From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still going on.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:46:10 +0000
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:54:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that rp henry
wrote (in <email@example.com>) about
'Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still
going on.', on Mon, 25 Nov 2002:
>John Woodgate wrote in message <+ee6RoANyc49EwKf@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...
>>I read in sci.electronics.design that News2020 wrote
>>(in ) about
>>'Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still
>>going on.', on Mon, 25 Nov 2002:
>>>To answer your query, I do not see any issues at all in copying relevant
>>>portions in a reply.
>>Well, there is; copyright law is quite explicit in this case. Your
>>statements are equivalent to granting a general public license to quote
>>your texts in reply to your posts but not to use them to defame you.
>>That may be the most sensible thing you have produced in a long time.
>My opinion is quite different.
Well, I was referring to English law, but I don't think we actually
> Copyright law quite explicitly allows as
>"fair use" the attributed quotation of relevant text to facilitate comment
>or critique, even parody. You can look it up, all US Code is on the web:
>If I remember correctly, fair use is defined in section 107.
Indeed; there is little point in granting a limited public license
because there is a legal right to quote in response. But that doesn't
mean that one can't grant such a license. And there IS a right to
prevent your writings being used to bring you into public ridicule or
>You can of course pursue expensive (to you) litigation if you feel your
>rights have been violated. Even if you were to "win" against a copycat, the
>best you could hope for would be an acknowledgement of your ownership of the
>material, and/or possibly a restraining order against future violations,
>since there is no reasonable expectation of making any profit by use of the
>text in question.
I quite agree, in fact I mentioned derisory damages: what you CAN do in
law is not necessarily the same as what any sensible person would want
to do, but, hey, this is Newsy we're talking about. (;-)
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!