On 25 Jan 2003 at 10:38, Erik Reuter wrote: > The point is that copyright law is NOT black and white. There is > wiggle room for anyone with sufficient motivation, and that wiggle > room has historically favored the corporations and copyright holders > over those who wish the work to be in the public domain. In short, if > scientific debate and ethics were important to SA's publishers, they > could surely find a way to avoid threatening Lomborg's completely > legitimate response to their article, and still run their business > effectively.
Unfortunately the courts take on has been black and white in the past. There have been several cases where for example - in the area I know - game fansites (all now defunct) have challenged the rights of the game owners and in some cases made a good case of it. I know that the Mynn (www.xenoclone.com) as origionally sold were in blatent breach of the copyright on Total Annihilation, but I had a quote (on the now-defunt TAworld.net, as I recall) from a leaked internal memo saying that there "was enough uncertancy on our (Infogrammes) side that we prefered not to challenge the sale because we have overlooked the TA 3rd party community and our rights might not be secure". I can't see if it says he *asked* for permission to post it on the web either. (Different matter to asking for a print rebuttal). Businesses in todays world can't afford to take the chance. I agree the laws are screwey, but there we are. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
