Buried in amongst the emails of the ACS: Law hack is a somewhat amusing revelation about what the anti-piracy lawyers really think about copying another's work.
While the outfit appears to claim that file-sharing is evil and stealing another's creative work the worst of the worst, it does not seem to apply to them.
Tilly, Bailey and Irvine approached ACS: Law to ask for help in setting up file sharing settlement letters and follow-up response templates.
ACS:Law boss Andrew Crossly claims that the firm contacted him for help, which he provided, by giving them some outlines to act as guide. However Tilly, Bailey and Irvine just used them without changing a word.
He wrote the outfit a stiffly worded letter which has turned up among the pile of emails. The letter said that his cooperation did not extend to allowing, “without my prior knowledge, license or permission, to use my firm’s range of precedent letters, paragraphs and responses”.
Crossly wrote that his letters had been developed over a long period of time and are not available for use by others.
The miffed Crossly said that he had worked tirelessly and at great personal financial cost over the past year to perfect his firm’s business model - and it would appear that Tilly, Bailey and Irvine chose a lazy short cut to ape it.
But it appears from the emails that the work that Crossly claims was stolen from him was actually copied from yet another firm, Davenport Lyons, who helped Crossly set up his own business.
Crossly claims that since he took over business from Davenport Lyons and had “acquired all necessary precedents prepared by them”.
Sheesh - all this over a couple of hundred words of text. No wonder they get all moist when they see a novel or movie being copyrighted. Still, it does mean that these lawyers really have a pot calling the kettle black attitude to copyright.
At best, a memorandum of understanding would be binding concerning roles and materials and Ownership of Deliverables belonging to both the parties.
The challenge lies in apportioning the intellectual property rights comprising a system fairly between the client and the consultant, prior to imparting the knowledge. Classical instruction does not prohibit verbatim-by-example solutions to problems' solving.
cited from:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "copyright".
Quote:
It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action.
Fair use determinations do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can.
You can always write the facts in your own words, though.
End Quote.
There's too many men,
too many people
Making too many problems
And there's not much love to go around
Don't be fooled by the radio,
The TV or the internet e-zines.
Can't you see this is
a land of confusion?
You start to wander in
Where on Earth is
this shill you're under?
You've made the grade and
It's no small wonder to you
who the hell you are.