> 3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
>     notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?


> 3. That is an interesting question and I would be interested in what any
> legal PROFESSIONALS (not armchair lawyers) have to say about it.


Armchair lawyer replies anyway.
My wife works for a publishing huse that summarises medical papers and
journals, and analyses the quality of the associated research.
Their synopses must use their own language to summarise the original
content, As long as they do not COPY the original the rereporting if the
informatio for sale is legitimate. (Ibcidentally, nobody has any objection
to this practice in this context - it is seen as a valuable way of getting
ionformation to people who could never manage to read or research all the
original papers.)

In the present context, I take this to imply that I can report on original
information and legally produce a version of it as long as there is no
copying of the original. ie the copyright is on the structure that the
information resides in and not the informatuin per se.
B, IMBW.




Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.