On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and
fancruft in starting a thread
where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
wrong impression. You've been around long enough to be aware of the
uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
in a message. :-)
Well yes, that's true. What I hadn't realised was that there appears
to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright,
or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be
clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing
anything. That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm
concerned.
I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to
the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names
of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on
TV series would be decimated.
This is an interesting point. Some of our plot summaries go into
considerable detail. Why do we not hear complaints from the producers?
It they could commit themselves to a policy of saying, "You can do this,
but you can't do that," it would make our task much easier. A lot of
what happens reflects custom rather than law. They realize that a
certain amount of public discussion and information helps sell their
product. Taking a clear stand on some of this, even the most obvious,
would be a loss of tactical advantage.
Ec