----- "Z F" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. The document should be marked Copyright Conexant, so > > only Conexant > > has legal rights to make and distribute copies. Don't > > redistribute the > > document, as you don't have those legal rights (and likely > > don't have a > > legal right to have the copy in your possession), under US > > law at least. > > My understanding of US copyright law is that > copyright does not preclude distribution of materials.
That much is true. If have a copy of a copyrighted item *made by someone authorized to make such copies*, then I can dispose of that physical item in any way I see fit, as long as I don't keep (wait for it) a copy. :-) > It is a violation to produce verbatim copies of a document (or parts > of the documents) if it bares a copyright statement, but content (or > information in the printed material) is not protected by the copyright > law. Here, though, you're wrong. > In other words, retyping the document and chaning the font, spacing, > layout, telling someone, etc without changing the content of the > document, is enough not to violate the copyright rights. copyright > forbids production of verbatim copies only. Nope; that's not true. Copyright inheres in the material itself, not it's presentation (though some people say a separate copyright inheres in that layout -- and that you could, for example, be taken to task for lifting someone's cool layout to use with your own text and pictures). > So, audio/video piracy > is a crime againts copyright, but if you sing the same song yourself > -- it is not. Musical performance is a special case, and you can't analogize it back to copyright. And indeed, if you *commercially* perform that song, then someone has to pay ASCAP or BMI for the privilege, and if you *record* it, then you have to pay the publishing company. > Even if you use the same instruments and > musical notes, your voice is different and it is different enough. > Same for printed materials. See above about "nope". > So yes, never distribute copies, the rest is not covered > by the law. I am not a lawyer, but aparently I've been playing one on the net longer than you. :-) All these things said, "Conexant Proprietary" is a restraint on *those who have the document 'legally', by virtue of their employment or a contract. The law there is trade secret law, and it's pretty clear: the person who releases it is in trouble with their employer -- because trade secrets are absolute; once it's out, it's not a secret anymore -- but *you* are not in trouble for having them, no matter how you got them, although you could be compelled to testify in the case where the person who leaked them got sued. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [email protected] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Start a man a fire, and he'll be warm all night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. _______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
