I just received this private e-mail regarding my posting of just a few
minutes ago and I thought that I would respond publicly,

> I was going to pass this around the office, but I thought I'd ask
>  first.  It's not as if I can plead ignorance, considering the content.
>  :-)

It winds up that on further research what I said was exactly correct up until
1976, partially correct from 1976-1978, sort of correct 1978-1989
(inadvertant omissions of the copyright mark from a low-number distribution
of a document could be remedied retroactively), and incorrect thereafter. All
this shows that I'm getting old :-).

During this recent period the courts have greatly loosened up the definition
of when a copyright attaches to an intellectual object created in tangible
form. The copyright notice is no longer required -- and Steve was therefore
correct. Any verbatim quote of a usenet text (as above) now leaves you liable
to immediate suit for infringement of intellectual property by the original
author. "Fair use" policies don't apply if you take the "the most interesting
and most moving" section of the text. Harper & Row sued the "The Nation"
magazine over the use of just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word book
-- and lost big -- because those 300 words were the "heart" of the book.

The ideas and facts expressed in the text to which you are responding are not
now and never were copyrightable -- but the precise language used by the
author is. For more than you want to know, please refer to:

     http://www.nolo.com/sft/13d_sft.html

and the various links therein, as well as:

     http://www.benedict.com/public.htm
     http://www.benedict.com/fund.htm#fund

Apparently from now on, you have to paraphrase all of your responses to be
absolutely sure that you're not asking for a phone call from Eugene :-).

Wirt Atmar

No copyright is asserted for this material by its author. It may quoted as
often and as freely as you wish. Maybe you do care :-).