> >Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work >except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright >law that puts any onus on the copyright owner to mark the work as copyright >protected. >The person who owns the equipment used is liable for the work that comes >off >of it. >It's not about enforcing the law, it is about obeying it yourself. That it >inconveniences someone else isn't addressed by the copyright law. > >William Robb
I agree with most of what you say, but you seem to be changing direction a little bit. :-) All the libraries in the Unites States of America with banks of copy machines are in dire danger then, I suspect. I suspect, in reality, a court of law would decide that posting a notice is really all that's required to protect onself as opposed to busybody inspecting each person's material being copied. If not, all manufacturer's of recording equipment, scanners, etc., would be liable for the use of their equipment. When is the last time a photographer came down to a lab demanding redress because a lab let the photographer's client reprint a photo? Does the photographer want to alienate the lab, the client? Isn't it a risk the photographer takes because of the business they're in? Wouldn't it likely be more risky and potentially cost the photographer more to press his rights to the letter of the law? Isn't it similar to the risk I took, posting a picture on the WWW and having some jerk download it and claim it was his? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
