Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net>]

"Roy and/or Janet Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
3990BA50.DBF613F7@inetnebr.com">news:3990BA50.DBF613F7@inetnebr.com...
> Arkain wrote:
> > I think that copyright law is being used improperly to cover these
things
> > when the "letter of the law" specifically excludes them.
>
> The "letter of the law" is dependent on legal definitions, and unless you
know
> what those definitions are (as in you being a law student or having read a
> recent law dictionary) then you don't know what the letter of the law is,
and
> are arguing from ignorance, rather than knowledge (and no, that wasn't an
insult
> - consult a dictionary if you doubt me.)

I know that wasn't an insult. It *was* an assumption, however, and an
eroneous assumption at that! I did study law briefly, as a matter of
personal curiosity. Now let me char some of what I learned.

Legal dictionaries only hold definitions for legal jargon, not for common
terms like "fixed." For those terms, lawyers are forced to consult a common
dictionary or encyclopedia depending on how much they need to know. In the
case of "fixed" as used in the copyright paragraph previously quoted, the
word is an adjective. These are the relevant definitions of "fixed":

(from www.dictionary.com)
fixed adj 1: (of a number) having a fixed and unchanging value 2: fixed and
unmoving; "with eyes set in a fixed glassy stare"; "his bearded face already
has a set hollow look"- Connor Cruise O'Brien; "a face rigid with pain"
[syn: set, rigid] 3: securely placed or fastened or set; "a fixed piece of
wood"; "a fixed resistor" [ant: unfixed] 4: intent and directed steadily;
"had her gaze fastened on the stranger"; "a fixed expresson" [syn: fastened]
5: incapable of being changed or moved or undone; e.g. "frozen prices";
"living on fixed incomes" [syn: frozen] 6: mended or put in working order;
"a reconditioned sewing machine"; "a repaired vacuum cleaner"; "the broken
lock is now fixed" [syn: reconditioned, repaired] 7: not increasing as the
amount taxed increases [syn: flat] 8: specified in advance; "a given
number"; "we will meet at a given time and location" [syn: given(a)] 9:
directed with intense concentration; "a fixed stare"; "an intent gaze" [syn:
intent]

Lengthy, yeah, but I didn't want you to think I was short-changing you. As
you can see, the appropriate definition for the way "fixed" was used is #5.
I now invite you to re-evaluate the argument.

>
> > The courts have
> > shown on several occasions that they lack the technical knowledge to
rule
> > properly on cases directly involving high technology.
>
> I would, on the contrary, say that the courts have done an admirable job
of
> applying the law, as it is, to new situations. The problem is that you
(and
> sometimes I) don't like the result, and the consequences, but that doesn't
> support your statement. For, you see, the only "technical knowledge" that
courts
> *need* to have, is technical knowledge that you and I don't have - of the
law.

Yes, the courts have done an admirable job, given their limited knowledge of
the situations. However, I firmly believe that the outcome and/or duration
of such cases would likely have been different had the courts been better
informed of the technology involved.

> > That it must be "fixed" in a medium is what implies the permanency. For
> > instance, you cannot copyright a story that only exists on a chalk
board. An
> > inane example, I know.
>
> How do you know that you can't? Have you tried to? Do you know of a case
where
> it has been tried and was refused?

I don't have to try it to know it can't be done. The problem is that such a
tertiary work cannot be notarized. This is why chalkboard work can't be
copyrighted. The copyright office has no reasonable way to verify the
validity of the work.

> >
> > You know what? I'm going to help you out by telling you that all
software
> > with a "registered" copyright has been properly copyrighted according to
the
> > "letter of the law". At the same time I'm going to tell you that
copyrights
> > for non-registered software are invalid for the reason I stated before.
> > Here's why. The Copyright Registration Office requires that software to
be
> > copyrighted be presented as printed source code before the copyright can
be
> > properly registered. That the software must be printed (i.e. *fixed* in
a
> > tangible medium) first proves that the software in it's native digital
state
> > is not enough to warrant a copyright. Therefore the laws need to be
altered
> > appropriately.
>
> ROFLOL - give that post to a lawyer to read, he'll probably need a good
laugh.

I just might do that. :-)

Arkain