Newsgroups: alt.fan.wodehouse, misc.int-property
Followup-To: misc.int-property
From: Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Plum's kindness to a young fan

When I warned against posting P.G. Wodehouse's letters without his
heirs' permission, I did not do so lightly.  I hoped that his heirs
might be spared the loss in value of their future publication rights
to those letters.  I hoped that some Usenet poster might be spared
inflicting such a loss upon those heirs.  And I hoped that
alt.fan.wodehouse might be spared the "eternal network copyright
debate" over who believes which myth about copyright.  My advice was
ignored, and the wrongs have come to pass, and I regret my part in the
third wrong out of an attempt to forestall the first two.

I will not perpetuate the third wrong by responding to the substantive
points raised by Baselight/Heppenstall and HoodArnold/Stoker, save to
dismiss them as being the apparent result of complete ignorance of
copyright laws.  I included a few references in my previous post, and
I have included others in e-mail to those respondents.  In particular,
I listed five sections of the copyright law that contradict the four
incorrect statements made by the law student pal, whom I hope manages
to learn to give _informed_ advice before she is inflicted on a
client.  If you wish a copy of those e-mail messages, send e-mail to
me--my address is given below.  E-mail letters of a non-bulk nature
are generally welcome; form letters are not.

Note that I will not respond further in alt.fan.wodehouse on this
extraneous topic, and I will resent the inconsiderate acts of those
who do.  Followups are directed to misc.int-property.

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil