On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:31:29 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>> Sasha,
>>
>> With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
>> regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
>> publish.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Michael, -
>
> I spoke to my patent lawyer and he told me never again to be involved in
> this kind of conversations because as he said "nobody really knows how to
> interpret all this". Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
> "tangible"? If you read the messages on this thread you will find so many
> contradictions that it makes the issue nonsensical. Clearly it will some day
> be decided on by some court, appealed etc., etc.

Well, Clarinews, the clari.* hierarchy, distributed information over
usenet which is clearly copyrighted content which they distribute in
other ways as well.

As for no one really knowing how to interpret this, it's basically
because nobody wants to make a stand that might one day come around to
bite them in the bum. IMHO, it's self interest that is causing a large
part of the confusion, not the issue itself.

> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
> decide.

Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
were they? Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
clue or even try to stop you?

> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.

Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...


--
Derek

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shorline of
wonder." -- Ralph W. Sockman