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

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:

> This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible
> arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the
> position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly refrain from
> treating it as anything else.

Oh, puhleez.  There is no more reason for taking '(c)' to mean
anything in copyright law than taking 'Flobotzink" as meaning
something.  Or do you have case law for this?  No, of course not.  You
have no official reference for anything suggesting that '(c)' has any
meaning, and I have reference after reference giving an explicitly
exhaustive list of what does have meaning, in which '(c)' is simply
never listed.

> In my country we have courts to make decisions where the legislature
> has failed to completely specify or consider a particular
> case. Although since you appear to be in the US, I admit that I don't
> know what your courts are supposed to be for.

Good grief, descending to insults won't help your case.  In this case,
the legislature *has* completely specified it.  In just so many words!
"This is the complete list of permissible ways to make a Copyright
notice: X, Y, Z".  

> It does not say this:
>  - No alternate representations form an acceptable notice

Yes, it does.  Did you even to follow up the references I have from
the United States Copyright office?  I guess not.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html says:

  "Omission of notice" is publishing without a notice.  In addition,
  some errors are considered the same as omission of notice.  These
    * A notice that does not contain the symbol [here they give the
  symbol] (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright" or the
  abbreviation "Copr." or, if the work is a sound recording, the
  symbol [the other symbol] (the letter P in a circle);
    * A notice dated more than 1 year later than the date of first
    * A notice without a name or date that could reasonably be
  considered part of the notice;
    * A notice that lacks the statement required for works consisting
  proponderantly of U.S. Government material; and
    * A notice located so that it does not give reasonable notice of
  the claim of copright."

If you are going to insist that I provide official references, the
least you could do is read them when I provide them.

> If it did, then you would not be able to post a notice of copyright in
> a medium which could reliably represent neither of these. Say, for
> example, a gzipped tarball - which stores neither, but instead can
> store a sequence of bytes representing one or the other.

This is an excellent reason for extending the statute (as was done) to
permit something other than just C-in-a-cirle, so that the word
"Copyright" is now permissible.

> I do not think that a UK court would uphold either of these positions
> (I make no comment as to what a US court would do, since they
> frequently make decisions with no apparent basis in reality).

Ah, so this is about insult-Thomas-and-his-country.

> I stipulate, again, that there is no legislated decision one way or
> the other. And I am aware of no precedent in this matter.

There is a clear legislated decision.  It says "you must do this".
Then it says "if you don't do this, it's the same as no notice".  And
there is a common agreement among a bazillion people that if you
don't do it in just those terms, it doesn't come up.

No copyright owner in his right mind would bother testing this; he
would simply be sure to say "Copyright".  Moreover, since under the
Berne convention, giving notice is mostly optional, it is even less
likely to come up.

Really, why bother?  Just put "Copyright" and be done with it.


Reply to: