[free-sklyarov] _Alice_ read aloud

[Seth Johnson]

Yep.  The copyright inheres in the originality evidenced by the
selection and arrangement of its elements, not in the elements
themselves.

Plus, since Feist Publications, it's irrelevant whether Mr. Maden put in
more work than Lewis Carroll.  There is no "sweat of the brow" doctrine.

Copyright is intended to benefit the public, and only proposes to
benefit authors as a means to that end.

What the DMCA is now expressing is the fact that the power given to
Congress to grant "exclusive right" to authors is no longer viable,
except at the untenable expense of policing the most intricate aspects
of people's free use of information -- a result that is anathema to the
very design and principles of American society.

(This is not legal advice, etc. etc.)

Seth Johnson
Committee for Independent Technology

"James S. Huggins (Free Sklyarov)" wrote:
> 
> While I might agree that the new version is a new work and is copyrightable,
> I would disagree that the words are copyrightable.
> 
> Any restriction on reading the words seems inappropriate for me because the
> words are public domain.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:45:27PM -0700, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > >I guess I would like to reiterate that this version of Alice is not
> > >public domain but is a unique new work and copyrightable. My work on
> > >recapturing Carroll's exact typography and design was probably more
> > >exhaustive than his original work. It's copyrighted for that reason.
> > >But since the original