On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, John Chambers wrote:
> Eric writes:
>
> | > I don't want to do that myself, you understand; just curious, because it
> | > was such a very long time that they weren't available.
> |
> | On the other hand, I'm sure the copyright has expired by now....
>
> Part of the fun of this story was that the original "owners" tried to
> make a copyright claim. I think the courts just sorta snickered.
>
> I suppose the idea isn't totally ludicrous, considering how copyright
> is being stretched these days. The lawyers probably figured that they
> could say that they were only claiming copyright on the photos, and
> photos can be copyrighted, right? Still, I think this was beyond the
> credulence of the legal system, and the folks who put it online seem
> to have gotten away with it.
If any piecing together of fragments was involved, I'd not have been
suprised to see a copyright on "editorial work".
> Consider how the religious folks have tried to interpret the Book of
> Solomon as deeply religious text rather than the erotic poetry that
> it really is. It wouldn't be at all far-fetched for such people to
> interpret an Aramaic version of ABC-like notation as religious text.
Or, contrariwise, for a bunch of deeply musical nut^H^H^Hpeople to try and
play the entire Bible, complete with apocrypha. And next week, the Koran
...
> And one of the properties of Hebrew/Aramaic is that usually only the
> consonants are written. It turns out that nearly every string of 3 or
> 4 consonants is a word, so you can "read" most sequences of random
> letters. Whether this is sensible is another question.
Every 3 or 4 consonants, huh ? Coud we drag the idea of dna sequencing s/w
in here too ?
:-)
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
