Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:39:57 -0400 From: "David Hoffman" <zionicman@gmail.com> To: "Ingrid Kast Fuller" <ingrid@cityscope.net> Cc: Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com>, thisdayislong <thisdayislong@gmail.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post Message-ID: <e8b564e30606181939r125a7b4ei2a9a8f649fec6b19@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <e8b564e30606181935p5bb86f1fm790669c56958ac21@mail.gmail.com> References: <e8b564e30606181649x7fa8f319x74138b673364f73f@mail.gmail.com> <f5b151550606181732x7562ce6fg1bb4f3baa5124716@mail.gmail.com> <e8b564e30606181738q4ac258c4ye96186ec2c30cb43@mail.gmail.com> <e8b564e30606181741u1a2e966fw513d49fadc369935@mail.gmail.com> <4495F9A1.8040407@gmail.com> <e8b564e30606181819i2024001cw34e96fddb0c63eef@mail.gmail.com> <e8b564e30606181821v2dcce5cfqdd792215fcfcb059@mail.gmail.com> <449608A8.3010101@gmail.com> <e8b564e30606181935p5bb86f1fm790669c56958ac21@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> ...facts are not eligible for copyright. > > > > > I'm afraid you're incorrect. The work in question is indeed > > copyrightable > > > under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, > > including > > > the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as > > well > > > as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work > > > to be > > > copyrighted. > > > > At best, the article may be considered a derivative work of the > > described software/hardware and therefore the intellectual property of > > the respective manufacturers. > > > > > First you say only 'literary or artistic' works, and not 'facts' (hint: > the article was more than just facts), are elligible for copyright, and now > you say that, not only are 'facts' elligible for copyright, but that they > hold such a strong copyright that works which refer to facts published > elsewhere are necessarily derivative and are not elligible for a seperate > copyright by the writer. Which is it? You can't have both. And, really, > you can't have either: there are a multitude of works that are 'derivative' > in the sense you describe, yet hold perfectly valid copyrights. Don't > believe me? Try hosting a bunch of O'Reilly books on a site hosted in a > country that respects copyright. > > Now, even if you're correct that Brett doesn't have a valid copyright > (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own the copyright to > the article (which they don't), we still have the same problem: FreeBSD > claiming to own something they don't, and not even attributing it to its > true authors. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e8b564e30606181939r125a7b4ei2a9a8f649fec6b19>