At 10:24 AM 4/15/2006, you wrote: >While I am not a person who makes list rules, I think that when a string >gets to the argument stage (prolonging far beyond the interest level of >most people other than the main posters arguing), it might make sense to >take it private. You know the old saying about the futility of trying to >change someone's point of view on religion and politics. It likely also >applies to the positions people take in many list arguments. >----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Asher" <pasher@ee.net> >To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:54 AM >Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Distribution, a right of the copyright holder / >was "Who owns... Deason, First, I was specifically asked to comment on the question by Cliff, see http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/COPYRIGHT/2006-04/1145078152 Second, as I'm sure you are aware, copyright law is complex. The devil is often in the details. Discussing those details and how they apply to various possible scenarios is part and parcel of understanding. Taking a discussion (not argument or flaming) private would IMO be a disservice to the other subscribers who want to learn and understand, as well as to those who visit the archives now or in the future and find unrefuted misstatements or incorrect interpretations of the law. Pat P.S. Joan and I are old friends and work together to refine our respective comprehension of many subjects, not just copyright :)