CompuServe Messages

The law on copyrights and PD is not that strange. The law, as I understand it, says that you can copyight material which is based on PD sources, but you must then show that you have made sufficient improvements and changes to make your creation distinctly yours. It's sort of like homesteading. You find open land and build your house there, and it becomes your land & house because of the improvements. Something like that. Ashton-Tate's problem is that they did not attribute their PD source. If they had, this issue would not have arisen, and their copyright would be ironclad. As it is, the judge shocked them and the industry observers by his voiding of the copyright, but I don't think he can make it stick. You can be sure AT will rebound, and get their rights back. Did you know that you could "own" classic lit and movies if you could modify them in a new and unique manner? Someone owns a new copyright on "It's a Wonderful Life" because they colorized it…