This might be of interest to some of you, considering one of the current threads.

[Hmmm I see it's not complete]


* Copied from area : PHSC_CHATTER (PHSC user chatter)
* Original date    : Wednesday June 07 1995 17:07
* Originally from  : stuart fox, 3:635/727.17
* Originally to    : ALL
* Subject          : Re: Copying: Legal vs. Et

 * Originally By: Matt Macdonald
 * Originally Re: Re: Copying: Legal vs. Et
 * Original Area: Comp.SYS.MAC.APPS

From: Matt MacDonald
Subject: Re: Copying: Legal vs. Ethical?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Check this out:


                           [COPYRIGHT BANNER IMAGE]
                    10 BIG MYTHS ABOUT COPYRIGHTS EXPLAINED
                               [SEPARATOR IMAGE]



                       By Brad Templeton


       1) If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
       copyrighted.

       This was true in the past, but today almost all major
       nations follow the Berne copyright convention.  After April
       1, 1989, everything created in the USA, for example, is
       copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
       The default you must assume for other people's works is that
       they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
       otherwise.  There are some old works that lost protection
       without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
       you know for sure.

       It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
       warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
       different damages, but it is not necessary.  If it looks
       copyrighted, you must assume it is.

       2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.

       False.  Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
       court, but that's the only difference.  It's still a
       violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
       heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
       property.

       3) If it's posted to USENET it's in the public domain.

       False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
       owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
       as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
       this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
       much like them.

       Some argue that posting to USENET implicitly grants
       permission to everybody to copy the posting as much as they
       like.  This is very probably wrong.  First, the whole
       purpose of copyright is to provide protection to people
       *after* they freely distribute it.  For example, George
       Lucas still owns Star Wars after broadcasting it on free TV
       or giving copies to lots of people.  Secondly, that argument
       breaks down when one considers what it would mean for you to
       post an MPEG of Star Wars to the net (other than some really
       annoyed people with v.32bis modem feeds.)  All the copying
       would still go on, but clearly without permission since you
       -- unless you are George Lucas -- didn't have the right to
       give permission to copy in the first place.

       (*) It's also in the public domain if the creator has been
       dead for 50 years.  If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
       to the net, let me know.

       4) My posting was just fair use!

       See the notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
       the following in mind:

       The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to
       allow commentary, news reporting and education *on*
       copyrighted works without the permission of the author.  In
       this case, the "on" is important.  You must be commenting on
       or reporting about the *work*, not the subject matter of the
       work.  If you could have reported the facts in your own
       words, but didn't to save typing, it's probably not fair
       use.  If you needed to demonstrate something about the
       actual work or writing, then it might be fair use.

       Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
       attributed.  It should not ruin the commercial value of the
       work (which is why reproduction of the entire work is
       generally verboten.)

       5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.

       False.  Copyright is *never* lost now, unless explicitly
       given away.  You may be thinking of trade marks, which can
       be weakened or lost if not defended.

       6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!

       You can't copyright a name, or anything short like that.
       Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
       song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
       me and my monkey."

       However, you can trademark an adjective, when applied to a
       generic type of product or service.  Like an "Apple"
       computer.  Apple Computer owns that word applied to
       computers, even though it is also an ordinary word.  Apple
       records owns it when applied to music.  Neither owns the
       word on its own, only in context.

       You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
       unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
       make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
       which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
       For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
       would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
       like "mtv."  :-)

       7) They can't get me, I'm innocent until proven guilty.

       Copyright law is mostly civil law.  If you violate copyright
       you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
       "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
       law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Sorry, but in
       copyright suits, these don't apply.  It's mostly which side
       the judge or jury believes more.

       8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?

       Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
       violations involving more than 10 copies and/or value over
       $2500 was made a felony.  So watch out.  (At least you get
       the protections of criminal law.)

       9) It doesn't hurt anybody, in fact it's free advertising.

       It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
       not.  If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
       Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
       them.  Usually that's not too hard to do.  Time past,
       ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
       large and appreciative USENET audience for a fee, but some
       jerk didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
       caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
       pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
       enjoyed it.  Even if you can't think of how the author or
       owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
       hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
       technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

       10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.

       To have a copy is not to have the copyright.  All the E-mail
       you write is copyrighted.  However, E-mail is not, unless
       previously agreed, secret.  So you can certainly *report* on
       what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.  You can
       even quote parts of it to demonstrate.  Frankly, somebody
       who sues over an ordinary message might well lose, because
       the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay
       strictly in the law, you should ask first.

               Permission is granted to freely copy this
               document in electronic form, or to print for
               personal use.  If you had not seen a notice
               like this on the document, you would have to
               assume you did not have permission to copy it.
               This document is still protected by you know


-!-
 ! Origin: Usenet:Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halif (3:635/727.100)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

-+- EzyQwk V1.10 00000000
 + Origin: =^.^=  =^.^=  =^.^=  =^.^=  =^.^=  =^.^=  =^.^= (3:635/727.17)
{at}PATH: 635/727
=============================================================================



---