Re: websites: public vs private information?

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Ransford Pyle <pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> "Substantially real" -- I like that -- that covers what I mean by
> scribbling notes and a thought at lunch with a colleague -- real,
> yes, but perhaps insubstantial.

That phrase, snipped from the dictionary definition of "tangible" I provided, was not meant philosophically but literally. As in physical existence. Your notes may be deemed slight in content, by you or by others, but if they are scribbled (on paper, I assume), they have been fixed in a tangible medium. Whether or not they qualify, by their nature, for copyright protection is a different question.

> If jazz musicians regularly perform via improvisation, are [their]
> performances protected by copyright? I suspect most courts would
> say yes.

I suspect most courts would not find anything to be either protected or potentially infringed if there were no record of the performance except in someone's memory.

> I consider the music tangible and surely it is as 'fixed' as the first
> outline of written work.

C'mon, Ran. It simply isn't, unless it was in some manner recorded in a tangible medium. Tangible: you can touch it and/or hold it in your hand; it has physical substance.

> I fear drawing the line between 'making' and 'creating' is obscure.

The courts do not think so. Many important cases have hinged on that distinction. I could make, and publish, a list of all the people who live on my block, with their addresses and telephone numbers; many people would find it useful and might even pay for a copy. I assure you that no court would deem it a creative expression or worthy of copyright protection.

--Dodi Schultz
  <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Jun 12 2000 - 18:47:08 GMT