Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!isis!jay
From: jay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Sale of Redristributable Software
Message-ID: <1323@isis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Nov-86 02:27:39 EST
Article-I.D.: isis.1323
Posted: Wed Nov 12 02:27:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Nov-86 22:07:07 EST
References: <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <657@randvax.UUCP> <12158@watnot.UUCP> <3118@wateng.UUCP> <4351@ism780c.UUCP>
Reply-To: jay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: University of Denver College of Law
Lines: 60
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:36 misc.legal:297

In article <4351@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>Could everyone *please* get the terminology correct here?  Legal matters
>are already confusing enough!
>
>If something is "public domain", then there is no copyright notice, and
>the author has no say whatsoever over what people do with the program.
>...
>-- 
>Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706

Well, Tim, I hate to be picky but you aren't even _quite_ correct.
The technically legal sequence is this.  Under the 1976 Copyright Act,
a Copyright in a work "subsists" in the author (or assignee) _from_the_-
moment_it_is_created.  In other words, the moment our pudgy little fingers
reel forth a program, we have a Copyright in it.

Now having a Copyright means (mostly) the right to control the re-distribution,
copying, selling, ..., and all means of getting the Copyrighted work out.
Our right to "control" is something that we have to preserve, though,
and the way we do it is by putting the world on notice that we have that
right, and we do it through notices.  Here's where your definition goes
a bit awry.

If we allow copies of the work to be distributed _without_ any notices
about our ownership of our Copyright, we may be letting the work out
into what we have all been calling the "public domain" - meaning you
don't desire anymore to have your rights preserved, and anybody in the
"public" can copy, re-distribute, sell, etc. the work without having
to account to you.  But _IF_ you subsequently distribute more copies _WITH_
your Copyright shown thereon, that _WON'T_ restore your Copyright rights:
once the horse is out of the barn, you can't bring it back.

Another important thing that your definition doesn't speak to is that
the assignee/purchaser/licensee of the work may surreptitiously copy
the work and give it to a third person, _without_ your Copyright notice
on it.  This copy is _not_ in the public domain despite the lack of
the Copyright notice, and that licensee, and the third person can be
held accountable to the Copyright owner.  Now we can get picky, and
bring up the fact that if the owner lets this copying go on and
doesn't make diligent efforts to stop, this may put the work into
the public domain.

So mere presence/lack of a notice may not tell the whole story.  The
legally operative facts are whether the Copyright owner has
distributed (or allowed to be distributed) copies without notice
in a manner so as to evidence his election not to retain his
copyright rights.

Hope this confused things further.  We all need more articles to
read :-)

--------

"Stop it!! Stop it now.  This is getting silly again, and this silliness
has _got_ to stop.  Go on to the next sketch.  Go on.  Turn this camera o    "

Jay Batson
       ihnp4!onecom!\
                     isis!jay
seismo!{hao,nbires}!/