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

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright



On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:26:32PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > > If the law says something shall consist of certain things, then
> > > there is no reason to assume that something else may also
> > > qualify. Only the notice as given in this section allows you
> > > to get the effect of 401(d). 
> > 
> > Here's a reason:
> > 
> > "(c)" is the closest you can get to circle-C in one-dimensional ASCII
> > text. It's a pretty close reproduction of the symbol.
> 
> This is an argument that says a court ought to interpret "(c)"
> as the c-in-a-circle symbol required by 401(b). It does not
> say that "(c)" should be regarded as an equivalent (that is, 
> as something else that produces the same thing). Now I am
> confused; are you arguing that "(c)" should be seen as a
> badly drawn c-in-a-circle symbol, or as a different symbol
> that courts should treat as if it were a c-in-a-circle?

Either. All I need to make my point is to demonstrate that the
sequence "(c)" could reasonably be accepted.

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

Attachment: pgpYQdUJQWrsm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: