Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!newshub.nosc.mil!news!nebiker
From: nebiker@nosc.mil (Ralph R. Nebiker)
Subject: Re: AI + Memory Recall = COPYWRITE VIOLATIONS?
Message-ID: <1995Aug2.161212.22906@nosc.mil>
Sender: news@nosc.mil
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA
References: <3tv0hd$m6q@cdn_mail.telecom.com.au> <142925@cup.portal.com>   <hvOh5nh.predictor@delphi.com> <143048@cup.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 16:12:12 GMT
Lines: 18

karnow@cup.portal.com (Curtis - Karnow) writes:

>Will suggests that "damage" must be done before a copyright violation
>takes place. Not so. The statute allows for a recovery of money from the
>infringer wheteher or not theere are *any* provable damages. (I do this
>law for a living- as it were).

Copyright, as it were, refers to the right to reproduce and publish. 
Existance in memory, photographic or otherwise, has not been held to be
a violation.  

I believe the same holds true for computer memory.  It'e what you do with
it after you have it in memory.  Unauthroized reproduction or publication, 
on a screen or piece of paper would be a violation.

Also, there really is a difference between people and computers, memory
and all.  :-) 

