Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

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

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". ;-)

Arkain

"Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:uAFj5.23$Sz3.458820@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
> No flaw, and not a low blow, at all!
>
> "A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment
in
> a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is
> sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced,
> or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
> [from the Copyright Act]
>
> Thus, all the work on your hard drive that has the requisite originality
is
> copyrighted from the moment of fixation.