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