Re: MECC Titles

[<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>]

In Message   <7smns1$s59$1@news.rt66.com>
"Mike Westerfield" <MikeW50@aol.com> writes:

> ... Under current copyright law, pretty much any
> original work, literally down to a scribble on a napkin, is copyrighted.
> While I don't see the D.O.J. prosecuting for it, that would technically make
> copying someone's post a copyright violation unless they explicitly released
> it to the public domain.

While you are correct that an article on USENET is copyrighted by the
author, copying it (even in its entirety) for a response is FAIR USE and
is NOT a violation. Explicitly releasing it to the public domain is NOT
needed, in fact, explicitly stating that no one may copy it is overruled
by the fair use clause.
In addition, if you post an article to USENET you grant
permission IMPLICITLY by circumstances to allow it to be copied.
I am careful to say USENET here because U.S. district courts have
ruled on posting to usenet, and court decisions regarding copy right
(in the U.S.) are what count most when it comes to copyright law. Gray
areas are where court decisions have yet to be rendered.

Software, music, video, movies etc are in an entirely different
boat and (U.S.) copyright law contains sections that deal with
these subjects separately. UNFORTUNATELY the case that
Supertimer cites was "settled out of court" and no decision was
rendered. That is a real shame because a de facto precedence
was set without comment from the court. This is a very bad
thing, IMHO. (I mean no court comment, not that he pleaded guilty ;o)

--
Eric <chippys@nospam.earthlink.net>