Re: Emory HTML claim (wa

From: Spectrum Press <73774.2733[_at_]compuserve.com>
Date: 22 Mar 96 20:41:13 EST

It seems to me the original expression demand is fundamental. The point is not that we should not protect and encourage commercial investment, but that we should not use copyright law to protect that investment when original expression is absent. Otherwise, one can make a case for using U.S. Copyright law to protect and encourage oil drilling, for example. What purpose is served by twisting copyright law here, except that the twisting may be easier than securing protective legislation in another category?

Dan Agin

---

Spectrum Press Inc.
http://users.aol.com/specpress/index.html 71022.251[_at_]compuserve.com

> Tim Arnold-Moore wrote:
> >
> >Sandra Greiner wrote:
> >>
> >> To pretend that the layout of the text or the pagination is so
> >> inspired as to merit copyright protection demeans these valuable
> >> contributions (and ignores _Feist_).
> >
> > The standard of originality is not a hurdle requirement. It exists
> > precisely and only to identify who has the right to sue. Not even
> > Feist changes this role of the originality requirement.
>
> No, you're mistaken. Copyright subsists only in *original* works of
> authorship. 17 U.S.C. s. 102(a); Nimmer s. 2.01. No originality, no
> copyright.
>
>
> --Sandra Greiner
> <sg1[_at_]ix.netcom.com>
Received on Sat Mar 23 1996 - 04:46:08 GMT