Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!texbell!tness1!flatline!erict
From: erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: The Cincinnatus Society of Pinheads
Summary: Then they're teaching most journalism students the wrong laws...
Message-ID: <396@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 22 Oct 88 00:58:56 GMT
References: <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <7068@dasys1.UUCP> <391@flatline.UUCP> <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: one bitchin' 3b1 in Tx.Houston.the-Montrose
Lines: 53


Two things:  First off, I confused *registering* a copyright with
"including copyright notice".  My apologies for the pointer-to-noun
faults in my brain.

However, (this is point 2).
In article <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mcb@eris.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> Section 405 excuses omission in three cases, the only interesting one
> for the purposes of this discussion being Sec. 405(a)(2), which says
> that the omission does not invalidate the copyright in a work if
> 	"registration for the work has been made before or is made
> 	within five years after the publication without notice, and a
> 	reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or
> 	phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United
> 	States after the omission has been discovered..."


1.  In the first place, how can Usenet posting be considered publishing?

2.  It would be rather easy to post a duplicate of the original message,
with a copyright, that would replace all existing copies of the message
(if any still exist).  It would seem that weemba, the originator of
the articles in question, could cancle the original article, and repost
the article, with a copyright, and be protected under the law.  (This is
where I get the term "retro-copyright".  Maybe it's the wrong word to use.)

> There are two important points here.  First of all, the practicability
> of adding -- or attempting to add -- notice to all copies of a Usenet
> article is seriously suspect.

Destroying all the originals you can, and replacing them with copyrighted
versions wouldn't count under the law?

[...]
>  So posting a Usenet article without copyright notice, and
> then deciding later that it might be nice to "retro-copyright" it, does
> not wash.

Again, this assumes that posting on Usenet falls under the legal definition
of "publishing", does it not?  Since "mail" is copyrighted, couldn't we
just consider these messages "mass-mailings"?  Or, should we all add
a C-notice in our .sig, leaving the rights to duplicate w/in the domain
of Usenet open to all?


Oh well, sorry if I mislead anybody by confusing registering with
including copyright notices.  [Hits self in head with large metal
object, causing great pain and humor to those around him.]
-- 
"Imitation is the sincerest form of Television." - Mighty Mouse (and R. Bakshi)
J. Eric Townsend                  smail: 511 Parker #2, Houston, Tx, 77007
Inet: COSC3AF@george.uh.edu             UUCP:  uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict
Bitnet: COSC3AF@UHVAX1.BITNET            ..!bellcore!tness1!/