> > woodelf >> >> [bunch of copyright cases. snip.] >> i'll look at the links when i get a chance, but you still didn't >> answer my question: did any (or all) of those cases explicitly cite >> "derivative work" as the reason that the new work was illegal? > >Yes. That's why I pointed them out. If you read them you'll answer your own >question without having to wade through someone else's interpretation.
thanks. that answers several of my primary questions on this matter, though i'll still read the cases themselves as soon as i get the chance. 'course, between you and Dancey, i'm already far less happy with the current state of IP law than i was yesterday. (not that this has me as pissed off as Disney and the RIA do, but i digress.) -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
