way off topic, but:
this is extremely unlikely to come off... Firstly copyright is supposedly
only applicable to work which is significantly original. But supposing they
get around that (since so many people have). There has been a precedent set
within the life sciences community that most
on 22/5/02 11:06 AM, Fred Heutte at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the deal here is that the copyright would be in the "sound
> recording rights" not the song "publishing rights".
>
noit would be publishing rights as we are talking about a the underlying
intellectual property rights with
I think the deal here is that the copyright would be in the "sound
recording rights" not the song "publishing rights".
But it's a murky area and one thing we know is that whenever copyright
or other intellectual property rights are involved, systems designed to
protect the creator, performer and
>From the Now I've Seen Everything Dept:
"Maxygen's scientists and lawyers are proposing [to] encode the DNA
sequences as MP3s or other music files and then copyright these genetic
'tunes'As the 'authors' of these DNA-based songs, Maxygen could, in
theory, control the rights to the composit
You might want to take a more careful listen to that next broken-beat
or vaguely Basic-Channelish track you download from some random MP3
site.
It might be a portion of someone's genome... !
-- mail forwarded, original message follows --
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
