I'm not the one looking for answers! I just think that a good summary might be a lot more useful to the OP than links to lengthy documents.

I'm not the one looking for answers!

I didn't say that you were - LOL. My comments to you are in the smaller font size and the rest is for the OP and anyone else seeking said answers. Sorry for my ambiguity. :-)

As for a summary, well, I though the link to the resource I've mentioned several times did a pretty good job of doing just that. For one thing, it doesn't run to 112 pages...

:-)

Syzygy

Hey Syzygy, it's a good link. ;)

You're right, and in fact if he just read the page you link to and the one following it, he'd learn a lot.

Let's not forget that 11 years can be a long time in the "evolution of the law" (especially law + internet) and that new legal cases - ones drawing new distinctions based upon the facts of the new case - can significantly alter the legal landscape. So, those who are/were looking for and now think they "know the applicable law", by virtue of reading a squib from the book, probably should start reading a bit a copyright case law for cases arising after 1996-1997:

Intellectual Property for the Internet
By Lewis C. Lee, J. Scott Davidson
Contributor Lewis C. Lee, J. Scott Davidson
Published by Aspen Publishers Online, 1997

I agree wholeheartedly with Webwork.

The information offered is a starting point: broad guidelines that provide a basis for further reading, research and understanding. The point is that - to get an understanding of the underlying principles.

I believe that the chapter of the book I refer to does just that in this instance.

No-one is going to become an expert overnight simply by reading a couple of chapters of a book, nor 112 pages of a .pdf.

Read up - be a bit better informed. With that new knowledge read up again, improve that understanding and act accordingly.

Syzygy

That doc does not apply to international users.

This might prove useful reading: "International Copyright" [copyright.gov]

Maybe that helps?

Although a bit off topic - in reading that information sheet from the US Copyright Office, and under the mantle of learning something new everyday, I hadn't previously been aware that:

Since the Berne Convention prohibits formal requirements that affect the "exercise and enjoyment" of the copyright, the United States changed its law on March 1, 1989, to make the use of a copyright notice optional. U.S. law however, still provides certain advantages for use of a copyright notice; for example, the use of a copyright notice can defeat a defense of "innocent infringement".

My emphasis

I suppose it would seem fairly obvious that this would be the case, but the use of the word "defeat" makes it sound more like a game of Top Trumps! :-)

Syzygy