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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
