On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Janina Sajka wrote: > Let's be clear about this. Whatever you read in any copyright statement is > valid only if it falls within the law goveerning copyright. Definitely. I just think it's apauling that anyone thinks that they can withhold such a basic right as reading aloud. > Silly statements such as the one below about reading aloud are exactly the > kind of industry over-reaching that's going to get the DMCA reopened in > Congress one of these days. Yeah, I've been reading about mutterings along these lines for the past few weeks now. Bring it on! IMHO, the copyright situation, particularly in the USA (which seems to be where it counts these days) is just crazy. Did you know that if the 1998 amendment to the copyright act hadn't gone through that Micky Mouse would have entered the public domain next year? So it damned well should - they've had a long enough go at it. But no, they need to tie it up for another 20 years or something. Grrrrrr! As an aside, an article in The Australian last Monday pointed out that Australia's copyright laws are still life plus 50 years, instead of the life plus 70 adopted in the USA. This means that, for example, all of George Orwell's works are now in the public domain here in Australia, and some are apparently on the web here. Of course, it's only legal for Australians to access it. Geoff.
