Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post

[David Schwartz]

> I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am
> afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It
> constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys
> only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright.

	Wow, you are seriously confused (trolling?). The article conveys only facts
and facts are not elgible for copyright. But the article IS NOT the facts it
conveys. It is one particular way of conveying those facts.

	If you expressed those same facts a different way, you would not be
violating his copyright. But if you copy his creative choice of words to
express those facts, you are.

	He is not claiming the facts. Only his choice of ways to convey them. Each
of the facts listed on that page could be expressed many different ways.
"Next do X to Y." "Now you must take Y and do X to it." "The next step
involves Y. Do X to it." And so on. These are forumlaic of course, but the
real thing is actually much more creative. For fun, pick three random steps
in his procedure and come up with three totally different ways to say them
(even use very different words -- the windows machine, the host machine, the
machine with the installation files, the first machine, Fred, ...). It's
easy.

	However, that a reasonably smart (I presume) person could make an error
like this strongly argues against his presumption of malice.

	DS