Re: copyright changes

Kerry L. Konrad <k_konrad[_at_]stblaw.com> eloquently commented on my statement that people "laugh" at copyright notices near copy machines:
>
> If he [Nick Zales] means to suggest that the public generally
> disrespects the copyright laws, maybe he's right -- but I don't think
> so, outside of certain elements of the Internet subculture. And the
> notices do benefit the public -- the libraries' rights do not pass
> through to the library users, who could be liable for infringement
> whether or not they receive specific notice.

     To be clear, I did mean the public does not treat these notices seriously.

     However, I was not always an IP lawyer and I think this list needs a dose of reality from time to time. Lawyers naturally spend much time with other lawyers and often lose sight of what people are doing in the real world. So I do not find my comments harmful to anyone in anyway. If anyone does say so and I'll stop. But my comments about the law are just as valid as any else's opinion. Anyone who acts based on what they read on this list without further research would not be giving good advice.

     I recently read the U.S. Government was a huge violator of copyright with respect to the WordPerfect program. They made some deal with Corel to cure the problem. I'm just saying I've never seen a notice stop somebody from copying whatever they wanted. I don't do that and don't advocate it. If the notices provide a legal defense, then fine. But until we get a better definition of "fair use" people will believe they can copy anything they find in a library, including the entire work. Because of the "Betamax" case, people think they can copy anything they want, as long as it's for their "personal use." That is all I meant.

Nick Zales
Zales Law Office
Milwaukee, WI
<zales[_at_]execpc.com> Received on Thu Jun 10 1999 - 13:56:03 GMT