SH> LL>       Nope, in 5 seconds you could change the copyright notice, but 
e
  > LL> would still hold the rights to the code and could sue you.
SH>Only if he could prove ownership. I could change the code around to look
  >like it was my own, but similar to his, which would still have saved me a
  >lot of work in the first place.
  There are law firms which base their whole practice on proving just
  that - that you copied someone else's code, made small mods, and then
  published it as your own. Rest assured that they'd take a very close
  look at the underlying algorithms. That along with the fact that you
  have published statements indicating your willingness to copy other
  folks' code, would pretty well allow you to pay...
SH> LL>       Without filing the copyright I have to prove damages and
  > LL> ownership. With filing all I have to do is prove that you stole my
  > LL> intellectual property and used it (or it's derivitive).
SH>How could he prove ownership? I'll bet he didn't file with the gov't
  >because, frankly, it's small potatoes (as compared to the other things 
hat
  >are filed with them, namely commercial products).
  Well, the fact that he published the code in this echo with his
  copyright notice would settle the matter in court immediately. And I
  think filing a copyright requires the applicant to fill out a form and
  submit it along with the material and $25. The thing is simply filed
  and not referred to until their is a suit.
SH>Even in the rules of this echo, I believe, it says something about if you
  >post source code, not to expect to maintain a copyright on it. Which makes
  >a lot of sense, because if the code is useful, it wouldn't be a problem at
  >all for someone to take the code, remove the header, modify it to work 
ith
  >one of their current programs, or just modify it to look like it were
  >theirs.
  Please offer a citation to support this claim.
SH>Basically, if you want to maintain any sort of rights on your code, and
  >don't want others to use it, don't post it in an international echo. It's
  >simply stupid. Someone posted an example of a book being "full text" and
  >released to the public, that's comparable to when a programmer releases 
he
  >compiled program, copyright intact. With authors, they put the book 
hrough
  >the legal copyright process, get the title trademarked, and they'd be
  >protected, because they could prove ownership on the original text.
  This argument is as valid as saying that if you want to hold copyright
  on a novel you can't print and distribute it...
  No offence, BD, but your ideas about copyrights are fantasy.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 5
---------------