Re: Fundamental Reform of Copyright Law

From: <ez[_at_]ltec.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:32:27 +0000

Hi;

I have Popular Mechanics Magazines as far back as the year 1905. Because they sell magazines every month, can these all still be copyrighted.

Also I have a book that is from the year 1890. (Goulds Medical Dictionary). Because I can go buy an updated version from the shelf new today, is the year 1890 book in public domain?

I have been trying like the dickens to get answers on this and no luck. Appreciate any information on this. The answers will raise a series of more questions but not until this is answered.

Sincerely;

Margie Krick
ez[_at_]ltec.net


On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, S. Keith Graham <vapspcx[_at_]cad.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> John Lederer asks:
> >
> > I wonder what the list serve members would propose if they had the power
> > to reform copyright.
> >
> > [Material without a copyright notice would revert to the public domain]
>
> Personally, I'd replace it with an "unlimited right of free distribution
> if originally published in an open forum" but the author retains the
> moral right of attribution. So if I publish something without a
> copyright notice, available to more than 10 people, then they can
> forward it as much as they like, but only if they leave my name attached.
>
> If material is in the public domain, you can "steal" text and claim it
> is your own.
>
> On a more fundamental level, I think I'd consider eliminating copyright's
> dependance on the idea of a "copy", and start thinking in terms of a
> license (which is implied by purchasing a copy, but can be acquired
> other ways.) Technically, it might be illegal to "scan in" someone's
> business card if it contains a logo. I'd rather allow the person
> who receives a business card to have a license to use the card
> (including the art) in any fashion for personal use.
>
> I think I'd also work on revisions to make the law more understandable
> by the "everyman". Since 10% or more of the population is going to
> potentially be publishers shortly, copyright's vague "fair use" and
> "facts" vs "expression", etc. could use some clarification to
> prevent the law from being an immense burden on the small publisher.
>
> Keith Graham
> skg[_at_]sadr.com
Received on Fri Jul 05 1996 - 15:23:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:21 GMT