Re: Re: Response to John Eye's June 24, 2005 post

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, [iso-8859-1] Calle Østergaard [Troll Company A/S] wrote:

> The defination of a "work" in 101 does not seem to encompass "a not
> lawfull made" copy of a work - thus my reading is that 110 (1) grant no
> excemptions for such use ??

There is no definition of "work" in section 101. Even if there were, comparing a "work" to a "copy" or "phonorecord" is like apples and horseshoes.

I teach that there are three types of things in copyright law, and students need to keep them clear and distinct from one another in order to keep from tripping over themselves.

First, there is the work, which is the thing that's created by the author. It has no physical instantiation.

Second, there is tha copyright in the work, which is the set of rights that are secured to the author of the work by virtue of the Copyright Act.

Then, there is the copy (or phonorecord), which is the physical object from which the work can be preceived. Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 02:10:12 GMT