Re: FAQ copyright violation (fwd)

Martin Leese - OMG (mleese@omg.unb.ca)
Tue, 30 Jul 96 16:03:24 ADT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ copyright violation (fwd)"
Previous message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ copyright violation (fwd)"

Terry Carroll <carroll@tjc.com> wrote:
...
>> Copyright, like most civil causes of action, is not intended to reward the
>> plaintiff for being harmed. It's only intended to put the plaintiff in as
>> good a position as if he or she had not been harmed. Sure, if you suffer no
>> significant loss, you won't get a significant award. That's the point: the
>> award is supposed to reflect the damage.

Surely, with regard to FAQs, this is the key point. If your FAQ
is available for free elsewhere on the Internet, then you have not
suffered any financial loss. This means that, in the case of FAQs,
resorting to law for a breach of copyright is a waste of time.

Regards,
Martin
E-mail: mleese@omg.unb.ca
WWW: http://www.omg.unb.ca/~mleese/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to know how Ambisonics can improve the sound of your LPs and CDs?
Read the Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ. Version 2.6 now on my WWW page.

Next message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ copyright violation (fwd)"
Previous message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ copyright violation (fwd)"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]