Re: Mecc titles

["Mike Westerfield" <MikeW50@aol.com>]

----------
In article <19990927034459.22626.00003136@ng-fo1.aol.com>, 
supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:


>>No, it wouldn't. If you have permission of the copyright holder to use the
>>copyright, it's not copyright violation.  Regardless of what the publisher
>>says, if you can produce a document with the copyright owners signature
>>giving you permission to do whatever it is you're doing, you would be
>>covered.
>
> Not necessarily.  In the writing business, for example,
> or the photography business, publishers may buy
> exclusive rights to an individual's work.

I may have been unintentionally loose with terms. Not being a lawyer, I may
even be misusing them. But to me, if a publisher buys all rights to one of
my copyrighted works, the _publisher_ is now the holder of the copyright.
Perhaps the _owner_ of the copyright would be a more appropriate legal term;
I'm really not sure.  In any case, we're apparently intending to say the
same thing.

After a discussion like this, it always amazes me that some people think
it's praise to say a computer programming language is "more English-like."
:) Personally, I can't imagine a more damning insult for a programming
language!

Mike Westerfield