Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Thomas Bushnell writes: Can you be specific with references please? http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRight-Backgr.htm Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe. Shame on them, but I should not be surprised. :( It's only big and organized lending (i.e., public libraries etc.) which is restricted. Nobody will sue me for lending out a book to a friend... I'm not sure that really makes me feel better. Are public libraries the sort of things we should be legally discouraging?? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Thomas Bushnell writes: Can you be specific with references please? http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRight-Backgr.htm Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe. Shame on them, but I should not be surprised. :( It's only big and organized lending (i.e., public libraries etc.) which is restricted. Nobody will sue me for lending out a book to a friend... -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV) On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:11:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell writes: Not quite correct. You are buing not just the right to read it; you are also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan it, rent it... In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Can you be specific with references please? As far as commercial rental: COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 31 [1] (Australian) paragraph 1c (for literary, musical or dramatic works reproduced as sound recordings) paragraph 1d (for computer programs) (Subsections 3 through 7 then qualify the above two paragraphs. ^_^) So not books, but it looks like paragraphs 6a and 7a suggest that Copyright (World Trade Organization Amendments) Act 1994 might have required these two items to be added as part of WTO negotiations... So it might be more prevalent than first thought. ^_^ In fact, the agreement from the Uruguay WTO round in 1994 on TRIPS [2] Article 11 requires member countries to include commercial rental rights as copyright on software, and cinematographic works, with exceptions for the latter, and Article 14 paragraph 4 seems to extend the same rules for cinematographic works to phonographic works. And [3] suggests that the US also has such laws regarding computer programs on the books, and this agreement caused them to remove a sunset clause from them. [1] http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html [2] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm#1 [3] http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1994/1194Bulletin/US_GATTTRIPSImplementation.html (Possibly, you meant to refer to books specifically. But I figure this is relevant to this particular discussion.) -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder? -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ --- pgpRFdMtQMF0Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating wiki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Jon Dowland wrote: On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 01:08:00PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Based on the text on the w.d.o frontpage it seems that Michael Ivey has provided the tar.gz with all the w.d.n contents. I would like to make a desperate plee that some attempt is made to incorporate a clear indication of the licence under which material on this wiki is available under, either with a user-readable prompt or machine-readable metadata (ideally both). This is something you really can't retrofit onto a wiki once significant contributions are made. While I agree that this is something best done before hand, it can and has been successfully retrofitted into at least some wikis. The WLUG wiki changed the licensing on their wiki, and found none of the problems insurmountable. The biggest problem was some of the authors wanted to do things properly and in at least one case (i.e. me) this involved getting the sign-off from my line-manager at work. Some pages had to be re-written, but that's always the case in a wiki anyway. The whole process is described at: http://www.wlug.org.nz/WlugWikiRelicensing cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSS Watch http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/ Work Blog http://blog.educause.edu/StuartYeates/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is, when you buy a book you are buying the right to read it. NOT the right to copy it. NOT the right to modify it. NOT the right to redistribute (modified or not) copies. Not quite correct. You are buing not just the right to read it; you are also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan it, rent it, sell it, burn it, criticize it, cut it into pieces and make a paper airplane out of it, and so forth. You may, in fact, modify it even! You can, for example, scribble notes in the margins, highlight parts of it, cut out parts of it, and so forth, and you may take the result and loan it, rent it, sell it, etc. Thomas
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Thomas Bushnell writes: Not quite correct. You are buing not just the right to read it; you are also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan it, rent it... In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell writes: Not quite correct. You are buing not just the right to read it; you are also buying the physical copy, and you may do with it what you want: loan it, rent it... In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Can you be specific with references please? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
I wrote: In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Thomas Bushnell writes: Can you be specific with references please? http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRight-Backgr.htm http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0106000-.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0109000-.html -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Thomas Bushnell writes: Can you be specific with references please? http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRight-Backgr.htm Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe. Shame on them, but I should not be surprised. :( Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating wiki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Hi, On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:13, Jon Dowland wrote: I would like to make a desperate plee that some attempt is made to incorporate a clear indication of the licence under which material on this wiki is available under, either with a user-readable prompt or machine-readable metadata (ideally both). seconded. Actually, the problem is allready there: the content at wiki.debian.net has no licence attached... regards, Holger pgpgo07E60IsC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating wiki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
[Jon Dowland] I would like to make a desperate plee that some attempt is made to incorporate a clear indication of the licence under which material on this wiki is available under, either with a user-readable prompt or machine-readable metadata (ideally both). I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this? I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software than a book? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating wiki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Jon Dowland] I would like to make a desperate plee that some attempt is made to incorporate a clear indication of the licence under which material on this wiki is available under, either with a user-readable prompt or machine-readable metadata (ideally both). I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this? I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software than a book? You don't need to license any books you write because nobody has the right to produce derivative works. It would be helpful if data in the wiki is available under a license that permits derivative works to be produced, especially if those derivative works can then be included i Debian. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating wiki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:58:59AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this? I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software than a book? your book has a copyright, where all rights are reserved, thus no one can copy/redistribute your book without you (or more likely your publisher's) consent. i believe the motiviation is that the wiki admins/contributors might want to have a copyright that is slightly less restrictive than all rights reserved. the best way to specify what the terms of use, copying, modification, and/or redistribution are is via a license. sean -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
I might be slow, but can you explain why we need a license for this? I do not need to license my books, but I do need to license my software. Why should the wiki documents be treated more like software than a book? Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is, when you buy a book you are buying the right to read it. NOT the right to copy it. NOT the right to modify it. NOT the right to redistribute (modified or not) copies. The wiki content is useful for other people, not only for them to read, but also for them to copy, modify and redistribute. And for them to do just that they need an explicit license. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
[Humberto Massa Guimarães] Yes, you do need a license to the content of your books. Only thing is, when you buy a book you are buying the right to read it. NOT the right to copy it. NOT the right to modify it. NOT the right to redistribute (modified or not) copies. Actually, in Norway, I got a limited right to copy it, a given right to modify it, a limited right to distribute it, and a limited right to distribute copies. And I find that these rights are sufficient for my use of the books. The wiki content is useful for other people, not only for them to read, but also for them to copy, modify and redistribute. And for them to do just that they need an explicit license. Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. Is it not like this where you are? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. I think it's fairly reasonable to think that anything[1] that appears in debian.org should be shippable in main. [1] With the obvious exception of contrib and non-free. Yes, I know that there are issues with the current website. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Actually, I stand partially corrected as of: Actually, in Norway, I got a limited right to copy it, a given right to modify it, a limited right to distribute it, and a limited right to distribute copies. Down here (Brasil) -- and I suspect in the USofA too -- NO (or, better saying, extremely limited) rights to modifying copyrighted works (IOW the _creation_ of derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder modulus some fair use things) And I find that these rights are sufficient for my use of the books. The wiki content is useful for other people, not only for them to read, but also for them to copy, modify and redistribute. And for them to do just that they need an explicit license. Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. Is it not like this where you are? Not really. Remember that this is Debian, and we like our stuff Free. The limited rights do not permit a wiki reader to modify an article and publish (in a magazine for instance) the modified article -- and we would like to have such rights (as we do have for all our software). Other thing is that there is no _real_ difference between software and documentation. What if I publish a bash/perl/python script on the wiki and it gets modified and then used as part of another, bigger piece of software -- exactly because it's useful? Got it? -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
* Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-06 17:39:06]: Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. i spoke to a german lawyer about this exact (license) issue when skolelinux.de pondered an applicable license for it's wiki and aparently it is doubtfull that wiki content is worthy to protect in the first place. There needs to be a certain quality level reached, aparently, which is not necessarily given in a wiki. So this discussion about a license for the debian wiki might be very debianish but also irrelevant. (c: signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
There needs to be a certain quality level reached, aparently, which is not necessarily given in a wiki. If only works of a certain quality level are protected by copyright why aren't the products of the entertainment industry in the public domain? I suspect that you misunderstood the lawyer. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
[John Hasler] I suspect that you misunderstood the lawyer. We have the the same limitation in norwegian law, were the work need to have (the norwegian expression) verkshøyde, which implies a certain quality level as Andreas puts it. There are no limits on copying and distribution of text below this quality limit. As for the quality of the product of the entertainment industry, I'm not sure if your judgement matches that of the law. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Scripsit Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [John Hasler] I suspect that you misunderstood the lawyer. We have the the same limitation in norwegian law, were the work need to have (the norwegian expression) verkshøyde, which implies a certain quality level as Andreas puts it. There are no limits on copying and distribution of text below this quality limit. Unless the difference between Norwegian and Danish law is much greater than I imagine, værkshøjde is not purely a matter of quality. It is more a question of the amount of expressive choice that went into producing the text to make it fit under the law's concept of an artistic or literary work. Even bad literature *is* literature and so enjoys copyright protection. In the current context I think it is quite reasonable to plan for the eventuality that someone will put enough work into a wiki page that the result qualifies as a work, or that the combined effort of many wiki users will produce something that pass the work-ness test. -- Henning Makholm It was intended to compile from some approximation to the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined, because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available.
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
[Henning Makholm] Unless the difference between Norwegian and Danish law is much greater than I imagine, værkshøjde is not purely a matter of quality. You are right, of course. I just lacked the ability to express this clearly in english. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Petter Reinholdtsen writes: We have the the same limitation in norwegian law, were the work need to have (the norwegian expression) verkshøyde, which implies a certain quality level as Andreas puts it. Do you mean quality or originality? Are you saying that if I write a highly original stream of conciousness novel that is judged by the critics to be of abysmal literary quality that I will be denied a copyright in Norway? Is buggy spaghetti code not protected in Germany? As for the quality of the product of the entertainment industry, I'm not sure if your judgement matches that of the law. That's the problem. How does the law judge the quality of works of authorship? Do the courts employ panels of literary critics? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Hi, Andreas: El Martes, 06 Septiembre 2005 18:20, Andreas Schuldei escribió: * Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-06 17:39:06]: Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. i spoke to a german lawyer about this exact (license) issue when skolelinux.de pondered an applicable license for it's wiki and aparently it is doubtfull that wiki content is worthy to protect in the first place. There needs to be a certain quality level reached, aparently, which is not necessarily given in a wiki. So this discussion about a license for the debian wiki might be very debianish but also irrelevant. (c: No, I don't think it isn't. Even if German laws renders not having a explicit license good enough for the case at hand, reality is copyright laws *tends* to overprotect the author against other (potential) users. By explicitly saying what are the rights you give to your users you: a) Make a case by the explicit announce it (so people can become aware that not everybody will give the same rigths with their works) and b) Insure you are not dependant (to an extent, at least) on what's the default for any given country's laws about this item. In Spain, for instance, not mentioning any explicit copyright notice gives complete control to the author and no control (except for reading it in the very media it originally was published) to the user. Think about it quite like a portable programming problem: everything that can be declared, should be declared in order not to be catched by the different defaults this or that compiler on this or that platform migth assume. My two cents, you know. -- SALUD, Jesús
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Henning Makholm writes: [værkshøjde] is more a question of the amount of expressive choice that went into producing the text to make it fit under the law's concept of an artistic or literary work. Even bad literature *is* literature and so enjoys copyright protection. That's pretty much the US notion of originality. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
John Hasler wrote: Petter Reinholdtsen writes: We have the the same limitation in norwegian law, were the work need to have (the norwegian expression) verkshøyde, which implies a certain quality level as Andreas puts it. Do you mean quality or originality? The amount of creativity the author put in _successfully_. Are you saying that if I write a highly original stream of conciousness novel that is judged by the critics to be of abysmal literary quality that I will be denied a copyright in Norway? If the average audience consistently says this is useless crap then that's basically the outcome. (Copyright wouldn't be denied, it is either inherent in the work or not there at all. There's no copyright registration like in the US, it's not needed.) Is buggy spaghetti code not protected in Germany? Computer programs are exempted from that requirement. As for the quality of the product of the entertainment industry, I'm not sure if your judgement matches that of the law. That's the problem. How does the law judge the quality of works of authorship? Do the courts employ panels of literary critics? When they need external expertise they may do for that specific case. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata (was Re: migrating w iki content from twiki (w.d.net) to moinmoin (w.d.org))
Jesús M. Navarro wrote: Hi, Andreas: El Martes, 06 Septiembre 2005 18:20, Andreas Schuldei escribió: * Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-06 17:39:06]: Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by law should be sufficient for the wiki content in most cases. i spoke to a german lawyer about this exact (license) issue when skolelinux.de pondered an applicable license for it's wiki and aparently it is doubtfull that wiki content is worthy to protect in the first place. There needs to be a certain quality level reached, aparently, which is not necessarily given in a wiki. So this discussion about a license for the debian wiki might be very debianish but also irrelevant. (c: No, I don't think it isn't. Even if German laws renders not having a explicit license good enough for the case at hand, reality is copyright laws *tends* to overprotect the author against other (potential) users. By explicitly saying what are the rights you give to your users you: a) Make a case by the explicit announce it (so people can become aware that not everybody will give the same rigths with their works) and b) Insure you are not dependant (to an extent, at least) on what's the default for any given country's laws about this item. In Spain, for instance, not mentioning any explicit copyright notice gives complete control to the author and no control (except for reading it in the very media it originally was published) to the user. Same in Germany. Relying on the speculation that no Debian wiki article will ever be good enough to gain copyright protection is unwise IMHO. It breaks down in exactly those cases where licensing is most likely to become a real issue. This may still not be a problem for Debian, because it can claim the author's concludent permission to publish his work, but everyone who redistributes/republishes some content from the wiki may face unexpected trouble. IANAL, Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Computer programs are exempted from that requirement. The work needs to have some kind of creative art. Trivial programs are also not protected in a lot countries. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
I wrote: Do you mean quality or originality? Thiemo Seufer writes: The amount of creativity the author put in _successfully_. Well, if he didn't successfully put it in then it isn't there, is it? I wrote: Are you saying that if I write a highly original stream of conciousness novel that is judged by the critics to be of abysmal literary quality that I will be denied a copyright in Norway? Thiemo Seufer writes: If the average audience consistently says this is useless crap then that's basically the outcome. (Copyright wouldn't be denied, it is either inherent in the work or not there at all. There's no copyright registration like in the US, it's not needed.) You appear to contradict yourself. Do I have a copyright, or do I not? (BTW copyright is also automatic in the US. Registration is only required just before you file suit, and then it's just a matter of a form and a small fee with no possibility of denial). When they need external expertise they may do for that specific case. So if I brought suit against someone for making unauthorized copies of my Usenet articles a court guided by panel of literary critics might rule them not worthy of protection? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Bernd Eckenfels wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Computer programs are exempted from that requirement. The work needs to have some kind of creative art. Without any quality judgement, correct. This doesn't leave anything of interest out. Trivial programs are also not protected in a lot countries. I meant to refer to Germany specifially. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
John Hasler wrote: [snip] Are you saying that if I write a highly original stream of conciousness novel that is judged by the critics to be of abysmal literary quality that I will be denied a copyright in Norway? Thiemo Seufer writes: If the average audience consistently says this is useless crap then that's basically the outcome. (Copyright wouldn't be denied, it is either inherent in the work or not there at all. There's no copyright registration like in the US, it's not needed.) You appear to contradict yourself. Do I have a copyright, or do I not? You have if your work is worthwile to be protected. (BTW copyright is also automatic in the US. Registration is only required just before you file suit, and then it's just a matter of a form and a small fee with no possibility of denial). When they need external expertise they may do for that specific case. So if I brought suit against someone for making unauthorized copies of my Usenet articles a court guided by panel of literary critics might rule them not worthy of protection? If the court finds it can't decide the matter without a panel of literary critics this may happen. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
