The original argument by AAAC was that it was to protect Andy from somehow being hauled into court for copyright breach but that was never a risk because of the DCMA. Anyway since copyright is now implicit in the creation of any work the copyright notification is redundant, rights remain with the creator unless *explicitly* assigned. Giving an implicit license is a different issue and the copyright notice has no bearing on that. I'm not an IP lawyer (or any other sort) but I work with a herd of people who are.

I notice that Alex puts copyright notices on work he considers important so it's a quick way of filtering out what he cares about. His argument is that he is writing a book and some of it predates the 1989 adoption by the US of the Berne Convention and so was copyrighted under the old system.

As a side note his taxonomy of stripes is US specific so be careful if you use it with a UK shirt maker. In the UK the 1/8th" to 1/4" stripe he calls a candy stripe is a bengal stripe, and the 1/4"+ stripe that he calls a bengal stripe is a butchers stripe. Never heard of a dress stripe at all!

Personally I own all my stuff everywhere apart from 'Fogey' on AAAC which I gave to FNB.

I must look again at AAAC/AAAT & give FNB the copyright to more of my old stuff over there I think...