From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 21:34:33 -0500

The patents is with qui tam actions, and that's where the teeth is.

Every Dover reprint has a wrong copyright notice up front, and they do
hundreds of reprints without adding material.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:44:53 -0400
>
> Postdating copyright notice sounds like a punishable offense to me:
>
> See 17 U.S.C 506(c) "Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- Any person who, with
> fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of
> the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent
> intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article
> bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be
> fined not more than $2,500."
>
> The notice provision (17 USC 401) is clear that the date is supposed to be
> the date of first publication of the work.
>
> Not sure who enforces a punishment like that. Maybe the Copyright Office has
> a complaints department?
>
> Dave Hansen