Re: Taredemark vs copyright.

Colin Marquardt wrote:
> Gilles Pelletier <gilpel-whniv8GeeGkdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > A copyright is given to somebody -- an individual, a corporation, etc. -- for 
> > work -- a song, a novel, a chemical process, an OS, etc. -- which is unique, 
> > something that hasn't been done before, so that nobody can copy it during a 
> > certain amount of time. 
> If you had said "In some countries, a copyright is given to somebody [...]", 
> I would even agree.
No so sure about a chemical process... If your chemical process is 
describe into a 2 pages text, then you can have a copyright on those two 
page. But this give you no right on the chemical process itself. And I 
could describe the same process using my words without infringement.
Now if you ask for a patent on that chemical process, and it is granted 
to you in country X. Then in that country, if I want to use your process 
for industrial application, I should ask you a licence. And if you 
refuse me this licence, I can take you to court and force you to licence 
it (for a "fair" price) to me.
Now for a song, you have many copyright, the music, the lyrics, the 
arrangement, ...
It is not that "nobody can copy it", you can make copy for private use, 
copy for backup purpose, ... There are many unregulated use of 
copyrighted works. But if you want to sell/distribute/broadcast, you 
better check if this is permitted in your country and who you should pay 
for the right to do that (if they accept).
David GLAUDE