Also a copyright affects the work itself, not the information in it. Thus although you might be restricted from copying the paper, you should still be able to refer to the paper and repeat what information is in the paper. The only legal objection they could have to that would be to claim that the information is proprietary, but if it has been published in a newspaper as reported earlier, then it would be public domain, and they have no control of it at all.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the law. Marshall Bill Missett wrote: > I believe the BYU staff microbiologists, as authors, own the copyright > rights > under the revised 1987 copyright law, unless their BYU contract specifically > states all published papers are the sole property of the university. Do you > know > if the copyright has been registered with the Library of Congress? > > The situation certainly presents some pretty sticky legal issues, to be > sure. But sorting out the copyright ownership process should be a simple > matter, bullyboy BYU attorneys or not: The authors own the copyright, > unless > their contracts give BYU the rights to all published work. > > What is the ASAP website URL? > > Thanks for your information and insight. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SilverMedicine.org" <silvermedic...@silvermedicine.org> > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:31 AM > Subject: Re: CS>regulations > > > Malcom: > > > > Yes, the issue at hand is not the validity of the studies done by the fine > > microbiologists at Brigham Young University, but rather the > administration's > > attempt to seperate the University from the study done. > > > > The testing was not sponsored by the university. Since the testing was > done > > on university property, with university equipment, and done on university > > paid time, I believe that the university owns the work done, although they > > do not display any copyrights with the work ( which is part of the problem > > here ). > > > > BYU lawyers have been using strong-arm tactics to try to remove the > > University's name from the study... and more. They also want to reserve > > their copyright. However, they refuse to, from what I have seen, > > acknowledge the copyright in print, in a manner that fits the legal > > definition of copyright display and notification of infringement. > > > > This is certainly not an issue with the staff at BYU... I was told that > the > > head microbiologist only wanted the study available through ASAP, as it > was > > their product that was tested. He did not want other, perhaps inferior > > products, profiting from the work done -- especially since doing so is > truly > > misrepresenting the work. > > > > This is certainly understandable, although while I would term ASAP silver > an > > effective silver, it is hardly one of the best out there. > > > > The BYU study information will be forever available through our website. > > Currently, I simply give a brief synopsis, and link over to ASAP. If ASAP > > is ever forced to take the study down, I will relocate the data. > > > > The problem I have is not with the University's position. The problem I > > have is with trying to remove information from the public domain, and > doing > > so with unethical methods. I'm a very strong freedom of speech advocate. > > > > I have quite a bit of information that I cannot release to the public > > domain... Respecting those who have done work, that, if it gained too > much > > attention, might jeopardize the work being done. I see this as different > > from microbiologists granting newspaper interviews, and then a University > > trying to come up behind and clean it all up for political reasons. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jason > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Malcolm Stebbins" <s...@asis.com> > > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:39 AM > > Subject: Re: CS>regulations > > > > > > > They didn't deny it, just insisted it was not for public consumption and > > any use > > > of it would be met with legal(istic) sanction. I believe Jason > > (silvermedicine ?? > > > site) has the whole bit including his response to the threat. > > > > > > Ian Roe wrote: > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > Hasn't the Brigham Young research report already been debunked? I > > thought > > > > the university had denied it entirely. > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "James Osbourne, Holmes" <a...@cybermesa.com> > > > > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:26 PM > > > > Subject: RE: CS>regulations > > > > > > > > > Go to argentumresearch.com Find some juicy quotes by Dr. Flick, and > > quote > > > > > him. Also, find the Brigham Young research report, and quote it. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal > silver. > > > > > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > > > > > > > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > > > > > > > > Silver-list archive: > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > > > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > > > > > > > >
