[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, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >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.

Well, aside from the slim chances _Eldred_ seems to be being given by
our legal system, that analysis is correct.  However, it is

If someone made a usenet post in 1987, that may or may not have been
copyrighted.  But we all agree it is copyrighted if you make one
today.  The only relevant question for determining the application of
the license to a current situation is when 1) the program was
published and 2) when the modification was published.  Since Usenet
posts are *now* copyrighted, whether they were at the time of the
creation of the AL is irrelevant.  

> >> >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.

No, it's not.  I don't see where you get that interpretation.  I could
have posted to Usenet in 1986, and in 1989 registered that with the
LOC, and it would have been copyrighted.

> >> 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...

Sorry, I missed that.  
	sam th		     
	GnuPG Key:  

Attachment: pgpHhz6LRISdI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: