<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <pre>European and American law does disagree on this section of copyright law, it's not by accident, and though it's just the opinion of "one US court" that court is the Supreme Court of the United States - the last word as it were. ""The Court recognized that some might think it unfair that a second compiler could make uncompensated use of the valuable fruits of the first compiler's labor. But the copyright rule that facts can be copied at will was, the Court said, not some unfortunate or unforeseen byproduct of the copyright scheme. It was, instead, its very essence. <b>The ultimate purpose of copyright law, said the Court, was not to maximize the financial return to individual authors, but to promote the dissemination of knowledge.</b> Allowing second-comers to copy facts in preparation of another work would aid in achieving the constitutional purpose of the copyright. This was yet another reason the "sweat-of-the-brow" theory was rejected by the Court."" I think everyone agrees that Pierce's book is a valuable contribution and no one in this business would want to harm their business. And, the rules of this list should always be respected. I think what ticks people off is the arguably heavy handed way Pierce officially responded to what is really a minor and ultimately respectful use of the information provided in the atlas. Particularly when they don't seem to have the legal right that they claim. They have a copyright, but this use does not appear to be a violation. Tuners don't hurt anything by asking and anyone can respond off list and everybody is happy ... no? Onward, Steve </pre> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- "By a continuing process of INFLATION governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." John Maynard Keynes</pre> </body> </html>