1. (c) Copyright Question
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB024C7A00=======
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4E1.76CBBE60
I have noticed that alot of code and libraries bare the copyright logo.
To my knowledge, in 99% of countries, under 'circular 61' (Computer programs) of
the 1976 Copyright Act. Copyright protection is NOT available for ideas, program
logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, layouts, desighn, physical form,
functions, structure, organization, format etc....
So my question is; how are theese peices of code legaly copyright?
Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put the (c) logo there?
n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc... NOT a compliled computer
program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example lets asume peices of 'code' can be copyright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft Windows *.dll, then under
the same conditions the *.dll functions would be copyright to Microsoft and the
author of the 'so called' copyright function has 'no right' to use the *.dll in
his function and claim copyright for himself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.b My personal thoughts about copyright.
1) After turning the word copyright upsidown, you dont really get anyware. So if
you bring the word copyright back to 40 cents then that means that 'no one' (on
this planet) has the right to do 'anything'. We all know that this is not the
case.
2) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of copyright and the court.
What are your views on copyright?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/03
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4E1.76CBBE60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have noticed that alot of code and libraries bare
the copyright logo.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To my knowledge, in 99% of countries, under
'circular 61' (Computer programs) of the 1976 Copyright Act. Copyright
protection is NOT available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems,
methods, concepts, layouts, desighn, physical form, functions, structure,
organization, format etc....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So my question is; how are theese peices of code
legaly copyright?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put
the (c) logo there?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc...
NOT a compliled computer program.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For example lets asume peices of 'code' can
be copyright</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft
Windows *.dll, then under the same conditions the *.dll functions would be
copyright to Microsoft and the author of the 'so called' copyright function has
'no right' to use the *.dll in his function and claim copyright for
himself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>n.b My personal thoughts about
copyright.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) After turning the word copyright upsidown, you
dont really get anyware. So if you bring the word copyright back to 40 cents
then that means that 'no one' (on this planet) has the right to do 'anything'.
We all know that this is not the case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of copyright
and the court.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What are your views on copyright?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.556 /
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D4E1.76CBBE60--
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB024C7A00=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/03
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB024C7A00=======--
2. Re: (c) Copyright Question
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040700020808070805080105
Hayden McKay wrote:
> So my question is; how are theese peices of code legaly copyright?
> Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put the (c) logo there?
No. It is perfectly legal to copyright the contents of a text file,
which is what source code is. It is also legal to copyright the compiled
binary code. The USA currently DOES allow "software patents". I found
this brief description of the difference between copyrights and patents
to be useful:
To give you some of the biggest differences between copyrights and
patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work.
Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the
use of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by
a patent office in response to an application. (Stallman, 2002)
>
> n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc... NOT a compliled
> computer program.
There is no difference between a compiled comuter program and it's
source code. The source code is simply a more convenient way of editing
the application. The two are conceptually the same, as they express the
same operation in different ways.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For example lets asume peices of 'code' can be copyright
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft Windows *.dll,
> then under the same conditions the *.dll functions would be copyright
> to Microsoft and the author of the 'so called' copyright function has
> 'no right' to use the *.dll in his function and claim copyright for
> himself.
>
The DLLs shipped with Windows are supplied for the express purpose of
being used by other applications. By obtaining a legal license to run
Windows, you may run any code that calls those DLLs. Writing code that
uses other copyrighted code isn't illegal. It's only illegal if the
person executing the code doesn't have the right to use that DLL, as
should anyone who has a legitimate copy of Windows.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> n.b My personal thoughts about copyright.
>
>
Stallman, 2002: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
--------------040700020808070805080105
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Hayden McKay wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com">
<meta content="text/html; " http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276">
<style></style>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">So my question is; how are theese
peices of code legaly copyright?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Or did the author of the code just
decietfuly put the (c) logo there?</font></div>
</blockquote>
No. It is perfectly legal to copyright the contents of a text file,
which is what source code is. It is also legal to copyright the
compiled binary code. The USA currently DOES allow "software patents".
I found this brief description of the difference between copyrights and
patents to be useful:<br>
<blockquote>To give you some of the biggest differences between
copyrights and
patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work.
Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the use
of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by a
patent office in response to an application. (Stallman, 2002)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">n.b. I'm talking about functions,
algorythms etc... NOT a compliled computer program.</font></div>
</blockquote>
There is no difference between a compiled comuter program and it's
source code. The source code is simply a more convenient way of editing
the application. The two are conceptually the same, as they express the
same operation in different ways.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2"
face="Arial">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">For example lets asume peices of
'code' can be copyright</font></div>
<div><font size="2"
face="Arial">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">If a 'so called' copyright function
uses a Microsft Windows *.dll, then under the same conditions the *.dll
functions would be copyright to Microsoft and the author of the 'so
called' copyright function has 'no right' to use the *.dll in his
function and claim copyright for himself.</font></div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
The DLLs shipped with Windows are supplied for the express purpose of
being used by other applications. By obtaining a legal license to run
Windows, you may run any code that calls those DLLs. Writing code that
uses other copyrighted code isn't illegal. It's only illegal if the
person executing the code doesn't have the right to use that DLL, as
should anyone who has a legitimate copy of Windows.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com">
<div><font size="2"
face="Arial">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">n.b My personal thoughts about
copyright.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<font size="2"><font face="Arial"></font></font><br>
</blockquote>
Stallman, 2002: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html</a><br>
<br>
--------------040700020808070805080105--
3. Re: (c) Copyright Question
----- Original Message -----
>From: Hayden McKay
>Subject: (c) Copyright Question
>
>
>
>I have noticed that alot of code and libraries bare the copyright logo.
>
>To my knowledge, in 99% of countries, under 'circular 61' (Computer programs)
>of the 1976 Copyright Act. Copyright protection is NOT available for ideas,
> program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, layouts, desighn,
> physical form, functions, structure, organization, format etc....
>
>So my question is; how are theese peices of code legaly copyright?
>Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put the (c) logo there?
>
>n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc... NOT a compliled computer
>program.
Copyright is automatic. There is no need to explictly place the (C) symbol in/on
a written work. It is done merely as a reminder to others that they do NOT have
the right to claim authorship or use the work (or substantial parts) for purposes
not approved by the author.
Copyright applies to works of art, music, photographs, and written works. What
is being copyrighted is the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Many
people confuse copyrights and patents. Patents are used to protect NEW devices,
and in this context a compiled (or executable) program is a device. The
algorithms used in the device are not patented or copyrighted. But if a program
that uses a specific algorithm is patented, you cannot create antother program
that implements the algorithm without the patent owner's permission.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>For example lets asume peices of 'code' can be copyright
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can assume this because they are. Written code is automatically copyrighted.
>If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft Windows *.dll, then
>under the same conditions the *.dll functions would be copyright to
>Microsoft and the author of the 'so called' copyright function has 'no right'
> to use the *.dll in his function and claim copyright for himself.
The .DLL file is not copyrighted but the source code that produced it is.
Normally, people who use a .DLL are just using the compiled (executable) version
of the dll which is not copyrighted. You have no argument here.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>n.b My personal thoughts about copyright.
>
>1) After turning the word copyright upsidown, you dont really get anyware.
> So if you bring the word copyright back to 40 cents then that means that
> 'no one' (on this planet) has the right to do 'anything'. We all know
>that this is not the case.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The paragraph above does not make any
sense to me at all.
>2) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of copyright and the court.
True.
>What are your views on copyright?
Every author should be protected from people who take the authors' works and use
them as if they were their own.
--
Derek
4. Re: (c) Copyright Question
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB7AEB1A53=======
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C3D529.4F1D46C0"
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C3D529.4F1D46C0
Thankyou Derek Parnell and Isaac Raway, This was the kind of feedback
I was looking for.
----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac Raway
To: EUforum at topica.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: (c) Copyright Question
============ The Euphoria Mailing List ============
Hayden McKay wrote:
So my question is; how are theese peices of code legaly copyright?
Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put the (c) logo there?
No. It is perfectly legal to copyright the contents of a text file,
which is what source code is. It is also legal to copyright the
compiled binary code. The USA currently DOES allow "software patents".
I found this brief description of the difference between copyrights
and patents to be useful:
To give you some of the biggest differences between copyrights
and patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work.
Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the use
of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by a
patent office in response to an application. (Stallman, 2002)
n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc... NOT a
compliled computer program.
There is no difference between a compiled comuter program and it's
source code. The source code is simply a more convenient way of
editing the application. The two are conceptually the same, as they
express the same operation in different ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example lets asume peices of 'code' can be copyright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft Windows
*.dll, then under the same conditions the *.dll functions would be
copyright to Microsoft and the author of the 'so called' copyright
function has 'no right' to use the *.dll in his function and claim
copyright for himself.
The DLLs shipped with Windows are supplied for the express purpose
of being used by other applications. By obtaining a legal license to
run Windows, you may run any code that calls those DLLs. Writing code
that uses other copyrighted code isn't illegal. It's only illegal if
the person executing the code doesn't have the right to use that DLL,
as should anyone who has a legitimate copy of Windows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.b My personal thoughts about copyright.
Stallman, 2002: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: hmck1 at dodo.com.au
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b60Ray.aG1jazFA
Or send an email to: EUforum-unsubscribe at topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 2/01/04
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C3D529.4F1D46C0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thankyou Derek Parnell and Isaac Raway,
This was
the kind of feedback I was looking for.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=isaac-topica at blueapples.org
href="mailto:isaac-topica at blueapples.org">Isaac Raway</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=EUforum at topica.com
href="mailto:EUforum at topica.com">EUforum at topica.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 07,
2004 7:58
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: (c) Copyright
Question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><PRE>============ The Euphoria Mailing List
============
</PRE>Hayden McKay wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com
type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So my question is; how are theese
peices of
code legaly copyright?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Or did the author of the code just
decietfuly
put the (c) logo there?</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No. It is
perfectly legal to
copyright the contents of a text file, which is what source code
is. It is
also legal to copyright the compiled binary code. The USA currently
DOES allow
"software patents". I found this brief description of the
difference between
copyrights and patents to be useful:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>To give you some of the biggest differences between
copyrights
and patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work.
Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and
the use of
ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by a
patent
office in response to an application. (Stallman,
2002)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com
type="cite">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>n.b. I'm talking about functions,
algorythms
etc... NOT a compliled computer
program.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no
difference between a compiled comuter program and it's source code.
The source
code is simply a more convenient way of editing the application.
The two are
conceptually the same, as they express the same operation in different
ways.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com
type="cite">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For example lets asume peices of
'code' can be copyright</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If a 'so called' copyright function
uses a
Microsft Windows *.dll, then under the same conditions the
*.dll
functions would be copyright to Microsoft and the author of the
'so called'
copyright function has 'no right' to use the *.dll in his
function and claim
copyright for himself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>The DLLs shipped with Windows are
supplied for
the express purpose of being used by other applications. By
obtaining a legal
license to run Windows, you may run any code that calls those DLLs.
Writing
code that uses other copyrighted code isn't illegal. It's only
illegal if the
person executing the code doesn't have the right to use that DLL,
as should
anyone who has a legitimate copy of Windows.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid943342706-1463792126-1073414680 at boing.topica.com
type="cite">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>n.b My personal thoughts about
copyright.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stallman, 2002: <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html</A><BR><BR><PRE>--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: hmck1 at dodo.com.au
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: <A
href="http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b60Ray.aG1jazFA">http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b60Ray.aG1jazFA</A>
Or send an email to: EUforum-unsubscribe at topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
<A
href="http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html">http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html</A>
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------</PRE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<DIV>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG
anti-virus
system (http://www.grisoft.com).<BR>Version: 6.0.556 / Virus
Database: 348 -
Release Date: 26/12/03<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked
by AVG
anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version:
6.0.558
/ Virus Database: 350 - Release Date:
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C3D529.4F1D46C0--
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB7AEB1A53=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/03
--=======AVGMAIL-3FFB7AEB1A53=======--
5. Re: (c) Copyright Question
Hayden,
I have a suspicion that *many* people who put "copyright <the person>" in
their code think that it means "AUTHORED BY", when what it is really
SUPPOSED to mean is that an author is restricting the RIGHT to COPY that
item, unless an individual requests & receives PERMISSION for the right to
copy it.
"copyright": means restricting the right to copy; NOT: "authored by".
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hayden McKay" <hmck1 at dodo.com.au>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: (c) Copyright Question
>
> I have noticed that alot of code and libraries bare the copyright logo.
>
> To my knowledge, in 99% of countries, under 'circular 61' (Computer
programs) of the 1976 Copyright Act. Copyright protection is NOT available
for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, layouts,
desighn, physical form, functions, structure, organization, format etc....
>
> So my question is; how are theese peices of code legaly copyright?
> Or did the author of the code just decietfuly put the (c) logo there?
>
> n.b. I'm talking about functions, algorythms etc... NOT a compliled
computer program.
>
----------
>
> If a 'so called' copyright function uses a Microsft Windows *.dll, then
under the same conditions the *.dll functions would be copyright to
Microsoft and the author of the 'so called' copyright function has 'no
right' to use the *.dll in his function and claim copyright for himself.
>
>
> n.b My personal thoughts about copyright.
>
> 1) After turning the word copyright upsidown, you dont really get anyware.
So if you bring the word copyright back to 40 cents then that means that 'no
one' (on this planet) has the right to do 'anything'. We all know that this
is not the case.
>
> 2) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of copyright and the court.
>
> What are your views on copyright?
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
----
>
