Okay, let's consider those sites that have information posted along with a statement that it is copyrighted. Right now on Rootsweb, you can find Texas Vital Records posted: Death, Birth (before 1950), Birth (after 1950), Divorce, and Marriage. Their site says that this information is copyrighted. However, the State of Texas posted most of that information on its site before Rootsweb did and has it available for purchase on CD. If there is a copyright here, it seems to me that it belongs to the State of Texas. Margaret Bennie White wrote: > > Tom Thatcher wrote: > > > > on 11/21/00 12:48 PM, Bennie White at [email protected] wrote: > > > > >> Wishful thinking? :) > > >> > > > No, I doubt that. Violators would find out quickly that the copyright meant > > > exactly what it said. > > > > Got an example? If you look carefully at most sites that sell access to > > such information, they rely on a license agreement that says if you violate > > the agreement (by, for example, copying off large amounts of data) you can > > lose your access privileges. Why is that provision there? Because most of > > the material on those sites is not copyright protected, and the lawyers know > > it, even if the average user does not. > > I don't have an example, but I'll bet you can find some in the US court records > somewhere. Copyright infringement is a hot subject these days. I can't comment either way on the pay sites because I do not know. Don't believe it > has anything to do with what we were talking about. > > By the way, if I ever find out any of my books have been duplicated (reproduced, if > I may use the term)--I'll have a first-hand example for you (I have a cemetery > inscription compilation at the printers as we speak--copyrighted, I might add). > > > >> Think of some of the different ways I could acquire your census data: I could > > >> go to the microfilm and transcribe it myself. I could make an electronic copy > > >> of your web page. I could print out your web page and give it to my secretary > > >> to type. Or I could read your web site out loud into a dictaphone, and have a > > >> stenographer transcribe the tape, a typist type it out from the steno pad, a > > >> clerk scan it using OCR software, and a web designer format it and post it on > > >> my web site. > > > > > You're partially right--No problem with your first and last "ways". However, > > > when my census data was posted to my website (it is no longer because of > > > robbers), it clearly had copyright notices posted. If you make an electronic > > > copy of my pages, you have violated copyright. I am referring here to entire > > > censuses, not just one page. I had the entire 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, census > > > for my county posted and parts of the 1880 and 1900. This obviously involved > > > a number of .HTML pages. > > > > It's a specious argument. First of all, you can stamp "copyright" on > > anything you want but it doesn't mean it's protected by copyright law. > > The process by which the copying occurs does not matter in the slightest > > bit. > > I do know this is in the current copyright law (may not be exact wording): Any > original work (compilation or otherwise) created by the author becomes protected by > copyright from the moment it is created. In fact, under the current law, the > copyright notice is not even required to be shown. Getting down to the nitty > gritty, these messages we on the list are compiling (original work) are covered > under copyright and we all have violated the law by quoting passages. Extreme > example, I know, but nevertheless, covered under the law. > > > >> In each case the result is the same, and the final content of my site will > > >> not differ in any material way from either your site or the original census > > >> page. The method of copying has no relevance. > > >> > > > Yes, it will. If you used your first and last methods, you have created the > > > work yourself > > > > No, I haven't. I copied it using a different method. Here again, the > > mechanism is not important. By your argument, if I find a printed copy > > of the source code for Microsoft Word in the trash, and type it in to my PC, > > and compile it, then I not only own a legal copy of MS Word, but I can sell > > it for profit, since I own the copyright. Copying something manually does > > not give you special rights that vanish if you copy it through technology. > > Sorry, strongly disagree again, but again this is getting nowhere. I stand by my > arguments. > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > Threaded archives at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/COPYRIGHT-L/ > > > > ============================== > > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1 > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > The easiest way to stay in touch with your family and friends! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST1