On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:07:36 -0400, Tamara wrote: >I can't help but wonder... Isn't there a difference between a website >created mainly for commercial purposes, and one one - like what Jane's >thinking of - which is a "brag" one? Morally, yes. But so far as the law is concerned, no difference whatsoever. The application of copyright laws does not depend on whether money is being made. It might make some difference to the amount of damages if a case came to court, but not being commercial doesn't make something otherwise not forbidden into something permitted.
Non-commercial websites can have significant consequences for creators of copyright work. Consider a musician who owns the copyright to a piece of music he wrote. If he lets it be used on web pages without the pages acknowledging his copyright, then (in some countries) his right to control the use of the music will be reduced or even eliminated. By not enforcing his copyright against hobby users, he will be in a very difficult position trying to sue a big company that decides to use his music for a commercial purpose, such as in an advertisement. >Or, perhaps the answer is in "publishing" only low-resolution, fuzzy >and indistinct photos (the better to hide the mistakes <g>), so that >not only nobody could reproduce anything from the photo, but the >designerr of the piece would never recognize it? :) Quite apart from being pointless, this still doesn't make any forbidden usage into a permitted one. Sorry Tamara, these are wishful thinking about what you would like the law to be, not what it is. -- The future will be better tomorrow. - Dan Quayle Steph Peters, Manchester, England [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scanned by WinProxy http://www.Ositis.com/ - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
