Copyright notices generally ARE global - "All rights reserved" being an integral part. Now what does that actually mean? It means "we hereby claim copyright on everything herein which is able to be copyrighted". As with my silly example of page color - do you really think DMOZ or AOL now owns the color green for web pages?
The copyright laws are not imaginary and any DMOZ claims can be discussed in reference to those laws. I have presented direct quotes from the government web site about the copyright and I have provided information about the problem areas that in my opinion makes any DMOZ claim about copyright invalid but so far none of present or past editors even tried to discuss those questions and the general topic of postings by other side of this discussion has been, let's not discuss it.
Discuss away, it's your time. I'm just saying I think you're wasting it. Two sides are lined up and they aren't going to budge, one side because they can't, they are just stating the AOL legal department position, one side because you are convinced they don't have a hope. Reality is no side can predict with absolute certainty what a judge will rule in the hypothetical event that a case ever comes to light. They are not in a position to discuss it, they are not AOL's legal department and nor are they (AOL) likely to concede a point in advance of any possible litigation. The question was answered - AOL's position is that it has copyright over the structure and nothing short of a test case is going to change that position. Now it may be that, in your opinion, their position is invalid. Or it may be that it is, in their opinion, valid. This thread or a hundred like it will not resolve that validity and it can only end in stalemate.
Read http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/oclc_pleadings.asp Where a hotel is sued for copyright infringement of the (library) Dewey Classification Sytem. If viewed in the same light as DMOZ categories, some might say that it is just a bunch of numbers that cannot be copyrighted. Note in particular OCLC acquired the trademark rights to the DDC system when it purchased Forest Press in 1988, and charges license fees to library systems for its use.
Oh, pullease! Yet another editor without a clue. The Dewey Decimal System is and more importantly at the time it was introduced was unique and original. It met the criteria. The DMOZ categories do not. They are nothing, repeat NOTHING like the Dewey Decimal System. That analogy was already brought up. It was irrelevant and pointless the first time. Did you really think it would make a more compelling argument the second time? Sheesh! And DMOZ puts their faith in people like this?
It can be my mistake, I thought DMOZ editors here were participating in this forum as individual, stating and discussing their own opinion but it seems you are telling me that they are only a mouth piece for DMOZ/AOL, constantly repeating what is told to them.
It would seem clear from elsewhere in this forum that editors can indeed state and discuss their own opinions on a wide range of issues. But you cannot seriously expect a serving editor, let alone an Admin, to be able to give an opinion to the effect of go ahead and copy the structure, thereby undermining the AOL legal department's position. If a reader took that as a formal DMOZ position stated by an editor representing AOL/DMOZ (and not that many people realise that editors specifically cannot speak other than for themselves) it might considerably weaken any case AOL may wish to bring at a later date. So any expectation you might have is, I would say, unreasonable in this case and any other where you are talking about an official AOL/DMOZ legal position.
You could have just confirmed my previous post that editors are the mouth piece of DMOZ/AOL and have no opinion of their own instead of writing so much to say the same thing.
That isn't what I said though, so don't ascribe to me agreement with what you were saying. I am saying in the specific case of legal issues it is unreasonable for you to expect editors to undermine AOL's legal department. That has nothing to do with them expressing their personal opinions on a wide range of other issues.
Let me then modify it for you, in regard to copyright question or any other legal questions regarding DMOZ, editors have no opinion of their own or will not express it and only will serve as DMOZ mouth piece, constantly repeating DMOZ official position. Are we in agreement now?
Phew!!!! So many words for so little purpose! I say that because there is no money involved. We are not talking here about the RIAA or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. AOL/Netscape is not asking anybody to pay anything for the Open Directory or any part thereof. The Open Directory is available for free -- all that they ask for is proper attribution (credit) to the ODP.
No you are not agreeing with her, since you failed to read the bold text. Maybe you got distracted by the red text
For such a smart person like you, I wonder what was the reason that your business of selling DMOZ information didn't do so good?
Shame on me for using words of one syllable to try to make things easier to understand. When I said "free" I meant "free of financial or monetary cost." There is an obligation attached to using the ODP content. To avoid further potential misunderstandings, once again I will quote from the license regarding that obligation:
It is surprising for me too that you can even get confused with words of one syllable but may be that was part of your qualification for becoming an admin. No matter how many time you post DMOZ document (what a surprise, they agree with themselves), the copyright law does not support that position. It is just nonsense.
I don't expect that. I do expect them not to spout moronic DMOZ BS all over the forum just because they read it somewhere in a broad AOL copyright notice. They don't have to say anything at all. In fact, based on what they have been saying, I would suggest that the option of saying nothing at all would be an excellent one for people like orlady, lmocr, and macdesign, since apparently common sense and a basic understanding of copyright isn't an option they have been able to manage.
I agree with what brizzie said - that there can be no definitive answer until a judge hears a case and makes a binding decision. Minstrel - if no one publicly disagreed with what gworld said - would you believe that everyone agreed with him?