lineland

[KENNETH HOUGHTON]

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      copyright that people would have had will be superceded by IAM and the 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.

>>Let me see if I have your argument straight here:

(1)  You hold copyright over your words
(2)  IAM/Seagull, despite their copyrighting of the book and its contents, does 
     not hold copyright over your words--but they aren't infringing on your     
     copyright by using them without permission.

Since you're stating both of the above as true, either

a)      You don't hold copyright on your words (since you can't prevent IAM from
        using them),
        or,
b)      IAM's copyright on the book =and its contents= must be invalid, since   
        they don't have permission(s) from the author(s) who hold copyrights.

a), of course, goes completely contrary to your argument, so b) must be true.

Though, of course, accepting the "free copy of the book" may well be considered 
compensation, and therefore binding in court.

But, of course, we should consider that Mr. Larson's "generous offer" is only 
that. Certainly, I wouldn't want to impunge on his motivations, which are 
clearly pure of heart, mind, and spirit (as he himself noted).

As for the rights of those who (1) hold copyright on their words (as you claim),
and (2) don't accept the book, well, that's for Mr. Larson and Mr. Seagull, in 
their infinite generosity, to decide.