>> They aren't necessarily redistributing it. If they lose the PDF, >> the printed copy is still their legally purchased "fair use" copy >> and it does not clearly designate its OGC.
But the printed copy is an incomplete work. It does not contain all the data provided in the original work, and it is as if the end user photocopied a book, for "fair use backup", but then threw away every other page. >> his case kind of falls apart if he enters the PDF into >> evidence in printed form. Yes, the person attempting to state that the clear indiciation is not provided in the printed form would be correct. Which would be followed by a statement from the defending team to the effect that the printed form is incomplete. >> I guarentee though: if you put 10 people in front of a computer >> and ask them about the artwork in a 100+ page PDF, at least 3 >> of them are going to ask for a printed copy to look over. IMHO if the work is distributed in an electronic medium, it must be viewed via the intentended application. If it is viewed via any other method provided via 'fair use' laws, then it is no longer the original work. >> I write computer programs, I know a bit about user habits. Yes, so do I. So do many of us. 8-) >> There are those who prints 1-line emails rather than read >> them on the computer screen. Just because people cross in the middle of the street without walking 20ft down to the corner to use the cross walk, doesn't mean that it is legal (At least not here in CA/USA). If someone decides to translate my electronic document to print, then it is there choice. But they have no translated the work, and it is up to them to identify the OGC. -- Mike _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
