• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Copyright explained

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 704
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write, if the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you must right your copy.
If you write religious services you write rite, and have the right to copyright the rite you write.
Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write right
rite, and has the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write.
His editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright can be right.
Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write right rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that rite
would copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright would have the right to right.
RIGHT
 
"The Hood"
Posts: 8521
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No - Left.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3271
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
From the amount of confusion everyone seems to have about copyright, I wouldn't be surprised if the real laws regarding it looked just like this.
 
ranger
Posts: 17347
11
Mac IntelliJ IDE Spring
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Actually it makes more sense to me now. Thanks Nigel.
Mark
 
Nigel Browne
Ranch Hand
Posts: 704
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am glad I could explain to to someone in real English
 
arch rival
Posts: 2813
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Something might be wrong in all of that. In many (most?) legal juristictions you do not specifically have to do anything to have copywright over your own creations, the act of creation means you have that right automatically.
Of course you may need to act in some way to protect your right to the right after you have written, but that is an issue about righting wrongs rather than asserting copywright.
awwwllrite?
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marcus Green ]
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic