Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!new
From: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga animations on VHS now available
Message-ID: <20300@estelle.udel.EDU>
Date: 25 May 90 14:56:00 GMT
References: <1074.264fd03a@dayton.saic.com> <4710016@hpfcdq.HP.COM> <20234@estelle.udel.EDU> <24885@usc.edu>
Reply-To: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 73

In article <24885@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>Darren, as usual you give out a lot of misinformation.
  I take offense at that.  Is there any way I can add me to your kill file?
  I don't think you want to see all this "misinformation".
 
>In article <20234@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>>If it is on a dealer's disk without a copyright, at least
>>in this country up to a short time ago and maybe even now,
>					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it was public domain.  
>
>Since March of 1989 there is NO requirement for a copyright notice to
>maintain copyright.

Ok.   I stand informed.  Please note the "maybe" in my future posts.

>
>>You published it without a copyright
>>and hence you made it PD.  (Nowadays, you may need to 
>>put an explicit "this is PD" depending on exactly what
>>the Berne convention says.
>
>You're confused :-)  You published without a copyrigth notice --> this does
>NOT make it public domain.  Read the Berne Convention.

Depends on when you published it, doesn't it?  Eh?   
I'm not confused, merely underinformed.  However, at least when I am wrong,
I make it clear that I might be...  unlike some others around here.
Actually, do you have an online version of the Berne Convention?
Can you tell me where to get hardcopy?


>>I know a patent lawyer; I'll >>ask him.)
>A patent lawyer is not the same as a copyright lawyer.  The two things
>(copyrights and patents) are QUITE different.  You mix apple and oranges.

Better to ask a patent lawyer than an insurance lawyer.  Actually, this
guy does both.   Especially, better to ask a patent lawyer than a
software developer :-)

>>This does not need to be hashed out on USENET...
>>It's already been hashed out by the lawyers, courts, etc.
>What we don't need is the kind of misinformation you give out.  If you know
>your stuff, say it. If you don't, ask your lawyer and then say it. Otherwise,
>you look like a dork :-)

I beg to differ!  I did NOT give misinformation as I clearly stated the 
circumstances under which I would be wrong (the acceptance of the
Berne Convention) and the method of determining whether I was wrong
(look at the Berne convention if it has been passed). I also stated
that this doesn't need to be discussed on USENET because the lawyers
have already answered it (implying that the lawyers are the ones to ask,
not you and I).  You even underlined the "maybe" above and then tell
me that I'm giving misinformation.  I challenge you to email me the exact
sentence from my article that was incorrect and then tell me I give out
misinformation (especially "as usual").  If you can't, I expect a public
appology. 

Geeze, after the **** I got for misattributing a quote to you
(especially when I think it was you who misread the ">"s), I would
think you would be more careful about calling somebody an "as usual"
liar.

		       -- Darren




>
>-- Marco
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=