Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft

[Keith Bawden <isdj@example.com>]

Josh Glover wrote:
> On 09/11/06, Keith Bawden <isdj@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> stephen@example.com wrote:
>>
>> > Which part of "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" are you having trouble
>> > understanding? ;-)  I'm sorry, there is no "implied consent", not for
>> > intellectual property, anyway.  Fair use is not a license, for
>> > example.
>>
>> I have never actually understood what "all rights reserved" actually
>> meant :-/
> 
> It is quite simple.
> 
> "I am handing you this foo, but I still own *everything* about it. You
> are simply carrying it, and I may do anything I want to it, including
> destroying it, taking it back, changing it without your knowledge or
> permission..." and so on, ad nauseum.
> 
> -Josh
> 

I'm not sure if "all rights reserved" does mean that per se. My limited
research on this gives me the impression that it is more akin to
ensuring the rights obtained in one jurisdiction are carried over to
another member jurisdiction. For example copyright obtain in Japan would
be "recognised" in Timbuktu as per the agreement between Japan and
Timbuktu.

I think the example you give would more be along the lines of actually
spelling out what is expressly allowable under the terms of the
copyright. That is I do not think "all rights reserved" is a blanket
that encompasses all explicit and implicit rights, I think this is
however the common "understanding" of the meaning of the term...

As far as I know copyright law is now set up in such a way that the
explicit "rights" established by a copyright granted in one jurisdiction
are automatically "reserved" in all International jurisdictions[1].

Regards, Keith

[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/buenos-aires-convention