Re: August A2-2000 disk-0-zine released

[smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)]

>He's not. Copyright is generally implicit and does not require specific
>assertion.
>
>However, I don't see much point in griping and complaining in public
>about the unauthorized copying of newsgroup postings. If the person whose
>posting has been copied really cares, then he should take legal action,
>otherwise complain in private or don't complain at all.
>
>Lastly, there is nothing wrong or illegal about discriminating against
>specific persons with regard to copyright or any other issue.


But this material *wasn't* copyrighted. From what I understand, it was PUBLIC 
DOMAIN. Which means very simply that myself, you, tom or any other person can 
fold, spindle, mutilate, reprint, rebrodcast, redistribute without the authors 
permission. Plain and simple. Public domain is non-discriminatory. When 
something is placed in PD state, you are implying that the PUBLIC has the 
right to do what they will. 

Tom is part of the PUBLIC in public domain. A verbal assertion that states 
"tom turley cannot use anything I have ever written" is not legally binding in 
any way. That is why we have copyright laws...

smentzer@pacbell.net