Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!faatcrl!jprad
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga animations on VHS now available
Message-ID: <1421@faatcrl.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 90 22:34:17 GMT
References: <1409@faatcrl.UUCP> <24951@usc.edu> <1415@faatcrl.UUCP> <25005@usc.edu>
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ
Lines: 49

papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:

>>Grab a copy of "How to Copyright Software"  ISBN: 0-87337-102-X  It was
>>really good reading.

>You might want to get a version updated to include the revisions to the
>copyright laws enacted on March 1, 1989 when US joined Berne.

Check the ISBN, that *is* the updated version.

>>Proof is in the fact that a complete, not partial, ommision of copyright has
>>taken place.  What's more, it would appear that the copyright holder has not
>>taken *any* measures to correct this.

>Since Berne, "omission" does not make you lose your rights.  

I did not say "lose your rights" with respect to the copyright itself.  But,
as per pg. 7/11, para. E., the complete omission of a copyright, *without*
any measures taken to correct it, hurts your ability to get damages for
infringement.

>>  If not, it is doubtful that he can do
>>anything other than to get a legal "cease and desist" order for subsequent
>>infringement, and absolutely little, if any, measure of relief via damages.

>That's actually not true, since one CAN register for copyright subsequently
>(which is a required step for suing), than contact the infringer and ask him
>to "cease publication" of the material that infringes. In case publication
>is not ceased, the guy can be sued and innocent infringment will not be 
>admissable.

Uh, what did I say that isn't true?  You said the same thing, only you worded
it differently.  A "cease and desist" order is a legal remedy to cause some
party to cease operations, if they don't, then you can sue.  But, you can't
sue for past infringement, only subsequent infringement.

>You're also wrong about the damages. Damages depend on date of registration vs.
>date of publication:

>(from Circular 93 -- Hightlights of U.S. Adherence to the Berne COnvention)
>"Presumption of copyright validity. The copyright owner who registers before
>or within 5 years of first publication receives the benefit of legal 
>presumption in court, called prime facia evidentiary weight. [...]

Hey Marco, one slight flaw here.  You can't register a copyright if it isn't
*in* the work.  This is what we're talking about here.  The omission of it.
He can register it *after* he corrects the omission, not until.

  -jack-