Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:43:23 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix Message-ID: <20110617184323.GA74146@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <0391CFA3-217C-46BE-BDFE-63C36CF8EAEB@mac.com> References: <201106161154.06300.rsimmons0@gmail.com> <20110616162032.GN5630@external.screwed.box> <3d43539af0e60964a0406b8df304f16c.squirrel@www.magehandbook.com> <4DFAD6BF.5070307@bah.homeip.net> <BANLkTinfXPVu%2B3b%2B4CD_JuzfGSXeNPSVhg@mail.gmail.com> <4DFAE497.2030408@bah.homeip.net> <20110617162851.GC73147@guilt.hydra> <F8566E32-E13D-461E-B0E3-154CC369D554@mac.com> <20110617175907.GA73740@guilt.hydra> <0391CFA3-217C-46BE-BDFE-63C36CF8EAEB@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:48:25AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > The "poor man's copyright" approach is, I believe, less certain and > > effective than registration, but if there is a dispute over proper > > claim of copyright, anything you can do to add evidenciary support > > for your claim will help. >=20 > Many people seem to believe their opinions matter more than facts which > contradict such beliefs. Snopes is knocking, and they'd like this > misinformation retracted: Are you seriously trying to argue that evidence of copyright date necessarily won't constitute evidence of copyright date in court? Seriously? > > > > In my previous explanation, of course, I neglected to mention that > > the way to ensure some kind of strength of evidence is to use metered > > mail, specifically so that nobody will be able to (as) convincingly > > claim you just mailed yourself an empty envelope and stuffed it > > later. >=20 > Is there some part of "you're repeating an urban legend which has been > discredited" which you find hard to understand? Is there some part of "the fact it isn't established case law does not change the fact it offers some proof of possession, and this not only has not been discredited by snopes but was actually pointed out by the UK IPO and is not specifically contradicted by what the USPTO has to say about it? You're generalizing from "there's no case law that snopes has found, and the USPTO says it's not the same as registering copyright" to "there's no way to establish any date of copyright other than registering it", which is kind of ludicrous. >=20 > Are you willing to acknowledge that your claims about "poor man's > copyright" in the US are invalid? If you can't be honest enough to do > so, frankly, your opinions about my precision-- or anything else-- > aren't a matter of concern. Are you willing to stop using straw men in place of my actual statements? I didn't think so. I'm not interested in perpetuating this ridiculous nascent flame war of yours. Please have your argument without me from this point forward, preferably off-list. You can email yourself if you like. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk37oEsACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXa/gCeIv+T3dH09v/+hnjcUWM80+ea yTIAn2qONwQEDc5kBBoVa7vK8GMjsVfs =CaLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110617184323.GA74146>