On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and tangible
requirements of copyright law, and is
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:29:20PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and
tangible
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:22:57PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 08:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this before, but I've always dismissed it as hearsay. I
will have to look up Mai v Peak. The implications of this are
On Friday 17 November 2000 09:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The legal test of copyrightability (what is copyrightable) is "original
works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium" [1]. Or at least the
second part of that.
This seems to be a different issue. Those are good
4 matches
Mail list logo
