Paul Filmer <filmer[_at_]usra.edu> writes:
>
>I pass along an edited example of a note I received that I believe might
>infringe a copyright, and possibly a patent.
[Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe story deleted]
I think you can set your mind to rest on this particular case. The story is a long-running hoax, sister to the similar Mrs. Field's Cookie recipe story that made the rounds of newspaper letter to the editor columns a decade or so ago. I'm told that the cookie recipe isn't half bad, but its not from Neiman Marcus. The story, or one of its variants, shows up on one Usenet News newsgroup or another almost monthly, about as often as the Make-Money-Fast electronic chainletter. Since both it and its accompanying recipe were written for the purpose of wide distribution, it poses no copyright problem.
Your general point is, of course, still of interest. I agree with you that the public's ignorance of copyright makes it more likely that folks will copy protected works electronically without permission. But I, for one, have not seen much of the attitude you mention. On the contrary, many netizens seem to me to be trying hard to be respectful of copyright in the digital context, if only they could figure out what the rules were. There are a lot of myths flying about the net on what the copyright law says (e.g., some folks seem persuaded that mere *possession* of an infringing copy is illegal and perhaps even criminal). That's a real problem. The supposed cavalier disregard of intellectual property rights in an electronic context is, I think, much less of one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT