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
*
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
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
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
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
"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.
6 matches
Mail list logo
