost of working with a hardcopy or the cost of scanning in the information. By the way, the framers of the US Constitution never intended copyrights to protect personal information. They were intended to protect creative works. Trying to apply a limited law to a more general case will most likely be disastrous. Daniel Guilderson UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA USA ryan@cs.umb.edu [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle. They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force them to pay for it. You say 'telco is in the business of pleasing its customers' ... but what about the alternate directory people? Are they trying to please anyone, or just make a fast buck show up even faster? Since they no longer have to pay telco for the directory listings (for to force them to pay if they were unable to do so would be denying them what the court said they could have with no strings attached), how many of those companies do you think will actually volunteer to pay anything? Do you have money you wish to give away to telco? If I was in telco's place, I'd suspend directory publishing at least for two or three years and let the lucky benefactors of the Court's Wisdom wind up bankrupt and out of business, *then* start publishing directories again. PAT]
Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/31/91)
In article <telecom11.251.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor> writes: > I do have some qualms about the court decision, however. The phone > company does spend money to create the entries in the white pages, and > it seems to me that rival directory companies are getting a free ride This really misses the basic idea that the phone company ought NOT own YOUR number. Now with alternate phone companies being able to provide you dialtone this is more significant. They are paid well to manage the dwindling phone number resourse. I am in no way suggesting they should be paid any less than they are now for providing local white pages. I get really POd when I have to battle to get ALL the Metro Boston books I am entitled to, and when 411 is so badly configured that you MUST tell them what phone book (Central, North, South, West) to look in or they won't even look for you. 411 was bearable because it was free, but now they 'traded' charging for 411 for providing 911. AOS companies currently deserve every foul name they are called. But I bet an alternate 411 service here in MA that found what you were looking for without your knowing which book to use would be a big hit, and I bet they could charge less and make money. But even without an alternate 411, consider the trees saved, and $s saved by optionally providing white pages on CDROM. Each disc labeled and boxed is well under $2 to make. The 'free' Boston four white books pile can't be that cheap. I would instantly opt for a disc rather than paper, and would even consider $10 'ok' until their volume got high enough that their mastering costs became irrelevant. What does NYNEX want for that CD? Try $10,000 per year, or MORE if networked beyond 1 PC! Phone numbers are a crude temporary necessity they have imposed on us. Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone be voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is being refered to. In the meantime, the post office shouldn't 'own' my street address, and the phone company shouldn't 'own' my electronic (phone) one. [Moderator's Note: The post office does not own your street address. The only organization which possibly 'owns' your street address is your municipal government, which if they operate like ours, has at one time or another passed an ordinance naming the streets and detirmining the measurements used to provide each parcel of land with one or more uniquely identifying numbers. PAT]
ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (04/01/91)
In <telecom11.249.2@eecs.nwu.edu> konstan@elmer-fudd.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes: > The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that phone book listings are not > creative works and that the factual contents are not protected by > copyright. Specifically, anyone else can reproduce the alphabetical > listing right from the phone book! If the sweeping generalities in the Post article are true, I have to disagree with the Supreme Court, because it left this big, vague "originality" problem in case law. But in this particular case, I'm actually chuckling quite loud. Here's a rural telco that basically didn't feel like giving its directory information out to anyone, and they got spanked -- but in the process, they apparently brought grief to other telcos (like US West) who have maintained copyrights on the White Pages but have been willing to license the subscriber lists. Now, anyone can rip 'em off for free. Everybody say 'thanks' to that li'l telco. (I bet the BOC's are gonna be as happy with that company as the press is with CNN for launching that silly prior restraint case.) Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu | Face it. Harry was WAY too homely for Sally. Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency.
jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) (04/01/91)
In article <telecom11.258.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > for providing local white pages. I get really POd when I have to > battle to get ALL the Metro Boston books I am entitled to, and when > 411 is so badly configured that you MUST tell them what phone book > (Central, North, South, West) to look in or they won't even look for > you. 411 was bearable because it was free, but now they 'traded' > charging for 411 for providing 911. I had to call Boston DA today to track down a Boston area number. I knew the company was in the Boston area, but not in Boston. I told the operator this, she checked the Boston listings, and told me she couldn't find a listing. I asked her to check the surrounding areas, she said she had to know the name of the town. When I asked her to do a cross-directory check, she hung up on me! I called back, asked for the supervisor and told her what happened. She said that the operators can do a search of surrounding areas without any problem. She took some info about the call (the DA operator didn't giver a name, either) and said she would look into it. When I asked the supervisor about why the DA operator would have hung up on me (hinting that the operator didn't want to spend the time due to a time quota), she said there is no quota and suggested that it was an equipment problem. Can anyone tell me what it's really like behind a DA console? Surely there must be quotas/time limits per call. What kind of searching capability do the operators have? How is the informatio presented to the operator when there is more than one matching name? Thanks! RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____|
wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) (04/04/91)
In response to Moderator's assertion that alternate phone directory companies are a bunch of cheating copy-cats, I must disagree. Our local alternate pays 45 cents per name to obtain the names from Michigan Bell to prepare their book. They used to pay two cents per name less than ten years ago. They didn't actually tell me how long ago it was, but the young lady I spoke to couldn't have been working longer than that. The practice of including "ringers" in compiled lists is common in compilations of information, but the practice doesn't mean that people actually steal the information frequently. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (04/05/91)
In article <telecom11.267.4@eecs.nwu.edu> ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes: > My last thought on this is that the competing directory publishers > have to get the information somehow. I would think that it would be > easier and cheaper to buy the information directly from the phone > company, probably in electronic form. I say this because of all the > different white page directories I have ever seen, I have never seen > one that wasn't reformatted to fit in more advertising. With that in > mind, I would imagine that the cost of buying the electronic info > would be small compared to the cost of working with a hardcopy or the > cost of scanning in the information. [deleted] > [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the > information by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing > said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle. > They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid > them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force > them to pay for it. You say 'telco is in the business of pleasing its > customers' ... but what about the alternate directory people? Are they > trying to please anyone, or just make a fast buck show up even faster? > Since they no longer have to pay telco for the directory listings (for > to force them to pay if they were unable to do so would be denying > them what the court said they could have with no strings attached), > how many of those companies do you think will actually volunteer to > pay anything? Do you have money you wish to give away to telco? If I > was in telco's place, I'd suspend directory publishing at least for > two or three years and let the lucky benefactors of the Court's Wisdom > wind up bankrupt and out of business, *then* start publishing > directories again. PAT] This is unlikely and unproductive for a number of potential reasons: 1. Attempting to drive a competitor out of business is often frowned upon by various regulatory and securities and legal authorities. Can you say 'anti-trust' ? This doesn't give the competitor any guarantee of existence but unfair business practices are out. 2. The absence of directories would hurt both consumers and merchants and potentially the phone companies themselves (except for DA of course, and that might be looked upon badly by the PUC's). 3. The officers of the phone companies have a fudiciary responsibility to maximize profits, not act out of spite. 4. The issue raised by the poster is that it could be more cost effective for the alternative directory publishers to buy the information in an already computerized form at a cheaper rate per entry than capturing it via human or automated means. 5. Selling it would become a profit center for the telco's. If you have to provide it to outsiders with no protection from copyright, you might as well make some money on the deal. [Moderator's Note: Well then, I would hand them a phone book -- probably one removed from service after a couple months at a pay station with the cover defaced and half the pages missing and tell them to have at it ... :) PAT]
whs70@taichi.bellcore.com (24460-W. H. Sohl(L145)) (04/06/91)
Pat, our Moderator said: > [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the > informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing > said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle. > They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid > them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force > them to pay for it. But, I believe, the court did not say that the telco MUST give away the directory listings in any readily available electronic form. The writer to which Pat responds had pointed out it was probably cheaper to buy the list than to "retype" or scan an existing hard copy. I tend to agree. Remember, the case on which the Supreme Court rule stemmed from the refusal of the telco to even consider selling the data. The plaintiffs then copied the data from existing directories. The plaintiffs were apparently willing (and I'd guess would have prefered) to buy an electronic list. This is my personal view and not necessarily that of my employer. Bill Sohl || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/06/91)
> [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the > informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing > said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle. For what? The white pages? They still have to get the information into their database: the telco can just give them a phone book and say "have at it". Now how much are the *tapes* worth? peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (04/06/91)
> [Moderator's Note: They are free to take the information, period. Yes... That's what the court said. > Telco cannot forbid them to rip off the information in the > directory, nor can they force them to pay for it. You say 'telco is > in the business of pleasing its customers' Yes, and maybe rationality will now set in. Scenario: I get a phone from the LEC. Customer Service: "Do you want your phone listing published? It will cost $xx.xx" Me: "No." Customer Service: "OK" Finally, the customer who wants more will pay more, and the customer who wants less, will pay less. Pat, I'm very happy with this decision, because it's very realistic. The phone numbers, once assigned, belong to the customer, not the phone company. At some point as a result of this decision, I will be able to stop bribing the phone company to keep my phone number private. Cheers, Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
barefoot@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) (04/07/91)
In article <telecom11.267.4@eecs.nwu.edu> ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes: (see earlier messages in this issue) >[Moderator's Note: (and likewise, see earlier messages) I think what the original poster meant was that as long as the telephone company is willing to sell directory information at a reasonable price, the third-party vendor is better off buying a magnetic tape containing white page information from the telco than if they read/scan the information directly from the phone book themselves. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu
ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) (04/07/91)
Even if a directory publisher unaffiliated with the local telephone company is free to reprint listings from the local telephone book, those listings will still be somewhat out of date compared to those available in the telephone company's database. The telco directory is only published once a year, and has a cut-off date some months before the actual publication date to allow for typesetting, printing, binding, etc. So a reputable competitive directory publisher may well want the actual telco database in order to produce a relatively current book (and to avoid the expense of re-entering the information from the printed telco directory). In general, can competitive directory publishers get this information for a fee from the telco? (I suspect that this varies between the states, as I have not seen any references to U.S. federal policy on competitive directories.) Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp [Moderator's Note: I don't think telco has to sell them anything except phone service. I certainly don't think telco would have to sell them access to their data base or up to the minute mag tapes. I guess by this new rule telco can't stop them from copying the directory by hand, however. PAT]
rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com (04/09/91)
Jim Bubler wrote that a phone number once assigned belongs to a customer. While I am on his side, his statement isn't true. Telephone numbers remain the property of telco and can be changed at their whim, etc. Sorry, Jim, but we basically have no rights, so to speak, when it comes to "our" phone numbers. Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Every phone book says it in these words, more or less, "Whenever, in the conduct of its business, the Company finds it desirable to change the number, etc ..." PAT]
"Robert E. Zabloudil" <nol2105%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@dsac.dla.mil> (04/09/91)
I suppose what the phone company could arrange to do is copy their database as of the closing date of the directory, and then "sell" competitors copies of THOSE tapes when requested. Assuming, of course, that the price would be set to cover "postage and handling" only, in keeping with the court decision. Our newsfeed was down, so I didn't see the original posting. I imagine, though, that the above would comply with the letter of the court's ruling. Opinions, of course, strictly my own.
IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (04/10/91)
It would appear to me that the LEC makes no money on the distribution of white pages, as they cost nothing to the local subscriber, and contain no paid advertising. To the contrary, the LEC apparently does so as a public service to the users of their service. Perhaps initially upon the introduction of charge for DA, the LEC might have argued before the PUC that the availability of white pages would keep directory service free for those not too lazy to use them. Aside from that, and the introductory information on service ordering, etc. I don't see the LEC having a whole lot of use for them. Certainly the availability of white pages cuts DA revenue somewhat, but I doubt that much regular traffic would be lost without the directory. I know some LEC's are very stingy with the distribution of the directory, perhaps to limit publication runs, or increase DA use. (Especially GTE!!) Although I would hate to see it happen, perhaps Pat's suggestion about LEC's stopping their white pages publication might be taken seriously by some LECs facing stiff competition in the yellow/white business. The various retreads would _have_ to buy the white tapes from the LEC, providing revenue there, and the directories would still be made available through those other publishers. Here in LA we are hit with I believe at least four different yellow pages ripoffs, one of which is PacBell including white pages, covering neighborhoods that aren't their own turf. I wonder if there is some regulation requiring the LEC to publish directories. For if not, I can see some LEC's dropping the white pages as soon as someone else shows up to take up the slack. Andy Jacobson<izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet>
Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com> (04/10/91)
In article <telecom11.276.6@eecs.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Jim Bubler wrote that a phone number once assigned belongs to a ^_ that's a /d/ > customer. While I am on his side, his statement isn't true. Telephone > numbers remain the property of telco and can be changed at their whim, > etc. Sorry, Jim, but we basically have no rights, so to speak, when it > comes to "our" phone numbers. > [Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Every phone book says it in > these words, more or less, "Whenever, in the conduct of its business, > the Company finds it desirable to change the number, etc ..." PAT] I agree we have no rights. 8^( But whether the phone number belong to the phone company or not, the right to associate that number to my name should not belong to the phone company. What I tried to articulate was that now that the Supreme Court has taken away their right to claim copyright on an expression of that association of name to number, they will chose to replace the income by charging people who wish their name to number association to be public. Thus everyone listed in white pages will have paid for that publication and the phone company will have made their bucks, and the copying will be an extension of their customer's desire of that name to number association being public information. And therefore my desire to be non-published will become free. jim P.S. Bubler isn't bad, I usually get Butler, of course, but I've also been called Butter, and Budder. 8^) Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com Silvar-Lisco +1.408.991.6115 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
Linc Madison <linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu> (04/11/91)
In article <telecom11.267.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Daniel Guilderson (ryan@cs. umb.edu) writes: > By the way, the framers of the US Constitution never intended > copyrights to protect personal information. They were intended to > protect creative works. Fine and well, but please remember that the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically stated that their intents should NEVER be used as a guide for interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, they carefully shrouded their intent in secrecy, so that only the written document itself could be used. Thus, there is a profound irony in any argument based on "the intent of the framers," since it is inherently self-contradictory. Lincoln Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu
Seth Breidbart <sethb@fid.morgan.com> (04/11/91)
In New York, the phone company does not charge (I believe, is not allowed to charge) for DA calls for numbers that are not listed in the White Pages. Therefore, the phone company here will continue to publish directories in order to keep DA profitable.
Mark Mortarotti <mort@hpihoah.cup.hp.com> (04/19/91)
I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, " P A Y M E "!!! We have been forced over the years to comply what is currently done. I pay a fee to the telephone company to keep my number unlisted. I just realized I can avoid the fee altogether by letting the phone company just print my telephone number, not my name, and not my address. Then any person who whats to use the phone book for wall paper may, and I will not object. Just a thought, Mark
rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com (04/24/91)
Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has jurisdiction on how our addresses are numbered or arranged. Such cities (apparently with the approval or advice of the Postal Service, according to my friend) can change your address without your approval or even knowledge for that matter. Does this surprise you, Mark? Unfortunately, we'd be surprised (or would we?) to find out just how little control we have over things we consider our "own". Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL.
"Michael H. Riddle" <riddle@hoss.unl.edu> (04/25/91)
In <telecom11.301.8@eecs.nwu.edu> mort@hpihoah.cup.hp.com (Mark Mortarotti) writes: > I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number > by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants > to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, > " P A Y M E "!!! If we're really still on the subject of the Court decision, having read it I can say that the issue was much more narrow. It was stricly one of copyright law and compilation. Much of the discussion here, valuable as it has been, was about public policy and phone numbers. For the purposes of copyrighting white pages, however, the subject is substantially narrower, and that was the basis of the Court decision. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska postmaster%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
"Michael P. Deignan" <mpd@anomaly.sbs.com> (04/26/91)
mort@hpihoah.cup.hp.com (Mark Mortarotti) writes: > I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants > to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, > " P A Y M E "!!! Sorry, its also a matter of public record. You can obtain the same information from a variety of sources (for example, your address from the voter registration files of the city you live in and your phone number from the phone directory.) I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with this scam: 1. Take phone book. 2. Send letter to block of listees which says something to the effect of: "We're including your name and phone number in a mailing list which will be offered for sale to various telemarketing companies. If you would like to be excluded from this list, enclose the attached form (along with a cheque for $5 to cover processing costs)...." 3. Sit back and wait for the cash to flow in from people who want to avoid having their name sold. Michael P. Deignan Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com These Opinions Generally UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Represent The Opinions Of Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 My Company...
Carl Wright <wright@ais.org> (04/26/91)
In article <telecom11.305.8@eecs.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. Randy goes on to explain that our addresses belong to the local government and the post office to make what they will. I agree with him. Further I believe that Mark's name as a work of original authorship could be copyrightable by his parents. They thought it up and first published it. But Mark could claim that his name is a trademark which marks the results of his work and so long as he uses it, he has rights over the name. Probably the only thing that Mark owns is HIS TIME. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105
mjm@hpqtdla.sqf.hp.com (Murdo McKissock) (05/02/91)
> Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. > While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I > was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal > Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has Very true. After all, the city determines the name in the first place. A couple of years ago Glasgow renamed one of their squares "Nelson Mandela Place". It was the location of the South African Consulate. I imagine they didn't change their letterhead.