9611a.txtTEXTR*chMφӮφoNNovember 1996, Part I From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "GaLINA Mailing List" , "genweb genweb" , "Deep-South mailing list" Cc: "Terry Lofthouse" , , , Subject: Butts County GenWeb Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:34:20 -0500 Hello all! Butts County, Georgia GenWeb is proud to announce the addition of information on the Butts County Genealogical Society to it's page! I have also added more information on marriages and some bible records. These records are almost entirely Kimbells, because they were taken from my files! If you have information YOU can share about YOUR family, please, let me know! I would LOVE to add information on YOUR family to the Butts County pages! I only have so much information in my own files, so please, let me know what you would like to see added!!! This is YOUR page, and we want it to be the best. I am also considering adding a page for Native American research. I understand the Creek's were a prominent part of Butts Co history right up until 1920's, and even to present day! My problem has been finding information to add it! So if you have anything, please, let me know. My grandmother specifically remembers the Creek Tribe members going thru the streets of Jackson Ga as a child. She also told me that Indian Springs was holding some sort of Native American festival at the same time as our Kimbell family reunion last June. **************************************************************************** Teresa Maro Rozich Kimball Genealogy Online http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2926 Warren Co NC GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/warren Butts Co GA GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/ga/butts **************************************************************************** From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: (Fwd) Question To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 8:48:05 EST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] I received a message from myland@sorel-tracy.qc.ca (Mylen Daneau) In case I misunderstood, perhaps someone who does understand would like to answer Mylen/Marco/whoever. :> :> Bonsoir, :> :> Je voudrais savoir si c'est possible de former notre arbre= :> :> g=E9n=E9alogique :> :> =E0 partir de netscape. :> :> Merci, Marco Gagnon. :> :> Hello, :> My French is not very good. This is my translation: :> "I would like to know if it is possible to share our family :> tree with Netscape." :> :> Did I understand right? Do you mean you would like to download a whole :> tree or just make links from one to the other? :> :> My "tree" is currently reachable via :> :> http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee/genweb/other_db.html#groleau :> :> There are ways you can write a link to connect directly to a particular :> person or sub-tree in my data. If that's what you would like to do, :> I can put together the instructions. But although I can sometimes read :> French, I am not able to write it. Sorry. :> :> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- :> W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 :> Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 :> Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com :> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ANITA VANOTEGHEN Organization: VANOTEGHEN ENTERPRISES X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: (no subject) would like to know more about this. Anita From: Denis Beauregard To: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: (Fwd) Question In-Reply-To: <9611041349.AA05592@most> I replied to that person. In short: someone asking if you can build your tree from what is available in the web. I replied (roughly): this would mean to put and link millions of marriages data on the web... Denis On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote: > I received a message from myland@sorel-tracy.qc.ca (Mylen Daneau) > In case I misunderstood, perhaps someone who does understand would like to > answer Mylen/Marco/whoever. > > :> :> Bonsoir, > :> :> Je voudrais savoir si c'est possible de former notre arbre= > :> :> g=E9n=E9alogique ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. To: genweb@UCSD.EDU From: ghoffman@UCSD.EDU (Gary Hoffman) Organization: IR/PS UC San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0519 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 20:18:31 PDT Subject: Missing GenWebList Messages To GenWebbers: Last week, I called in a consultant to help me upgrade my unix server, fuji.ucsd.edu, that also hosts the GenWeb proposal and the archives for the GenWebList. The upgrade, from BSDI 2.0 to 2.1 was a bust, so he built a new Linux OS from scratch. In the process, I lost some files I had not backed up, including the "current" archives of genweb messages. These would be messages sent to this mailing from September 1, 1996 until October 31. I do have some of them in another mail system, but I need to reconstitute the entire archive. If anyone has been keeping copies in a Eudora mailbox, for example, please e-mail me directly and let me know what format they are in. Please do not reply to the list and please do not send me the messages until I get back to you. It is fortunate that the traffic in this list has been light the past two months, at least compared to previous periods. It was so light in September, in fact, that I didn't even harvest that month's mail file into the Web archives. But, ooops, now I've lost them and I would like them back, at least for continuity's sake. Thanks in advance, Gary *************************************************************************** *Gary B. Hoffman, Computing Services Manager e-mail: ghoffman@ucsd.edu* *Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS)* *University of California, San Diego (UCSD) voice: (619) 534-1989* *9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0519 USA fax: (619) 534-3939* *************************************************************************** From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "genweb genweb" Cc: Subject: Warren Co NC Genweb help. Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:22:47 -0500 Hi all! Just to announce we are looking for information to add to the Warren Co NC GenWEb page. We are looking for any Bible records, or perhaps wills to add. Please type the wills either in a text file, or inside of an email, and I will get them online as soon as possible. Take a look at the Butts County site (Wills of Butts County) and see what you think. Be happy to do the same things for Warren Co! **************************************************************************** Teresa Maro Rozich Kimball Genealogy Online http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2926 Warren Co NC GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/warren Butts Co GA GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/ga/butts **************************************************************************** From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "genweb genweb" , "GaLINA Mailing List" Subject: Database Copyright Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:41:50 -0500 Recently we have been speaking about database laws within our Genweb.=20 Well, after some research I have found out the following: Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. On 22 November, there is a meeting being held in VA by the international community to not only COPYRIGHT these databases, but to forget to leave a= ny real ability for genealogists to use ANY of this information regardless o= f use. You must first purchase the database, whether it is written in a book, or on a computerized CD rom, etc. The term database is definted by the CREATOR, thereby making anything that is a compilation (abastacts, et= c) off limits to all researchers unless the book or software is located with= in your home. This will make all those library trips obsolete. I have written a web page regarding this, at http://members.aol.com/wthr1/database.htm Please, check it out. Here is a letter written by a friend of mine: In December of this year, the World Intellecutal Property Organization (WIPO) will consider a new treaty that would require most countries (including the United States) to severely curtail the public's rights to use public domain materials stored in databases. The treaty, as I understand it, contains provisions intended to do the following: =95 Prohibit unauthorized extraction, use, or reuse of any database, or = any substantial portion of a database. This would be defined by the database vendor. =95 Apply to all privately generated data or repackaged U. S. government data. =95 Effectively establish the basis for a pay-per-use system. I don't dispute the right of database compilers and vendors to obtain reasonable protection of their products, nor to make a profit from the disemination of information. However, as I understand the treaty provisions, if a vendor which acts as a contractor to government agencies publishes (in whatever form) public information from that agency, the database from which it obtained this information would not be protected from the treaty provisions. =20 I'm not sure how this would affect our ability to view and retrieve data (wills, deeds, census lists, etc.) from various WEB sites, but part of th= e problem here is there have been no hearings nor public debate of this issue. The enabling legislation was apparently HR 3531 which was passed = by the 104th Congress without debate. There are several web sites devoted to this subject: http://www.public-domain.org -- Copies of the treaty, commentary, and th= e PTO Federal Register notice http://www.essential.org/cpt/ip/cpt-dbcom.html -- this is a primer on t= he proposed treaty written by James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology. I have saved his comments in a text file and will be glad to e-mail them to anyone requesting a copy. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/wipo6.html http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/intellec.html Please make up your own mind and if you feel it is necessary, start writi= ng -- the Patent Office, your congressman/woman, the Department of Commerce.= =20 Comments are due to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office by 22 Nov. 1996= .=20 Patent Office: diploconf@uspto.gov Or write your congressman/woman and ask them to do what they can to delay implementation of this treaty provision and / or reconsider HR 3531. *************************************************************************= Teresa Maro Rozich Kimball Genealogy Online http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2926 Warren Co NC GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/warren Butts Co GA GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/ga/butts *************************************************************************= From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: Database Copyright To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 16:37:33 EST In-Reply-To: <199611111841.NAA00268@mh004.infi.net>; from "Teresa M. Rozich" at Nov 11, 96 1:41 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] I don't see how they could stop you from using data that someone else had copied from somewhere else. But if there was no clear copyright "owner" it may be the someone could take over. And, suppose I were to "decipher" the handwriting in an old parish register and "copyright" my transcription. It would not be right for me to prevent you from using some of the same words by claiming that you had taken advantage of my "work" (especially if you actually derived the same words from the original.) I would recommend that genealogists and historians come up with a copyright statement along the lines of the GNU Public License (though not as verbose) and urge archivists and clerks everywhere to immediately place the statement on all records under their jurisdiction. Here's a first draft: Copyright xxxx yyyyyyyy. All rights reserved. Permission to copy is freely granted, provided the copier makes no attempt to prevent others from copying this material. where xxxx is 1985 or the date the record is created, whichever is later; and yyyyyy is the source of the data. The permissions may be more restricted if the source agency insists. (I say source agency, because often records are archived by agencies other than the source.) We should also urge all groups GENERATING records to make a blanket public announcement, "The hereby notifies all parties concerned that all documents produced by this agency unless specifically labeled otherwise may be used freely by anyone provided that well, you get the picture. My hasty words shouldn't be used--need to come up with something properly designed to head off future usurping of material that should be public by greedy publishers. (While also protecting privacy of those records for which it is appropriate.) Those of us making Web databases available should immediately add some such language, and change it later if better wording is developed. Here's what I have been putting in the header of all my GEDCOM files for quite some time. Feel free to imitate and/or suggest improvements: 1 COPR This data is copyright © 1995 by W. Wesley Groleau (Wes). 2 CONT All rights reserved. License hereby granted to reproduce and 2 CONT distribute for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes, subject to the privacy 2 CONT rights of the individuals mentioned herein and their heirs. 2 CONT ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED. YOU MUST FIND AND VERIFY YOUR OWN 2 CONT SOURCES. DO NOT EXPECT ANY MORE FROM THIS DATA THAN SUGGESTIONS 2 CONT TO SPEED UP YOUR SEARCH!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:30:10 -0500 (EST) From: Denis Beauregard To: genweb genweb cc: GaLINA Mailing List Subject: Re: Database Copyright On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Teresa M. Rozich wrote: > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. But a basic genealogical data is a fact, so it can't be copyrighted. You can't put a copyright on the fact that my grand-father was married in 1914 in a given town. You can't put a copyright on the fact that Charlemagne existed or that Clinton was elected last week (this makes no sense as it would mean to have someone owning the truth). Many databases are not based on facts, but on analysis or results. For example, number of people who are on the internet in 1996. While it is a fact, that number is derived from a series of complex computations and surveys, so it is not a basic fact (i.e. you can't read this fact like you are reading the date on a calendar). I believe the WIPO is talking about those kinds of databases. The database as a whole is already covered (as a collection). Denis ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. To: "Teresa M. Rozich" cc: "genweb genweb" , "GaLINA Mailing List" , "Dr. Brian Leverich" Reply-to: "Dr. Brian Leverich" Subject: Re: Database Copyright In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:41:50 EST. <199611111841.NAA00268@mh004.infi.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:30:20 -0800 From: Brian Leverich -- Your message was: (from ""Teresa M. Rozich"") > Recently we have been speaking about database laws within our Genweb.=20 > Well, after some research I have found out the following: > > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. ------------------ Individual facts can't be copyrighted. Collections, arrangements, and interpretations of facts can. That's why textbooks can be copyrighted, and that's why nontrivial GEDCOMs, Web pages, and other similar works can be copyrighted. Also, your use of individual facts can be affected by licensing agreements. For example, when you buy a CD-ROM and use the manufacturer's database access software, your use of the data on that CD-ROM is covered by a "shrink-wrap" licensing agreement with the CD-ROM vendor. Broderbund and other vendors' licensing agreements are *much* more restrictive than those of ordinary copyright law. You need to be clear on these points, especially since copyright notices no longer need to be explicitly posted, or you may make some fairly horrendous blunders in working with genealogical data. -B -- Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 leverich@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:59:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Thom. Edlund" To: Brian Leverich cc: "Teresa M. Rozich" , genweb genweb , GaLINA Mailing List , "Dr. Brian Leverich" Subject: Re: Database Copyright What is subject to copyright law is format, not content. Regards, Thomas K. Edlund Senior Librarian Family History Library On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Brian Leverich wrote: > > > -- Your message was: (from ""Teresa M. Rozich"") > > > Recently we have been speaking about database laws within our Genweb.=20 > > Well, after some research I have found out the following: > > > > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. > > ------------------ > > > Individual facts can't be copyrighted. Collections, arrangements, > and interpretations of facts can. That's why textbooks can be > copyrighted, and that's why nontrivial GEDCOMs, Web pages, and other > similar works can be copyrighted. > > Also, your use of individual facts can be affected by licensing > agreements. For example, when you buy a CD-ROM and use the > manufacturer's database access software, your use of the data on that > CD-ROM is covered by a "shrink-wrap" licensing agreement with the > CD-ROM vendor. Broderbund and other vendors' licensing agreements > are *much* more restrictive than those of ordinary copyright law. > > You need to be clear on these points, especially since copyright > notices no longer need to be explicitly posted, or you may make some > fairly horrendous blunders in working with genealogical data. -B > > > -- > Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L > RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ > P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 leverich@rootsweb.com > From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: Database Copyright To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 8:56:54 EST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] TR: > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. DB: > But a basic genealogical data is a fact, so it can't be copyrighted. > You can't put a copyright on the fact that my grand-father was married in > 1914 in a given town. You can't put a copyright on the fact that > Charlemagne existed or that Clinton was elected last week (this makes no > sense as it would mean to have someone owning the truth). BL: > Individual facts can't be copyrighted. Collections, arrangements, > and interpretations of facts can. That's why textbooks can be > copyrighted, and that's why nontrivial GEDCOMs, Web pages, and other > similar works can be copyrighted. TE: > What is subject to copyright law is format, not content. You are all correct, but you missed Teresa's point: The proposed treaty and the already passed (in the U.S.A.) HR-3531 aim to change this! Also, the European Community has already made a similar agreement, although for some reason, none of the signers have implemented it. These instruments intend to give copyright protection to the "maker" of a database, just by virtue of all the work he/she/it spent "making" the database. There was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that phone book white pages did not have copyright protection because they were "facts" not "expression." This case has been the precedent for denial of protection to a lot of database-like works. These laws/treaties would reverse that trend. I studied both the proposed treaty and the House Resolution last night. It's really not that bad. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that there are minor flaws in the H.R., and major gaps in the proposed treaty. It also angers me that the H.R. contains language specifically stating that the U.S. government can do things the people can't. And to add insult to injury, they also put in language to ensure that state and local governments ARE subject to the law! Back to the main point: there IS language in there that seems designed to prevent the results Teresa was concerned about. But I am concerned that vagueness, loopholes, and judicial, legislative, or administrative interpretation could go against researchers instead of for them. Please study this issue for yourselves and decide whether you need to act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" , Subject: Re: Database Copyright Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:38:53 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Wes, for helping me clarify! My biggest concern is the libraries shutting down photcopiers because of this, and they would have the legal right to do so. if enforced to it's fullest, this "law" will put a definite stumbling block to genealogy. **************************************************************************** ********* Teresa Maro Rozich Kimball Genealogy Online http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2926 Warren Co NC GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/warren Butts Co GA GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/ga/butts **************************************************************************** ********* ---------- > From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) > To: genweb@UCSD.EDU > Subject: Re: Database Copyright > Date: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 8:56 AM > > TR: > > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. > > DB: > > But a basic genealogical data is a fact, so it can't be copyrighted. > > You can't put a copyright on the fact that my grand-father was married in > > 1914 in a given town. You can't put a copyright on the fact that > > Charlemagne existed or that Clinton was elected last week (this makes no > > sense as it would mean to have someone owning the truth). > > BL: > > Individual facts can't be copyrighted. Collections, arrangements, > > and interpretations of facts can. That's why textbooks can be > > copyrighted, and that's why nontrivial GEDCOMs, Web pages, and other > > similar works can be copyrighted. > > TE: > > What is subject to copyright law is format, not content. > > You are all correct, but you missed Teresa's point: The proposed treaty > and the already passed (in the U.S.A.) HR-3531 aim to change this! > Also, the European Community has already made a similar agreement, > although for some reason, none of the signers have implemented it. > > These instruments intend to give copyright protection to the "maker" of a > database, just by virtue of all the work he/she/it spent "making" the > database. There was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that phone book > white pages did not have copyright protection because they were "facts" > not "expression." This case has been the precedent for denial of > protection to a lot of database-like works. These laws/treaties > would reverse that trend. > > I studied both the proposed treaty and the House Resolution last night. > It's really not that bad. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that there are minor > flaws in the H.R., and major gaps in the proposed treaty. > > It also angers me that the H.R. contains language specifically > stating that the U.S. government can do things the people can't. > > And to add insult to injury, they also put in language to ensure that > state and local governments ARE subject to the law! > > Back to the main point: there IS language in there that seems designed > to prevent the results Teresa was concerned about. But I am concerned > that vagueness, loopholes, and judicial, legislative, or administrative > interpretation could go against researchers instead of for them. > > Please study this issue for yourselves and decide whether you need to act. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 > Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 > Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: genweb@UCSD.EDU From: ghoffman@UCSD.EDU (Gary Hoffman) Organization: IR/PS UC San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0519 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:33:06 PDT Subject: H.R. 3531 and Databases To GenWebbers: Wes' analysis is good, but we all should read the text ourselves. Among other places, you can find it on Thomas, the Web service of the Library of Congress at www.loc.gov. Here is the search string that pulled up that bill for me: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3531: It appears that this bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 23, 1996. Now, if I'm not mistaken, for this bill to become a law before the 104th Congress adjourns, it must pass the Committee (plus any sub-committees it has been further referred to), pass the House, then pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. If not, then it dies and has to be reintroduced in the new Congress next January. It is well for us to be concerned about this and to let our opinions be known, especially to those who will vote on it, but I don't think there is cause for alarm...yet. Cheers, Gary *************************************************************************** *Gary B. Hoffman, Computing Services Manager e-mail: ghoffman@ucsd.edu* *Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS)* *University of California, San Diego (UCSD) voice: (619) 534-1989* *9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0519 USA fax: (619) 534-3939* *************************************************************************** From: MRosado007@aol.com Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06849; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:22:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:22:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961112212223_138100720@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: edlund@alinc.com, leverich@rootsweb.com cc: wthr1@foto.infi.net, genweb@UCSD.EDU, galina@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu Subject: Re: Database Copyright In a message dated 96-11-11 21:02:59 EST, edlund@alinc.com (Thom. Edlund) writes: << What is subject to copyright law is format, not content. Regards, Thomas K. Edlund Senior Librarian Family History Library On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Brian Leverich wrote: > > > -- Your message was: (from ""Teresa M. Rozich"") > > > Recently we have been speaking about database laws within our Genweb.=20 > > Well, after some research I have found out the following: > > > > Data in these databases is NOT copyrighted (at this time). All that is > > copyrighted is the "original" portion of the work, which means the > > introductions, etc. There is another problem, however. > > ------------------ > > > Individual facts can't be copyrighted. Collections, arrangements, > and interpretations of facts can. That's why textbooks can be > copyrighted, and that's why nontrivial GEDCOMs, Web pages, and other > similar works can be copyrighted. > > Also, your use of individual facts can be affected by licensing > agreements. For example, when you buy a CD-ROM and use the > manufacturer's database access software, your use of the data on that > CD-ROM is covered by a "shrink-wrap" licensing agreement with the > CD-ROM vendor. Broderbund and other vendors' licensing agreements > are *much* more restrictive than those of ordinary copyright law. > > You need to be clear on these points, especially since copyright > notices no longer need to be explicitly posted, or you may make some > fairly horrendous blunders in working with genealogical data. -B > > > -- > Dr. Brian Leverich >> I agree with Dr. Leverich and Thomas Edlund; copyright law principally concerns format and non-factual content, not the raw genealogical facts that are typical of a GEDCOM data file or a genealogy web page. However, I have yet to fully understand how the proposed legislation would affect the private use of demographic studies such as censuses, etc. I suspect it won't, but in any event I intend to go Internet surfing tonight to educate myself on these issues, so veramos entonces. Michael Rosado (AOL Genealogy Forum/Hispanic co-host) AOL Hispanic Genealogy Group (http://users.aol.com/mrosado007/) Personal home page (http://users.aol.com/mrosado007/personal/) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:18:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611131418.JAA16234@Nimbus.CAM.ORG> X-Sender: beaur@pop.hip.cam.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: genweb@UCSD.EDU From: beaur@cam.org (Denis Beauregard) Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases I still fail to see how that bill is against genealogists. It would forbid copying substantial parts of databases, thus if I put my Beauregard database on the web, no one could take it to publish his/her own version. But it don't stop me from copying data in published works (i.e. not a substantial part). Thus, I can read 10,000 books, take all Beauregard data in each of them, assemble them (making a new work) and publishing them. It is just like bill C-32: I am still waiting for a list of law clauses concerning us genealogists. So, I would like to understand. Denis ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:01:12 -0700 (MST) From: "Thom. Edlund" To: Denis Beauregard cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases In-Reply-To: <199611131418.JAA16234@Nimbus.CAM.ORG> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Denis: your conclusion is correct. Another point of interest regarding references to census data -- US Gov't publications, including censuses, by law are public domain. Regards, Thomas K. Edlund Senior Librarian Family History Library On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Denis Beauregard wrote: > I still fail to see how that bill is against genealogists. > > It would forbid copying substantial parts of databases, thus > if I put my Beauregard database on the web, no one could take > it to publish his/her own version. But it don't stop me from > copying data in published works (i.e. not a substantial part). > Thus, I can read 10,000 books, take all Beauregard data in each > of them, assemble them (making a new work) and publishing them. > > It is just like bill C-32: I am still waiting for a list of > law clauses concerning us genealogists. > > So, I would like to understand. > > Denis > ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org > ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html > ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html > ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. > From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases To: edlund@alinc.com (Thom. Edlund) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 13:20:25 EST Cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU In-Reply-To: ; from "Thom. Edlund" at Nov 13, 96 9:01 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] :> Denis: your conclusion is correct. Another point of interest regarding :> references to census data -- US Gov't publications, including :> censuses, by law are public domain. The whole point of this topic is that HR 3531 and the proposed treaty aim to CHANGE what is public domain! It appears to me that census data and the like will remain public domain--but it bears a closer look. I can easily interpret the language as follows: My CDROM is a protected database under this law because I spent money and/or time creating it. Therefore, you are violating my legal rights if you include census data that you viewed on my CDROM, even though the identical data can be legally quoted IF you obtain it from a public source. PLEASE don't merely draw on past experience/knowledge. Go to one of the URLs Teresa posted and examine the issue. Of particular interest to Mr. Edlund should be a letter opposing this treaty/law prepared by the American Library Association jointly with four other library-related groups. If you have legal background, you may be interested in the upcoming Law Review article about the proposal. This article is at one of the URLs Teresa posted. To summarize: current legal rules say nothing about the advisability of changing those rules! The proposal is harmless IF the enforcers interpret as it SEEMS to be intended. Depending on that to happen by accident is like trying to repeal Murphy's law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 13:26:32 EST In-Reply-To: ; from "Thom. Edlund" at Nov 13, 96 9:01 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] I am not insisting that the sky is falling. I'm just suggesting that you look upward before you tell the world it ISN'T falling. -- Chicken Little P.S. I deliberately refrained from posting my critique of the proposals, because more qualified people than I have already done so. Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:56:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: beaur@cam.org (Denis Beauregard) From: ltmiller@postoffice.ptd.net (Linnea Miller) Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases Cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Ya know, I was just thinking while doing my errands this morning - isn't all of this stuff already protected by law??? I believe if it used without permission or without properly citing the author or work, it's called plagiarism and one can be taken to court!! Why does gov't have to feel they need to control every aspect of our lives - the way THEY think it should??? Just a thought....... -Linnea >I still fail to see how that bill is against genealogists. > >It would forbid copying substantial parts of databases, thus >if I put my Beauregard database on the web, no one could take >it to publish his/her own version. But it don't stop me from >copying data in published works (i.e. not a substantial part). >Thus, I can read 10,000 books, take all Beauregard data in each >of them, assemble them (making a new work) and publishing them. > >It is just like bill C-32: I am still waiting for a list of >law clauses concerning us genealogists. > >So, I would like to understand. > >Denis >### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org >### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html >### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html >### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. Linnea Miller - Annville PA ltmiller@mail.ptdprolog.net Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:11:16 -0500 (EST) From: Denis Beauregard To: Linnea Miller cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Linnea Miller wrote: > Ya know, I was just thinking while doing my errands this morning - isn't > all of this stuff already protected by law??? I believe if it used without > permission or without properly citing the author or work, it's called > plagiarism and one can be taken to court!! Facts like phone numbers and addresses are NOT yet protected. So now one could copy a phone book to a CD-ROM and sale it without permission. > Why does gov't have to feel they need to control every aspect of our lives > - the way THEY think it should??? ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:08:38 -0500 (EST) From: Denis Beauregard To: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" cc: "Thom. Edlund" , genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases In-Reply-To: <9611131820.AA13437@most> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote: > :> Denis: your conclusion is correct. Another point of interest regarding > :> references to census data -- US Gov't publications, including > :> censuses, by law are public domain. > > The whole point of this topic is that HR 3531 and the proposed treaty > aim to CHANGE what is public domain! It appears to me that census data > and the like will remain public domain--but it bears a closer look. > > I can easily interpret the language as follows: > > My CDROM is a protected database under this law because I spent money > and/or time creating it. Therefore, you are violating my legal rights > if you include census data that you viewed on my CDROM, even though > the identical data can be legally quoted IF you obtain it from a public > source. But it is about "substantial" part of the data. If you copy each town census in a cdrom with census of NY state and resell it with another format, you copy substantial parts of it. If you take all Groleau or Beauregards from the same CD-ROM, then you don't take substantial part of it. Annoying if you are copying a lot of data i.e. including all Quebec records 1000 persons copied from one source (thus, the third party is irrelevant and it is like if you copied yourself from that source) because in the whole you take substantial part from that source. But if your data is based on original data you took on microfilms, or on sparse data, you are not violating those copyrights. Denis > PLEASE don't merely draw on past experience/knowledge. Go to one of the > URLs Teresa posted and examine the issue. Of particular interest to Mr. > Edlund should be a letter opposing this treaty/law prepared by the > American Library Association jointly with four other library-related > groups. > > If you have legal background, you may be interested in the upcoming > Law Review article about the proposal. This article is at one of the > URLs Teresa posted. > > To summarize: current legal rules say nothing about the advisability > of changing those rules! > > The proposal is harmless IF the enforcers interpret as it SEEMS > to be intended. Depending on that to happen by accident is like trying > to repeal Murphy's law. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 > Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 > Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 16:45:58 EST In-Reply-To: ; from "Denis Beauregard" at Nov 13, 96 3:08 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] :> But it is about "substantial" part of the data. If you copy each town :> census in a cdrom with census of NY state and resell it with another :> format, you copy substantial parts of it. If you take all Groleau or The proposed law/treaty is not concerned with the size of the portion allegedly copied. Commentary in the proposed treaty explains that if a very small amount of data is copied enough times, it would "harm" the maker of the database such that he/she/it would be granted remedy under the law. Again, it may be harmless. It sort of looks to me like it is. But I have enough doubt to be nervous. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Daniel L. Wright" To: "Denis Beauregard" , "Linnea Miller" Cc: Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:54:18 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why am I getting all this mail re: H.R. 3531 and databases? It's coming directly to me from you! How do I stop getting It? Dan Wright wrightd1@csinet.net ---------- > From: Denis Beauregard > To: Linnea Miller > Cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU > Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases > Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 1:11 PM > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Linnea Miller wrote: > > > Ya know, I was just thinking while doing my errands this morning - isn't > > all of this stuff already protected by law??? I believe if it used without > > permission or without properly citing the author or work, it's called > > plagiarism and one can be taken to court!! > > Facts like phone numbers and addresses are NOT yet protected. > So now one could copy a phone book to a CD-ROM and sale it without > permission. > > > Why does gov't have to feel they need to control every aspect of our lives > > - the way THEY think it should??? > > ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org > ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html > ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html > ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "Denis Beauregard" , "Linnea Miller" Cc: Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:11:24 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Denis Beauregard > Facts like phone numbers and addresses are NOT yet protected. > So now one could copy a phone book to a CD-ROM and sale it without > permission. Actually, this whole thing started because of the PHONE BOOK!! Phone companies were mad because the phone listings were showing up on CD-Rom and on the internet. It limited how much money they could make from information calls. They took it to court, and lost! Now, they are pushing this whole thing thru, and you won't be able to use the phone book unless given directly to you by phone companies, meaning,,,,, .50C per info call, no more photocopies of things like that, phone listings going OFF THE INTERNET, along with every other database! Are you folks starting to understand the point?? > > > Why does gov't have to feel they need to control every aspect of our lives > > - the way THEY think it should??? > > ### Denis Beauregard, genealogiste amateur, Internet: beaur@cam.org > ### Page web de genealogie: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html > ### Genealogy Web page: http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/welcome.html > ### Sujets: Quebec, France, Acadie, experts francophones, etc. > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:57:51 -0700 (MST) From: "Thom. Edlund" To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 13:20:25 EST From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) To: "Thom. Edlund" Cc: genweb@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases :> Denis: your conclusion is correct. Another point of interest regarding :> references to census data -- US Gov't publications, including :> censuses, by law are public domain. The whole point of this topic is that HR 3531 and the proposed treaty aim to CHANGE what is public domain! It appears to me that census data and the like will remain public domain--but it bears a closer look. I can easily interpret the language as follows: My CDROM is a protected database under this law because I spent money and/or time creating it. Therefore, you are violating my legal rights if you include census data that you viewed on my CDROM, even though the identical data can be legally quoted IF you obtain it from a public source. PLEASE don't merely draw on past experience/knowledge. Go to one of the URLs Teresa posted and examine the issue. Of particular interest to Mr. Edlund should be a letter opposing this treaty/law prepared by the American Library Association jointly with four other library-related groups. If you have legal background, you may be interested in the upcoming Law Review article about the proposal. This article is at one of the URLs Teresa posted. To summarize: current legal rules say nothing about the advisability of changing those rules! The proposal is harmless IF the enforcers interpret as it SEEMS to be intended. Depending on that to happen by accident is like trying to repeal Murphy's law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:55:57 -0700 (MST) From: "Thom. Edlund" To: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases In-Reply-To: <9611131820.AA13437@most> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My reading of H.R. 3531 differs from yours in two respects. First, a change in the status of GPO publications is not addressed. Second, census data (for an example) copied from a copyrighted CD can be protected only if it preserved a unique format. The resolution implies that a sort may be considered a unique format. Further, if a database presents information in an electronic format, where no previous such format existed, that database is protected by copyright. As I read and understand the resolution, this in not a new interpretation of the copyright law; only a clarification of the "fair use" clause. The institution I work at has for almost a decade published genealogical data on CD. Those CDs are and have been copyrighted. What is being addressed is whether or not copying significant databases and merely resorting the data is a violation of copyright. The consensus of librarians is that it is not. Unfortunately, the general consensus of authors and attorneys is that it is. Regards ... On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote: > :> Denis: your conclusion is correct. Another point of interest regarding > :> references to census data -- US Gov't publications, including > :> censuses, by law are public domain. > > The whole point of this topic is that HR 3531 and the proposed treaty > aim to CHANGE what is public domain! It appears to me that census data > and the like will remain public domain--but it bears a closer look. > > I can easily interpret the language as follows: > > My CDROM is a protected database under this law because I spent money > and/or time creating it. Therefore, you are violating my legal rights > if you include census data that you viewed on my CDROM, even though > the identical data can be legally quoted IF you obtain it from a public > source. > > PLEASE don't merely draw on past experience/knowledge. Go to one of the > URLs Teresa posted and examine the issue. Of particular interest to Mr. > Edlund should be a letter opposing this treaty/law prepared by the > American Library Association jointly with four other library-related > groups. > > If you have legal background, you may be interested in the upcoming > Law Review article about the proposal. This article is at one of the > URLs Teresa posted. > > To summarize: current legal rules say nothing about the advisability > of changing those rules! > > The proposal is harmless IF the enforcers interpret as it SEEMS > to be intended. Depending on that to happen by accident is like trying > to repeal Murphy's law. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 > Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 > Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:11:06 -0700 From: smcgee@sol.slcc.edu (Scott McGee (Personal)) Message-Id: <9611140311.AA00664@sol.slcc.edu.> To: beaur@cam.org, ltmiller@postoffice.ptd.net Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases Cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU >Facts like phone numbers and addresses are NOT yet protected. >So now one could copy a phone book to a CD-ROM and sale it without >permission. Well, the facts are not protected, but be VERY careful trying such. The compiler of something like a phone book, CAN put extra "false" data into the compilation. This data, being non-factual, is a creative work and is therefore copyright protected. You, having no source other than the book, would not know which is valid factual uncopyrighted fact, and which is "false" copyrighted creative content. Thus, if you copy things like the phone book, you DO put yourself at risk of legally infringing on someone's copyright. The same would reasonably apply to genealogical or historical data of various types. Of course, the unfortunate consequence of using such data as if it were factual is much worse than in something like a phone book! Scott GENEALOGY | Do you know who your ancestors are? | Scott McGee ------------+------------------------------------------+------------------- email: smcgee@genealogy.org | What? Me speak for web: http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee/homepage.html | someone else? Nah! -------------------------------------------------------+------------------- See my genealogy page at http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee and my GenWeb page at http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee/genweb Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:42:04 -0700 From: smcgee@sol.slcc.edu (Scott McGee (Personal)) Message-Id: <9611140342.AA00806@sol.slcc.edu.> To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: mcgee db error? >From igolf@ccrtc.com Tue Jun 4 06:04 MDT 1996 X-UIDL: 8db29c002d067614d0607bac6683b646 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:08:30 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: igolf@ccrtc.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: smcgee@sol.slcc.edu (Scott McGee (Personal)) From: igolf@ccrtc.com Subject: Re: Dicks/Youngman Scott, >Looking at things, the Amy Dicks that you were looking at is the sister of >Rebrecca (SP?) Dicks who is my GGGgrandmother. This information is mostly the >work of my Grandfather Leonard McGee, with some additional information from >the LDS Ancestral Files. Your Rebecca Dicks was married to John S. White, m. 24/9/1816 in Mason Co., KY, right? >Now that I know which line you are talking about, what was it that you wanted >to ask me about? > Concerning the Dicks/Youngmans, do you have documented proof that Jacob Youngman, b. 6/17/1753, d. 4/14/1806, m. Eliz. Mowrey, was the father of Jesse Youngman and would you like the correct children for Jesse and Amy? They are buried 2 miles from my home and most of their descendants are in my area. Also, I'm just curious, since the Youngmans are now listed in the LDS, does that mean that they are Mormons now in heaven? As a Calvinist, I've read in years past that this was the common practise and I'd like to know. Thanks Scott. > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:40:51 -0700 From: smcgee@sol.slcc.edu (Scott McGee (Personal)) Message-Id: <9611140340.AA00789@sol.slcc.edu.> To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: gedcoms >From hrlaw@eastky.com Sun Jun 2 06:52 MDT 1996 X-UIDL: 9f05b09a5791df3232b4626ae73497ef From: "H. Lawson" To: "'smcgee@emcee.com'" Subject: Gedcoms Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:08:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB505A.F0041A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott, I only have two gedcoms right now. They are from Brother's Keeper. Could you Please put them up for me? The Robinett Gedcom has 5891 names. The Lawson Gedcom only has 561 names. I have had people with Macs wanting to send gedcoms. Can you Handle those? Thanks Helen Lawson Floyd Co. Ky Genealogy Page [long attachment was here; edited out by Gary Hoffman] From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 11:33:51 EST In-Reply-To: ; from "Thom. Edlund" at Nov 13, 96 6:55 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] :> My reading of H.R. 3531 differs from yours in two respects. First, a :> change in the status of GPO publications is not addressed. Second, :> census data (for an example) copied from a copyrighted CD can be protected :> only if it preserved a unique format. The resolution implies that a sort :> may be considered a unique format. Further, if a database presents information :> in an electronic format, where no previous such format existed, that :> database is protected by copyright. As I read and understand the :> resolution, this in not a new interpretation of the copyright law; only :> a clarification of the "fair use" clause. The institution I work at has for :> almost a decade published genealogical data on CD. Those CDs are and :> have been copyrighted. What is being addressed is whether or not copying :> significant databases and merely resorting the data is a violation of :> copyright. The consensus of librarians is that it is not. :> Unfortunately, the general consensus of authors and attorneys is that it :> is. Indeed, our interpretations differ. It reads to me like, "In order to motivate people to make databases, we want to ensure that no one using such a database will do anything that might lessen the market value of the database." This appears to include (with varying degrees of remedy) "extracting" many or few facts from that database and revealing them to anyone in any form or by any media. "We put a lot of time and money into gathering these facts, so it's not right for anyone to compete with us in regard to these facts." The sunny side is the provisions where national governments MAY decline to extend protection to certain categories of information. Identifying those categories is left as an exercise for the reader. :-) Another red flag (to me anyway) is that they think the proposal requires explanations that are not part of the treaty but are many times larger than the treaty itself. What happens if contracting nations decide to interpret the actual treaty differently from all this official explanation? >From the proposed treaty ( http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/wipo6.html ): 0.05 The fourth paragraph refers to the means by which Contracting Parties seek to obtain their objective, namely to establish a new form of protection which, by enabling recovery of investments in databases, encourages investment in this field. (ii) "extraction" means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form; 2.10 According to item (v), "substantial part" means any portion of the database, "including an accumulation of small portions". In practice, repeated or systematic use of small portions of the contents of a database may have the same effect as extraction or utilization of a large, or substantial, part of the contents of the database. This construction is intended to ensure the effective functioning of the right and to avoid misappropriation. 2.11 In item (vi) a definition is provided for the term "utilization". Utilization is a broad concept that covers all forms of making a database or its contents available to the public. It comprises both tangible and intangible dissemination and diffusion, including the distribution of physical copies and all forms of transmission by wire or wireless means. Utilization covers the making of a database available to the public by both on-line and "local" means; it encompasses interactive on-line, on-demand operations where members of the public have access to the database at a place and at a time individually chosen by them, and it encompasses such local means as showing, "playing", demonstrating or otherwise making the contents of a database (such as a CD-ROM) perceptible to the public, even when no transmission is involved. Broadcasting and cable transmissions, whether subscription-based or not, may also be utilization of a database. 2.05 Item (ii) defines the term "extraction" as meaning the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form. The act of extraction is the transfer of some material to another medium; the original material on the medium in which the database is embodied remains on that medium. In this sense, the term "extraction" is a synonym for "copying" or "reproduction". The expression "another medium" does not refer to any particular medium. Transfer to the same type or any other type of medium, device, instrument or contrivance capable of recording the transferred material, is a transfer within the meaning of this provision. Reference in the provision to "any means" or "any form" is meant to cover all means and forms now known or later developed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vernon9323@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03190; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:39:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:39:42 -0500 Message-ID: <961114113940_1419039981@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: PENNSYLVANIA-ROOTSmaiser@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu cc: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Pennsylvania Ancestors Pennsylvania Ancestors - Willing to swap data. Robert Allison 1727-1805 Ireland/Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa+Rebecca Becky Beard 0000- age 77 Indiana Co., Pa Hans Wilhelm Altmann 0000-bef 1683 Germany+ Demuth ? 0000-1666 Germany Johann Hans George Altmann 1690 1761 Germany/Northampton Co., Pa+Johanna Sophia Nehling bef 1700-bef 1751 Germany John Anthon Anthony Altmann 1729-1809 Germany/Westmoreland Co., Pa+Anna Maria Joghs 1730-1809 Westmoreland Co., Pa Jacob Altman 1783-1854 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa+Margaret Cable 1784-1830 Cambria/Indiana Co., Pa John Philip Altman 1763-1813 Berks/Indiana Co., Pa+Louisa Lucy Kepple 1758-1844 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa Philip Altman 1808-1886 /indiana Co., Pa+Elizabeth Rice 1815-1905 Indiana Co., Pa Andrew Ashbaugh+Eva Elizabeth Steiner Samuel 1804-1885+ Elizabeth Black 1808- 1899 Indiana Co., Pa Demetrius Metro Brudnyak 1871-1939Saros, Hungary/Jefferson Co., Pa+Katherine Kruzelyak 1878-1958 Saros, Hungary/Jefferson Co., Pa George Campbell 0000-0000- William Cook 1781 Maryland-1869+Mary Ann Stover 1795-1867 Bedford /Indiana Co., Pa Andrew Cook 1834-1914 +Rachel McGuire 1837-1914 Indiana Co., Pa John Burdett Cook 1877-1937+ Hanna Clare Learn 1889-1926 Indiana Co., Pa Vernon H.Cook1901-1972+Susan Iona Henry 1896-1920 Indiana Co., Pa Wendell Cook1920-1969+Margaret Gertrude Hamilton 1914-1995 Indiana Co., Pa John Dodson+ Margaret Adams - Cambria Co., Pa John M. Dodson 1855-1919+Emma Bell Mencer 1860-1934 Cambria/Indiana/Allegheny Co., Pa John Fair +Elizabeth Wolf Christian Fry +Barbara Schultz 1782-1876 George Fry + Mary Magdalena Ziegh James Hamilton ca. 1725-? Scotland/Cumberland/Westmoreland Co., Pa+Margaret Laughlin ca. 1727 William Hamilton 1756-1839+Jane Allison 1756-1842 Cumberland/Westmoreland/Indiana Co James Hamilton 1787-1869+Margaret Sample 1789-1831 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa William Laughlin Hamilton 1814-1896 +Jane Trimble 1812-1891 Indiana Co., Pa George Trimble Hamilton 1843-1909 +Elizabeth McLanahan 1842-1924 Indiana Co., Pa Silas ClarkHamilton 1878-1949 Indiana Co., Pa+Cora Mae Dodson1881-1929 Cambria /Indiana Co., Pa David Henry 1815-1890+Elizabeth Campbell 1809-1870 Indiana Co., Pa Benjamin F. Henry 1834-1889+Susannah A.Altman 1838-1923 Indiana Co., Pa Ernest H. Henry 1872-1958 +Della May Smail 1879-1955 Indiana Co., Pa Johann Michael Keppel+ Anna Benzin Jacob Keppel 1732-1787 Germany/Westmoreland Co., Pa+M. Eleanor Mechling\Mechlin 1737-1831 /Westmoreland Co., Pa Hans Jacob Kunckel 1620-? Germany+Elizabeth Ickes Joh. Sebastian Kunckel 1674/75-1737 Germany+Anna Catherine Samer 1677-1743/44 Germany Hans Johannes Kunckel 1709-ca.1771 Germany/Northampton Co., Pa+Anna Magdalena Kaiser 1711- ca. 1771 Germany/Northampton Co., Pa Johannes Kunkle 1731/32- 1813 Germany/Westmoreland Co., Pa+Anna Magaretha Hegemann 1738-1797 Germany/Westmoreland Co., Pa Johannes John Kunkle 1769-1850+Anna Maria Mary Steiner 1771-1861 Northampton/Indiana Co., Pa John Learn ca 1730 Germany -1781 Northampton Co., Pa -+ Caderina ? Andrew Learn 1764-1807 Northampton/Westmoreland Co., Pa +Susannah Yockey 1761-1831 /Westmoreland Co., Pa John Learn 1785-1858+Elizabeth Ashbaugh 1791-1864 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa Jacob Learn 1815-1886+Sarah Rodkey 1816-1898 Indiana Co., Pa James A. Learn 1844-1921+Margaret Ann Black 1846-1933 Indiana Co., Pa John McElhoes ca. 1700+ ? Scotland Thomas Isaiah McElhoes 1743-1823 Scotland/Indiana Co. , Pa+Nancy Scott James McGuire 1787-1858+Anna Maria MaryKunkle 1786-1884 Indiana Co., Pa Robert and Nancy ? McLanahan Robert McLanahan ?-1856+Nancy Moorhead Indiana Co., Pa Isaac Mencer+Sarah Ripple -Cambria Co., ? PA Alexander Ellas Ilko Majdak 1870-1918+Katherine Stefanchick 1875-1955 Austria/Hungary/Jefferson Co., Pa Nick Midock 1894-1968+Mary Brudnock 1901- Jefferson Co., Pa John Moorhead 0000-bef 1775+Barbara Fergus Samuel Moorhead 1700-1787 Franklin/Westmoreland Co., Pa + Euphemia ? Fergus Moorhead 1742-1766 Lancaster/Franklin/Westmoreland/Indiana Co, Pa +Jane White ?- 1824 Scotland/Westmoreland/Indiana Co, Pa Joseph Moorhead 1768-1844+Jane McElhoes 1785- John Conrad Rice 1724-1823 Germany/Indiana Co., Pa+Philipena Dickey 0000-1793 died Lancaster Co., Pa Conrad Rice 1783-1872 Lancaster/Indiana Co., Pa +Mary Fair 1798 1885 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa David ?-1822 and Elizabeth ? Sample Indiana Co., Pa Peter Smail 1735-1799 Elizabeth ? Smail Henry Smail 1780-ca. 1883 Westmoreland Co., Pa+Catherine Fry 1780-1883 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa Henry Smail 1835-1907+Sarah Campbell 1848-1915 Indiana Co., Pa George Valentine Steiner 1740-ca.1811 Germany/Westmoreland Co., Pa+EvaAnnaSteiner 1736-1861 Germany/Indiana Co., Pa Henry + Molly ? Stover Bedford Co., Pa George Trimble 1747-1810 N. Ireland/Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa+JaneJanet Mearns 0000-1813 Indiana Co., Pa George Trimble 1786-1848 Westmoreland/Indiana Co., Pa+Anna McElhoes Christian and Catherine ? Yockey Joseph and ? White END OF REPORT From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Nov 14 18:06:35 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA08419 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:06:34 -0800 Received: from sol.slcc.edu. (sol.slcc.edu [144.35.10.96]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA14154 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by sol.slcc.edu. (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03266; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:08:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:08:28 -0700 From: smcgee@sol.slcc.edu (Scott McGee (Personal)) Message-Id: <9611141808.AA03266@sol.slcc.edu.> To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Strange forwarded mail My apologies to all. I was cleaning out some old email archives of mine, and had a few enquiries that I wanted to forward to my genealogy only account (username genweb) and forgot that I had a mail alias for genweb to this list. Therefore, just ignore the strange messages I posted last night, they were all mistakes. Scott GENEALOGY | Do you know who your ancestors are? | Scott McGee ------------+------------------------------------------+------------------- email: smcgee@genealogy.org | What? Me speak for web: http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee/homepage.html | someone else? Nah! -------------------------------------------------------+------------------- See my genealogy page at http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee and my GenWeb page at http://www.genealogy.org/~smcgee/genweb From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Nov 14 23:30:28 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA08523 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:30:28 -0800 Received: from mh004.infi.net (mh004.infi.net [198.22.1.119]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA15013 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from weather1 by mh004.infi.net with ESMTP (Infinet-S-3.3) id SAA00860; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:22:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611142322.SAA00860@mh004.infi.net> From: "Teresa M. Rozich" To: "Scott McGee (Personal)" , , Cc: Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:15:42 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those of you who aren't concerned, here's an article that ran in the Boston Globe. I have another email address where this was forwarded! Thanks to Marjorie Power, Div of Rate Setting in Vermont. This full article we were looking for. So let others know about this, even those who have no computers (Societies, Clubs, etc) W. David Samuelsen (dsam@aros.net) > Choking free access > > Hiawatha Bray, 11/14/96 > > Last week, I warned you that the cost of using > the Internet is headed up because the nation's > telephone companies want us to pay more for > the privilege. It's no fun, but at least it's no > secret; > the phone companies are quite open about their > plans. > > Meanwhile, a group of well-meaning US and > European bureaucrats are preparing a plan that > could make all kinds of information more costly > and harder to get. And most people have never > heard of it. > > It's called the Draft Treaty on Intellectual > Property in Respect to Databases, and US > negotiators could approve it next month in > Geneva, unless a coalition of opponents can stop > it. > > It's shaping up as Tyson vs. Holyfield, with tea > and biscuits between rounds. Supporting the > treaty are US and European Community > diplomats; in opposition are the National > Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of > Engineering and the American Library > Association. Oh, and Jim Bryant. > > He's president of Pro CD Inc. in Danvers, a > leading maker of CD-ROM-based telephone > directories. Pro CD was founded in 1992, one > year after the US Supreme Court ruled > telephone companies could not copyright their > white pages directories. Bryant took the hint. He > bought copies of every white pages directory in > America - about 1,250 of them - and airlifted > them to China, where hundreds of people typed > the contents into computers. Then he loaded the > data onto CD-ROMs, along with some very > handy software that lets you sort it in many useful > ways. The result is Select Phone, a computerized > white pages directory of the entire United States > for about $100. Pro CD data is also posted free > of charge on the America Online network and > the Internet's Bigfoot Web site. > > All this is made possible by free access to the > information in the white pages. But if the treaty > becomes law, the nation's phone companies will > be able to claim ownership of the white pages > data. Bryant will have to pay each of 1,250 > phone companies for the right to copy its > material. The companies could charge whatever > they want; they could even refuse to sell it at all. > No more Pro CD. > > ``I believe that the proposed legislation would > establish medieval information fiefdoms,'' Bryant > said. ``It kind of reminds me of the childhood > image of a bridge and a troll under the bridge > who collects a toll from anyone who tries to > pass.'' > > It could get even weirder. James Love is director > of the Consumer Project on Technology, a > Washington lobbying group founded by Ralph > Nader. Love claims that under the treaty, sports > leagues will own all the statistical information they > compile about their games. ``This will include the > right to control access to the historical archives > of sports statistics, and even to dictate who can > publish the box scores from a game or print a > pitcher's ERA on the back of a baseball card,'' > says Love. So anybody who posts Mo Vaughn's > career statistics on his Web page could receive a > bill, or a subpoena. > > Keith Kupferschmid, an intellectual property > attorney at the US Patent and Trademark Office, > said there's no way this can happen, because you > can't ban somebody from reporting facts. Tell > that to the federal judge who this summer barred > Motorola Inc. from relaying basketball scores to > people with pagers. The judge bought the NBA > argument that the information belongs to the > league, and Motorola should have to pay to > broadcast it. Now that same way of thinking > could become international law. > > Even Kupferschmid admits that the treaty hasn't > received the detailed examination it deserves. He > suggested that growing opposition to the > measure could prevent its approval next month, > and force revisions in the law. What a tragedy > that would be. > > To learn more about the issue, visit > http://www.public-domain.org. There you can > find a copy of the treaty and comments from its > critics and supporters. Then you can e-mail your > own views to the Patent and Trademark Office > at diploconf@uspto.gov. > > You can send electronic mail to Hiawatha Bray > at bray@globe.com > > This story ran on page d1 of the Boston > Globe on 11/14/96. > > -- > Marjorie Power > Division of Rate Setting **************************************************************************** ********* Teresa Maro Rozich Kimball Genealogy Online http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2926 Warren Co NC GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/warren Butts Co GA GenWeb http://www.lofthouse.com/USA/ga/butts **************************************************************************** ********* From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Nov 15 02:09:08 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA08578 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:09:08 -0800 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA01740 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:05:36 -0800 (PST) From: CTMCB@aol.com Received: by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09436 for genweb@ucsd.edu; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:05:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:05:33 -0500 Message-ID: <961114210531_1882547005@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases What concerns me is what appears to be a clear attempt by makers of data bases, singly or in concert, to somehow gain copyright to any facts in their bases. Certainly they should be protected from my pirating their work. I suspect, though, that some would prevent my publishing some facts from their databases in a family history without their permission and without my paying them a royalty. As far as I am concerned, I have bought the rights to use those facts when I paid for the data disks. The first thing to concern me were the warnings and comments with Family Tree Maker. They are doing everything possible to get every user of FTM to send in the results of their independent research and the contents of family records. While they say that the person submitting the data has not relinquished any rights to it, they seem to be saying the data has otherwise become their personal property. I will not send them or any other database maker any information that they would in turn sell as their copyrighted material. Not only so, but before I go any further with my research, I am switching completely away from FTM to what appears to be a better program and plan to get my data any place but from FTM. Satan never sleeps. As long as the opportunity exists, there are those who will pillage the public domain, claim it for their own, and control our rights to it. We have every reason to be concerned about any bill that could restrict our access to public records. ctmcb@aol.com From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Nov 15 09:38:10 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA08722 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:38:09 -0800 Received: from indy.reap.org.nz (indy.reap.org.nz [202.49.41.1]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA17892 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:35:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [202.49.41.211] (michael.reap.org.nz [202.49.41.211]) by indy.reap.org.nz (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA04335 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:35:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 22:36:39 +1200 From: "Michael Cochrane" Message-Id: <90772.michael@reap.org.nz> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16 X-POPMail-Charset: English To: genweb@UCSD.EDU STOP SENDING SUBSUBSCRIBE MESSAGES TO THE LIST!!!! You send unsubscribe messages to: listserv@UCSD.EDU with the command unsub genweb in the body of the message. You would know this if you had kept a copy of the welcome message as it said to. I don't want to see any more unsub messages to the list Michael Cochrane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Cochrane michael@reap.org.nz Taupo, New Zealand ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Nov 15 12:40:59 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA08775 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:40:59 -0800 Received: from GEGABYTE.NET ([205.243.38.37]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA07529 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:36:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by gegabyte.net (Wildcat) id 15456W Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:40:17 GMT From: jworthylake@gegabyte.net (Jworthylake) Subject: unsubscribe Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:40:13 GMT Message-Id: <848065213@gegabyte.net> Organization: Gegabyte Enterprise - http://www.gegabyte.net To: genweb@UCSD.EDU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Nov 15 13:11:24 1996 Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by fuji.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA08787 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:11:24 -0800 Received: from most.fw.hac.com (gw1.hughes-defense-comm.com [151.168.2.3]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA09118 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by most.fw.hac.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09720; Fri, 15 Nov 96 08:12:05 EST Received: from unknown(151.168.254.82) by gw1 via smap (V1.3mjr) id smI009612; Fri Nov 15 08:10:57 1996 Received: by most (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04219; Fri, 15 Nov 96 08:10:51 EST Message-Id: <9611151310.AA04219@most> Received: from pseserv3.fw.hac.com(151.168.254.223) by most via smap (V1.5khhunt) id sma004213; Fri Nov 15 08:10:05 1996 Received: by pseserv3 (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA00024; Fri, 15 Nov 96 08:11:01 -0500 From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: H.R. 3531 and Databases To: genweb@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 8:11:00 EST In-Reply-To: <199611142322.SAA00860@mh004.infi.net>; from "Teresa M. Rozich" at Nov 14, 96 6:15 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] :> > information in the white pages. But if the treaty :> > becomes law, the nation's phone companies will :> > be able to claim ownership of the white pages :> > data. Bryant will have to pay each of 1,250 :> > phone companies for the right to copy its :> > material. The companies could charge whatever Well, at least the proposal does exempt existing data for two years after adoption. :> > they want; they could even refuse to sell it at all. Yes, the proposal grants protection to any database that took "substantial investment." It protects the marketability of the database EVEN IF THE MAKER NEVER INTENDED TO MARKET IT! ("What? You mean I can suppress information just by putting it in a database and locking it up?" "Yep--if you had to work sufficiently hard to do it.") :> > Keith Kupferschmid, an intellectual property :> > attorney at the US Patent and Trademark Office, :> > said there's no way this can happen, because you :> > can't ban somebody from reporting facts. Tell The USPTO is soliciting public comment on the law. How can one of their attorneys say (in effect) that the law can not be passed ?!? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- hhF**gRA Player I 9611a.txtTEXTR*chTEXTR*chφMudora Pro 3.0 Installer8UFamily Records 2.3.1JE<VV0<0<0φMMR*chHH(FG(HH(d'@Monaco  HelveticaM Confidential HhhFX)"FMPSRBBSTVLUT