On 9/2/07, Dave Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne > Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any > copyright law in place. It includes the U.S.
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html): "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright... "The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, ... Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages..." "Copyright is a personal property right,..." "Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement." "Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract..." "In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection..." I had thought that the only remedy against infringement is legal action by the injured party. Law enforcement doesn't get involved, normally, since it's a civil matter. However, it turns out that isn't quite true. Check this out (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html): "(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500." "(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500." That's criminal infringement, folks. A federal crime. >From which we can conclude, among other things: 1) appearance of the copyright _notice_ on BSD or any other code is irrelevant. The creator owns the copyright from the get-go. Removing a copyright notice has no legal effect, although it's easy to imagine a practical effect, to wit, a good lawyer could use it to show malice and win a larger settlement. Although it's possible that licensing terms affect this; this is where we should all shut up and ask Real Lawyers. 2) nonexclusive transfer of rights is "normally" a matter of contract law; however, my understanding is whether software licensing falls under contract law is a murky area in the law right now. 3) the original author of the code in question might well be able to seek criminal charges against the people who removed the license. This "Rui" is obviously a troll; can we please stop taking the bait and bring this thread to a close?
