Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

So you think that there is no copyright protection for those parts of Mac
OS-X now lurking on Apple's programmers' hard drives?  Or a Smash Mouth
session tape on DAT?  Or a taped telecast of a football game?

Parse the sentence again:  permanency of the copy is *not* what is required,
only permanency sufficient to allow perception, reproduction, etc.

Finally, the definition is meant to be read in conjunction with � 102.(a)
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or
later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

No, don't need case law for this one ;-)

"Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net> wrote in message
sov94fum63a108@corp.supernews.com">news:sov94fum63a108@corp.supernews.com...
> Not quite true...
>
> A copy referenced a "printed duplication." This is the reason why the
> explanitory preface to the Copyright Act mentions photocopiers. Printed
> copies and phonorecords (aka LPs & "vinyl") are immutable mediums. The
> statement that the copy must be "sufficiently permanent or stable to
permit
> it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of
> more than transitory duration" specifically eliminates non-permanent
> mediums.
>
> A permanent medium is one that must be either damaged or destroyed  in
order
> to remove the work it contains. The reason paper is still considered a
> permanent medium is because the process of removing the print usually
> damages the paper. Since hard drives and other such dynamic mediums can be
> erased without damaging or destroying the medium, they cannot be
considered
> "sufficiently permanent or stable."
>
> I suppose that the only real "fly in the ointment" to the argument I've
> presented would be how the courts would choose to define "transitory." I
> guess that's why we have "case law". ;-)