SOUTH-AFRICA-L Archives

Archiver > SOUTH-AFRICA > 2000-10 > 0970592678


From: Colin Pretorius <>
Subject: Re: Capensis & copyright
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:04:38 +0200
References: <001b01c02c78$98956880$3c58ef9b@colin><00ef01c02d0c$a32d8220$91c3fea9@oemcomputer>


Delia et al.

My final comments on this matter.

> If I were to use his example in other ways, such as in the case of
> software (with which he says he is most familiar), I could argue that I
could make
> a copy of a program such as Encarta for private use and research

You could certainly argue that, but such an argument would be flawed. Based
on case
law, with which I am indeed familiar, copyright in software cannot be
compared to that on printed works - although both are protected as
intellectual property, in software, copyright is based on lines of code.
Were exactly the same principles to be applied to software and the printed
word, each sentence or possibly each word or letter of an opus would have
to be copyrighted, clearly an untenable position.

> I am sure that neither Colin, nor Microsoft, nor the courts would agree
that this was
> fair practice or remotely within the spirit of the law. I could argue the
> same about printed works, and I think with equal prospects of failure.

The difference is that were you to make a copy of a program, you would
presumably only do so either (1) to use the program or (2) to make
a backup in case something goes wrong with the original or (3) to see how
the program was constructed . The only "research" you would be able to do on
it would be to try and reverse-engineer the program, which would indeed be
illegal. Should you use the program, you would be making commercial use
thereof, again against the copyright act. Making a copy for backup purposes
is legal.

> The right to copy for research or private use is usually not interpreted
> as an entire body of work, except in unusual circumstances. I would be
> surprised if it would be so interpreted in the case of easily obtained,
> recently published material.

According the RAU legal resource centre, this is quite true if you were to
copy a complete book - there is no way you could justifiably say that you
want to read a whole book in order to do private research. However, again
according to the same source, a copy of an article for the purposes
mentioned, would not be an infringement of copyright.

> In this particular case, I would hazard a guess that few on this list do
> not know Mansell is a fellow subscriber and contributor. In fact, Dennis
> Pretorius directed some comments in this thread directly to Mansell. A
> quick email to Mansell to find out whether his article is available would
> have yielded the information that, indeed, back issues of Capensis are
> easily obtained.

True

> What is more, once Colin was aware of this, he could have apologized
> to Mansell for soliciting copies of the article. He did not. Perhaps
> Mansell's irritation is understandable.

Had the initial response not been so irritable (some may even say rude), I
could have apologised. Based on the legal opinion that a copy is not in
violation of copyright, no apology is necessary.

I apologise if this is a misconception, but I was under the impression that
one of the
reasons for the existence of this forum is the sharing of information and
helping the other members with queries and/or research issues.

> I humbly suggest that as genealogists that we owe it to each other to
> respect our colleagues' work.

Agreed

> The value of Mansell's research to current and future genealogists is yet
> to be fully understood or appreciated.

No one has doubted or impugned the value of the research or his skill.

> all he asks is that we purchase the copies of Capensis ---which, I feel
> compelled to say yet again, are more than value for money.

Again, no one has denied that Capensis offers value for money.

Colin




This thread: