Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:51:49 -0400 From: Allen <Unix.Hacker@comcast.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix Message-ID: <4DFC12C5.6000100@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <0391CFA3-217C-46BE-BDFE-63C36CF8EAEB@mac.com> References: <4DFA03A3.8090500@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20110616152941.GL5630@external.screwed.box> <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
On 6/17/2011 2:48 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: >>> Sigh. If you'd ever actually filed a copyright registration or >>> transfer form, you would discover that one needs to get them notarized. >>> (Documenting that a certain document was available and signed at a >>> specific date is what a notary public is for.) >>> >>> There is no case law in the US to support this "poor man's copyright." >>> >>> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what >> >> That page does not say anything about case law. It refers to copyright >> law, which is law on the books -- not case law. > > Yes, I know the difference. You're welcome to cite a court case in the US where a judge decided that this "poor man's copyright" constituted valid evidence of copyright ownership. > >> 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. > > 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: > > http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp > >> 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. > > Is there some part of "you're repeating an urban legend which has been discredited" which you find hard to understand? > > [ ... ] >>> Let me repeat: unless you are a lawyer, you are not qualified to >>> provide legal advice. >> >> Let me be clear: >> >> I didn't give legal advice. I didn't say "You should do this." I said, >> in effect, "This is what I have observed." In fact, nothing I said is >> any more advisory than what you said. >> >> For someone intent on giving the impression of precision, your precision sucks. > > > 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. > > Regards, I think the problem with you two is that it's really hard to get a real Lawyer to respond to any of this considering how hard it is to type on a keyboard with your hands in someone Else's pockets. -gore
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DFC12C5.6000100>