Re: Bjork - still :-(

[wagreiner@ucdavis.edu ()]

In article <m0p6uEB-000il6C@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu> chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams) writes:
>In article <m0p661U-000ADuC@zoodle.robin.de> Uli writes:
>>
>>Sorry for not yet posting the FAQ this month, but I'm currently trying
>>to do two things:
>>
>>a) to get approval to crosspost it to rec.music.info, rec.answers and
>>   news.answers
>>b) to either get permission to use the original author's words (refused
>>   right now) or to reword it completely
>>
>>Any volunteers for part 2 of b)?
>>
>>In the meantime anyone needing an FAQ can request it from me.
>
>   The FAQ was an assemblage when the last poster took it over, and
>the last poster didn't write more than 50% of it, so forget any
>nonsense mail that you may have received about "copyright" or 
>similar nonsense. Post it if you want. It never had a copyright
>notice in the first place, and the "author" cannot retroactivly
>copyright it.
>
>
>                          Chris Williams of
>
Not to be nit-picky and I do agree with Chris that there is no reason to
worry about copyright violations (how the heck could the person prove that
there were damages!) BUT....  there is no requirement in copyright law to
provide a "copyright notice."  They can be useful for evidence but do not
create any new legal rights.  As soon as one puts a work of writing in any
"fixed form" it is automatically copyrighted.  Here, though, only an absolute
fool would bother to sue since he/she couldn't prove any real "damage" and
wouldn't get any dough.  Besides suing over something like this would be 
silly.  So post away.

Kate content:  Damn it, would it kill Her to do *one* U.S. tour?  End grumble.

Wade