I find the intellectual discussion on what should/should not be
copyrighted interesting particularly as regards to html.
However, if I recall from last viewing the CLA web site the CLA
covers, and has been proven in law, traditional copying methods ie
fair trading, study packs and the use of bodies such as case clearing
houses etc.
Am I right in saying the CLA has no m,andate from the people it
represents to enforce digital copyright? Yes the Copyright Act (if
that's the name) may define what 'copying' is, but has there been any
test cases in law in the UK which would validate any 'suggestions'
made by the CLA as regards caching, html etc?
I find Edward's comments interesting, and I guess the reason most
people put bland and blanket copyright statements on their web pages
is (a) because they do not fully understand copyright and (b) even
tho' they would never dream of prosecuting they do not want to be
ripped off without knowing and want a fallback position which they
hope covers every eventuality!
So, whatever we may think reasonable, isn't a test case the only way
of defining this? And assuming nobody wants to get there, the next
best way is by people like those involved in E-Lib working together
with CLA and publishers . . . this is the 90s, draconian statements
don't work anymore . . . . :)
(and this is kinda what Sam just said . . . and please forgive the
above for factual errors/lack of expert knowledge!!!!!!)
Ian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Roddis tel +44 (0)1203 523947
DLMBA Development Officer fax +44 (0)1203 524411
[log in to unmask] www.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/mba
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|