[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:45:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s.  The current copyright law
>> >> >is ten years older than that.  I don't know exactly when the AL was
>> >> >written, but this would suggest that it postdates the Copyright Act of
>> >> >1976.
>> >>
>> >> The "copyright by definition" is codified in Berne and the DMCA.  Think
>> >> 1990 rather than 1970...
>> >
>> >1. The Berne Convention and the DMCA are not related.  The DMCA is
>> >actually an overzealous implementation of a different treaty, the WIPO
>> >Copyright treaty, passed in 1996.  See
>> >http://www.wipo.org/treaties/ip/copyright/copyright.html
>> >
>> >The Berne Convention was last amended in 1979.  See
>> >http://www.wipo.org/eng/general/copyrght/bern.htm
>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Unrelated?  Yet at the same URL....
>WIPO manages UDRP as well, but that has nothing to do with either.
>> >2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976
>> >and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.  The relevant
>>                                                 ^^^^
>> When did you say perl came in to the scene?
>1987.  But as was pointed out in a different mail to you, default
>copyright actually began before that.  And if you read the section I
>pointed you to, it also talks about default copyright for works
>created *before the BCIA in 1988.  Furthermore, when the license was
>published is irrelevant, remember?

No, I failed to argue the point, I didn't agree to it.  NOW I will.  The
Constitution specifically forbids _ex post facto_ laws.  So absent
language in a law concerning pre-existing conditions, it can be assumed
that the law to use is the one in effect when the action happened.  Look
at _Eldred v Reno_ which is winding it's way through the appeals process
for an example.

>> >sections of the US Code are 17 USC 401 et. seq.  I encourage you to
>> >read them.
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
>> If you aren't going to provide the URL, I will...
>> BTW, look at 17 USC 411a
>>  (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of
>>        the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of
>>        subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any
>>        United States work shall be instituted until registration of the
>>        copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.
>> Looks like the "copyright by definition" still has a few bugs to work
>> out...
>Well, in order to bring a case of copyright infringement, the work
>must be registered. However, this can be done well *after* the work is
>published.  In fact, it is often the first step in bringing
>infringement proceedings.

Okay, 17 USC 405a, works previous to 1988 need to be registered within 5
years.  So when the Artistic license was written, posting without
registering was equivalent to posting in the PD.

>> Just for clarity 17 USC 106A is about attribution of works...
>And this is relevant how?

Because it was referenced in the cite.  You see, >I< take pains not to
quote out of context...

>	sam th
>	sam@uchicago.edu
>	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
>	GnuPG Key:
>	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

Galt's sci-fi paradox:  Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: