lineland

[mglosup at randomc.com]

On 24 Apr 97 at 13:14, KENNETH HOUGHTON wrote:

>      What will--or, mayhaps, has--happen(ed), of course, is that any 
>      copyright that people would have had will be superceded by IAM and the 
>      infamous Jules, who will be rather less amenable to surrendering such 
>      than many people on this list...
 

Kenneth, 

They are probably using two or three posts I wrote which were
largely personal attacks on Jules.  So if I understand what you are
saying, if I ever try to  use these again, the Siegel/Larson coterie
of lawyers will sue my ass for copyright infringement, barring me
from quoting my own words..  This is an absurd and hysterical
interpretation of copyright law. 

Copyright is created in the act of authorship, one doesn't have to
register with the Feds to be protected in the courts.  The only way
for their copyright to "supercede" mine would be for me to sell or
otherwise formally sign away my rights to them.  The only thing they
can stop me from doing is photocopying my posts from their book and
reselling them.  I have no intention of doing this.   There is
nothing to prevent them, however, from citing my work, available in
a publicly accessible database, in a purportedly journalistic
endeavour. They are under no legal obligation as  the law is
presently constructed by the legislatures and interpreted by the
courts to seek my consent or pay me.

Everyone who is adamantly opposed to Jules' new book should get 
together, preferably off-list, and retain the services of an 
intellectual property attorney to sue him and IAM (you should know US 
courts aren't keen on prior restraint, so  you can't stop the book). 


Thanks,

Michael Glosup