Re: websites: public vs private information?

On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, Ransford Pyle <pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
> fixation in a tangible medium of expression.

Yep; that's what the law says.

> And if that is so, all we have to do is use an expansive
> interpretation of 'tangible,'
> [...]
> If copying sound waves in the form of music infringes, why not
> the sound waves that we perceive as words?

Because, as far as I know, we (you, or I, or anyone) cannot use an "expansive interpretation" of a term employed in law. The very essence of any law *must* be agreement on what the words mean.

"Fixed" is defined by the law; I've already quoted that definition here. "Tangible" is not defined there, because there is general agreement on what the word means: "capable of being touched; material or substantial" (Random House, 1999); "capable of being perceived esp. by the sense of touch; palpable; substantially real; material" (Merriam-Webster, 1996).

By what court has a sound wave been defined as tangible?

> When I write down 'cryptic notes' for later use, I don't think of
> these as 'authored' any more than I would a casual idea I throw out
> to one of my colleagues over lunch, or a post to this discussion
> thread.

They are nevertheless yours, and protected by copyright to the extent that their content falls within the category of protectable material.

> But here is where I get hung up: If fixed has nothing to do with
> permanence but only with tangibility, then any physically detectable
> expression is 'fixed'

No. "Physically detectable" is not synomymous with "tangible." One can physically detect something with one's eyes or ears or sense of smell; that doesn't make it tangible.

> and if fixation has nothing to do with authorship, then it only
> matters that one makes a tangible form of an expression to invoke
> copyright protection.

No, Ran, you confuse two distinct requirements for copyright protection. To "make" is not necessarily to create something that qualifies for copyright protection; that depends on originality and other factors. A work, to qualify for protection, must meet the content qualifications AND must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. These requirements are independent and both are necessary.

> I really don't feel that the application copyright of law is as simple
> and certain as you folks seem to. Why do we have all these intellectual
> property lawyers anyway?

Now, *that* is a whole other question, IMO entirely outside the scope of this listserv. <g>

--Dodi Schultz
  <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Fri Jun 09 2000 - 17:47:06 GMT