[Jerseee]

PJT04,



Good research.



There is some truth in that article but there is a fallacy in thinking as presumptions are made. Let me explain...



The UCC redemtpion gurus pushed this copyright thing as way for people to attack anyone using their property. As this is possible it is also a two-edged sword. From my readings and even talking with some folks about this--some are under the impression that the copyright is a weapon--when in fact it is a private contract. It is not a blanket type copyright.



With that said, the article is based on the fact that some folks ran amuck with this and tried to attack everyone that used their names. In this sense of the article the author has a point. But here is where the author appears to be at a loss....



No one can use your property for personal gain--not even the government. Its called "eminent domain"--I'm sure you've probably heard of of that (not to insult your intelligence). Now when it is a private matter and someone is doing that--unjust enrichment of their coffers by use of your property--then they should be on notice of the terms of use of that property without authorization.



I personally use it as a deterrance. Not that I would take anyone to court over it--but it is a nicety to let them know that I'm not a push over. So basically, my bark is worse than my bite that's if you stay on the other side of the fence and do not come into the yard.



Further, responsible behavior is needed when using such a tool. You do not need government approval to copyright your property when it is done properly through public notice. So there is some strength to the copyright if not abused and knowledge is abundant. Some try to collect, others just want to be left alone.