Re: [CP-Legal] ZDNET: "Hackers settle Cyber Patrol suit"
Willian Quick writes:
>We can all comment on and describe what it is that CyberPatrol
>blocks. Commentaries that include certain selected "facts" about
>who is getting blocked do not violate CyberPatrol's copyright in
>their list.
Thanks.
>However, if you were to post the entire list of sites blocked by
>CyberPatrol, you would not be saved from violating CyberPatrol's
>copyright in that list by claiming either that it merely contains a list
>of "facts" or that it is a "fact" that CyberPatrol's list is: [insert entire
>unedited list here].
Bill, this has to be wrong. If I were to post that entire list of
sites in a different order from that used by CyberPatrol, for
example, I would not be a copyright infringer. It is only the
particular expression of that list of URLs that is protected by the
Copyright Act -- not any and all instantiations of the same
information.
Your argument here assumes that that all lists of the blocked sites
are word-for-word identical.
>You're reading far more into Feist than is really
>there (you are overly Feist-y), and here's what REALLY matters:
>You'd be hard-pressed to find a judge who would agree with you
>down here in the real world.
That's what Rural thought in the Feist case. They lost.
--Mike
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...."
--Walt Whitman
Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 202-721-8432.
His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at
http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial thread listing: