Rock Fish: You raise an interesting point. Referring not to Black's
Law, but to Webster's tome, the relevant definition of proprietary
is given as "something that is used, produced, or marketed under
exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." Now, broadly speak-
ing, Brinker would seem to possess "exclusive legal right" to the
newsletter he publishes via copyright laws. I am certainly not free
to publish the contents of Popular Science on this board without
permission of the copyright holder. In a similar vein, I could not
publish the contents of Brinker's newsletter here without Brinker's
express permission. (I doubt author Brinker would ever offer such
permission.) Indeed, to recall it, the latest amendments to the
copyright laws forbid, with exceptions, the mere Xeroxing of
copyrighted material.
Be that as it may, we may be splitting hairs here. Certainly, the
issue that overrides all others is that it does not behoove any
Marketimer subscriber to divulge, via the Internet, the contents
of a newsletter for which he pays $185 per annum. To be sure,
perhaps the most effective way to kill off that publication would
be for thoughtless subscribers to divulge, without Brinker's express
permission, Brinker's copyrighted material through this medium
or any other mass medium.
Thank you for raising this issue.
Truman |
