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

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:16:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but that still does not make it law.

Note that I am not trying to show that "(c)" has a particular
meaning. You are trying to show that it does not, and I am refuting
this claim as being unfounded.

> > 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".  

Those precise words were invented by the US Copyright Office, an
administrative body with no legislative powers.

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

This reference is a publication by the copyright office. It is a
modified version of extracts from Title 17 of the United States
Code[0]. One of the modifications was the addition of this bulleted

I repeat: this list has no basis in law.

> > 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.

It would dishonest of me to pretend that I know what a US court would

> > 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".

Actually the real law says "may" and "shall". The "must" part is
another invention of the US Copyright Office.

(Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 401 (a) and (b))

> Then it says "if you don't do this, it's the same as no notice".  And

This I cannot find anywhere in Title 17, Chapter 4, which is where it
should appear if it were part of US law.

> 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.

I dispute this.

All I have seen are a few statements from eclectics, and bodies with
no legislative or judicial ability. Certainly no common law basis.

[0] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgp0QAwMkXOGV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: