Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,: > enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and > mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified.
'Law' is what the courts say it is. May be, the US legal system has a different view of the copyright law. > You fail to distinguish between modification of an instance of a work > -- such as sawing a book in half, or writing notes in the margins > -- and The person who steals a book is guilty of larceny, not violation of copyright. I am very surprised that you regard physical destruction (ok. 'modification' if you want it that way) of the media on which a copyrighted work is contained as modification for the purpose of copyright. > What you say here is exceptionally misleading. ??!!?? Please re-read http://www.fsf.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html, paragraph 18. The important words are '...actually _subtracts_ from the author's usual ...." and "... unilaterally permitted ..." After that, do proceed to read the concluding sentence of para 36. -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
