On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:56:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:
>In article <13mver8hbs3nqd0@corp.supernews.com>,
> "John Sisker" wrote:
>
>> Thanks Kurt for the clarification. It has been noted. However, as a slight
>> interpretation to this type of text book data, this was originally nothing
>> more than a press release to begin with, which now does put this in a
>> slightly different category. And for future reference, apparently based on
>> the internal limitations of a newsgroup, plus the actual intent and confines
>> of the material itself, there is apparently some degree of disagreement.
> And I did, and continue, to wholeheartedly and legally agree with
>your take that press releases are fair game.
A clarification is in order, since this is a Usenet group, and I, not
located in the U.S., couldn't give a fig for the U.S. interpretation
of Copyright Law, which, incidentally, goes far beyond the Bern
Convention on Copyright.
For example, extending copyright back to 1923 is ONLY applicable in
the U.S. and goes against the International treaties covering
copyright. However, as stated, press releases are fair game, since
they are intended to be widely disseminated.
In Canada copyright only goes back 50 years [with consideration of the
life of the author as well so it could be longer] but NOT back 85
years, so be careful when spouting U.S. copyright law in a Usenet
Group, which is truly international in scope, and NOT subject to U.S.
copyright law except to U.S. posters.
That having been said, retention of this message in violation of
Canadian Privacy Laws will be prosecuted , and I suspect that
there is not one in 1000 in the U.S. who knows what Canadian Privacy
Laws cover [or Canadian Copyright Law, etcetera].
|