"Chris Ahlstrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
amicus_curious wrote:
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
He doesn't know that his own word here are automatically copyrighted.
I think that you are wrong.
You don't "think"
For tasks like that one needs working brains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
"Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic
forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction, but these can include
poems, theses, plays, other literary works, movies, dances, musical
compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures,
photographs, software, radio and television and broadcasts."
Are you saying that Kastrup's letters are creative, intellectual, and/or
artistic works? Somehow, I doubt that he could pass muster in a court,
based on his rather clumsy prose presented to the newsgroup. But you can
hypothesize all you wish.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
