<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Enough of this cr_p. We have worn this subject to the
ground. Get a life and let's go on to something else!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Al Guecia</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:custos3@comcast.net CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:custos3@comcast.net">Israel Stein</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 01, 2008 11:27 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Copyright</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">From: <A
title="mailto:paulrevenkojones@aol.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:paulrevenkojones@aol.com">paulrevenkojones@aol.com</A><BR><BR>Subject:
Re: Copyright<BR><BR>Israel and all:<BR><BR>Not quite bury-able yet. Both of
the statements below are only partially correct.
<DL>
<DD>Telling somebody a piece of copyrighted information is "fair use" and
allowed.<BR>
<DD>Telling somebody a piece of copyrighted information has no test under
the law since there is no restriction on the passing on of copyrighted
information verbally; it is, of course, simply rude, if not unethical not to
cite the source. Legally, one could stand in front of a crowd and read the
entire Pierce Atlas out loud without any bar (other than utter boredom).
<DD>Posting copyrighted information on a public e-mail list constitutes
"publication" - whether for profit or not, it's irrelevant. (You can't
publish it i n your church newsletter either.) Publication of
copyrighted information is a violation of the copyright.<BR>
<DD>Fair use applies almost exclusively to published written (not pictorial)
material. One may "fairly use" without royalty or strict permission small
(legally defined and tested) proportions of copyrighted material in other
publications as long as it is properly cited. I spent several years in
college text book publishing where this is a major issue; as a courtesy we
always asked first no matter what. If you, for example, wished to say in
your church newsletter that the Knabe in the sanctuary was built in 1915
according to the latest edition of Pierce, that is perfectly acceptable. You
could not photocopy the relevant page in the Atlas and reproduce it in your
church bulletin, however. One might also copy a very small portion of the
Pierce Atlas to demonstrate in a publication how it is organized, say for
pedagogical purposes, e.g. by year of manufacture and serial! number
sequence. Only the most litigious and persnickety lawyer would pursue this
as an infringement, and would probably be lose as long as the portion and
proportion cited is minute (legally defined). </DD></DL></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DL></DL><BR>Ah, yes. See, Paul, the Fair Use exception to copyright law exists
very much for the purpose of facilitating educational endeavors - which
textbook publication definitely is. The exception does not exist for strictly
commercial activities - such as providing information to one's clients or
otherwise engaging in non-educational profit-making activity without having
purchased the copyrighted "work", which is precisely the case here by the
questioner's own admission. <BR><BR>Whether or not the information in Pierce is
copyrighted would, of course, be separate question. David Boyce is correct
regarding US law. Due to a court decision it is currently not protected by
copyright in the US. But in most of the rest of the world it is. And since this
list circulates internationally, this would likely be a violation of British or
Australian law - which might just have jurisdiction due to the circulation of
the list. And there is legislation pending in the US to negate this court
decision and restore copyright protection to the data to collections such as
Pierce (and telephone books and other such compilations). So this practice of
providing Pierce data over this list to persons who then want to use it in
profit-making activity that is not educational in nature is still problematic on
several levels - if not currently illegal in the US. <BR><BR>(My apologies for
my other quite messy reply)<BR><BR>Israel Stein <BR></BODY></HTML>