Re: Notice of REMOVAL-- saving KF

["Eric Heim" <chippys@earthlink.net>]

In article <7of994$48q$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> , "Eric Heim" 
<chippys@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>
>> Go to <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html> and read...it
>> deals mostly with UseNet, but it could easily be applied to Delphi.
>>
>
> Ok, I read it. He is a writer, not a lawyer. I am not impressed. :o)

Well Earthlink's news feed is much slower that my work's news feed so I am
replying to myself since Greg's article is not at Earthlink yet. :o)

The reason I am not impressed with this web page being the answer to any
copyright questions are:

1.) It is an essay (authors own words), and contains no facts, only his
opinions of how things are. It does not contain any references to copyright
law or (even better) court decisions that interpret those laws to support
his claims. Those references would change my mind immediately (about his
essay, not about copyright law :o). His only references are to other links
on his website and to the Library of Congress (and two non U.S. sites) with
the implication that if you disagree with the essay, look it up yourself.
Hardly impressive.


2.) The paragraph in his essay that seems to address this thread is:

>"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
>
>False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
>explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note
>from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact
words or words very much like them.

I didn't snip the above, but it is the next part of the paragraph that
caused me to post my article stating that "I am not impressed".

>Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to
>copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an
>automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
>done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter
>of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we
>should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
>granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts
>to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public
>domain.

These sentences are very weak as proof of anything. A matter of debate? If
the former is true? It simply would suggest?  He would get a 'C' on his
essay if I was the teacher of his expository writing class. Nice try, but no
cigar this time. :o)   Somebody may want to ask him to tighten up his essay
just a bit :o)

At this point, let me state that I don't disagree with most (nearly all) of
his essay, however, I personally wouldn't direct anyone to this site as
"proof" of anything, just an essay that explains what he thinks (thinks is
the operative word here without any legal references) are copyright myths.


As an aside note, I visited the legal dept. where I work and, although they
don't have a "copyright" lawyer per se on staff, they do have a patent
attorney or two and when I asked them a couple of quick questions about this
web page and their response was:

1.) Without specific legal references to support his postion, his myth
lancing _MAY_ just be propogating his own version of the myth. They won't
look into it themselves to find out for me.

2.) If anyone objects to articles being copied, don't post to usenet.

3.) If that is all people have to worry about in their lives, tell them to
turn off their computers and go volunteer at a soup kitchen or a senior
citizens center.

4.) get out of our office, we have work to do.

:o) well, I tried :o)
--
---
Eric  <chippys@earthlink.net>
      <habanero@delphi.com>