Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-17 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Andrew Suffield wrote: >I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which >copyright would subsist if the world were different. Perhaps you've missed the point. I'll try more detail: Whether there exists a valid copyright on a work depends on * aspects intrinsic to the work *

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-15 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > > > > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not > > subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alt

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-14 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not > subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alternatively > "copyright protection does not subsist", but even lawyers don't > u

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-14 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 00:16 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > > "Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is > > > an ugly, ugly term... and everything t

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrigh table in the USA)

2004-05-14 Thread Humberto Massa
@ 13/05/2004 20:16 : wrote Andrew Suffield : The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alternatively "copyright protection does not subsist", but even lawyers don't usually go that far). In Portuguese-Legalese the e

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-13 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > "Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is > > an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is > > copyrighted by default... > > I see a fi

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted

2004-05-12 Thread Don Armstrong
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: > What about works by the CIA? They're certainly not copyrighted... > Is copyright irrelevant to classified material? Well, considering that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is either a misdemeanor or a felony, and according to my consp

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted

2004-05-12 Thread Måns Rullgård
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is >> an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is >> copyrighted by default... > > I see a fine distinction between th

copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

2004-05-12 Thread Martin Dickopp
"Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is > an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is > copyrighted by default... I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work created by the U.S.