Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM (05/25/91)
[the discusson of this in Telecom Digest lasted only 2 messages, so i'm crossposting it here for your interest.] >>>>> On 20 May 91 02:51:17 GMT, >>>>> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J >>>>> Woodhead) said: Robert> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 379, Message 5 of 10 Robert> Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my > Illinois Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly > bland street map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom > of each page. Would the U.S. Supreme Court also see this map as a > mere collection of facts too? Robert> You are confusing facts with expression. Copyright law covers Robert> the expression of ideas (or facts, or whatever), not the Robert> underlying ideas themselves. Thus, that *particular* map Robert> (expression) can be copyrighted, but the idea behind it (the Robert> configuration of streets) cannot. Robert> Personally, I think the SC ruling is a flawed one. I Robert> certainly believe that it is inequitable. TPC spent time and Robert> money to generate the phone number listings in the book, and Robert> rival white pages companies should pony up if they want to use Robert> them -- or generate them a different way. TANSTAAFL! Robert> Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. Robert> trebor@foretune.co.jp [e-mail replies: please post it to netnews instead -DJ]