Andrew Suffield wrote:
I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which
copyright would subsist if the world were different.
Perhaps you've missed the point. I'll try more detail:
Whether there exists a valid copyright on a work depends on
* aspects intrinsic to the work
*
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
snip
The proper terms for what you describe here are copyright does not
subsist in this work, where the verb is subsist
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 00:16 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
snip
The proper terms for what you describe here are copyright does not
subsist in this work, where the verb is subsist (alternatively
copyright protection does not subsist, but even lawyers don't
usually
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is
copyrighted by default...
I see a fine distinction
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is
copyrighted by default...
I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work
created by the U.S.
6 matches
Mail list logo
