Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!drears@ardc.arpa
From: drears@ardc.arpa (FSAC)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re:  More on copyright
Message-ID: <1459@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 12:18:31 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.1459
Posted: Mon Mar  3 12:18:31 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Mar-86 05:42:28 EST
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 24

Will:

   If I was Smith I would give up.  If the facts could be proven he would have
an excellent lawsuit against John Doe.  The problem is proving it.  I would
doubt that there would be any witnesses to the actual modifications.  It might
be easy to prove he sent messages with the modified program included but then
there are problems with this. Federal Rules of Evidence would not allow the
message to be admissible in court because it would not be a real copy. If I had
my copy of the rules with me I would cite the exact rule. The other problem
with this is John Doe could claim the modification was done by someone else
and sent to him.  Remember the burden of proof would alway be on the plantiff.
  As far as of the bullentin board operators go he would have an even more
difficult time (at least until more laws are passed depriving sysops of first
amendment rights). He would have to prove that the syops knew or should have
known copyrighted material would have passed over the network.
  I think he would still retain the copyright but the cost of enforcing the
copyright would would make it unfeasibile.  A copyright is only good if you
are willing to take it to court to defend against it. 

     Dennis

STANDARD DISCLAIMER:  These are my personal views only and are not to be 
confused with the views of my employer.  I will not assume any liability for the
accuracy of the above comments.