Copyright News

[John A Swartz]

Just a few thoughts on what Bolle posted:

>But For Sure, Copyright doesn't allow for silly and naive excuses...

Good point there - and I'm certainly guilty of spewing naive excuses.
I don't think they're silly, but that's my point of view.

>You may not quote anything without
proper licensing so why should homely interpretations by excused from this
law?

Hmm... you know, me quoting Bolle like this could be considered a copy
right violation, I assume.  But, to his question of why interpretations
should be excused, I ask - "why should they be included?"  O.K., I
suppose Bolle's right that this could create loopholes in people saying
"I didn't copy it, I figured it out all by myself" as a defense for
actually copying it.  But to not be able to right down whatever I hear...
don't make sense to me.

>As far as I am concerned, I don't want to see my license revoked due to
illegal activities

Absolutely, and I would not support activity which would adversely
impact Bolle - even if I didn't consider him a friend.  But - and if
I'm being naive, someone PLEASE tell me - why would Bolle's license
be revoked for something that someone else did that he had absolutely
no control over?  If I buy a copy of the lyric book, and then make
illegal copies, *I'M* the one that should be targeted - not Bolle.  He
certainly didn't authorize me to do this, in fact he warned me against
it in the form of copyright notices in the lyric.

>Why should it become legal if a
million people do it...

Agreed, but I'm not convinced it should be illegal.

All right, I've said enough about this (a few posts ago no doubt).

John