canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.041439.24056@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >One thing I did ask Dave Small to clarify, though, was GEnie's >compilation copyright. Obviously they cannot claim a compilation >copyright on the compilation of comp.sys.atari.st articles, so they >will be unable to stop GEnie subscribers from downloading all the >c.s.a.st articles and putting them up on BBSes and whatnot. This is the part that concerns me the most. According to an author who specializes in books on copyrights: ``The matter of Dave violating or not violating the law is totally up to USENET, not the attorney general. You see, these laws are not enforced unless someone cries "fowl". I assume USENET does not mind if their messages are reproduced and put on another system. If USENET doesn't mind, then there is no violation, because they have essentially licensed the use of their messages for other systems. Technically, all BBS' messages are protected under law from reproduction, IF the system states that access to the system is conditional (ie: use of passwords). Remember, an authored work is protected under copyright. Each message is the property of the owner of the BBS. It doesn't matter if the BBS contains programs, messages, or "books", they are protected under copyright unless the author/owner claims they are public domain. Sure, it's wierd, but it's the LETTER of the law. However, you know as well as I do, it would be stupid to enforce for just messages. I'm not saying Dave is a crook. I happen to like his products and his magazine articles. I'm just saying USENET could get him. I'm saying this to perhaps inform him, not to threaten him. -- Richard Kelsch P.S. How do I know all of this? Well, I spent 3 years researching computer law and talking to about every type of lawyer you can think of, so I can write my book. My book is called "HACKING: What's Legal & What's Not". It's for sale at E. Arthur Brown Company.'' It certainly does seem unethical for a network such as GEnie to upload, basically, public domain messages and then place an anthology copyright on them. In fact, maybe the restrictions will become even greater when one considers the overall effect of GEnie's legal system. What about non-profit BBS's which have read-only nodes established with Usenet? They may become liable to *GEnie* who owns the copyright ...I am not saying that is the way it is, but that is the way it may become. Regardless, the current GEnie-Usenet link does NOT represent an exchange of information: it is a hoarding of information. Two things must happen for this to become an exchange: there must be a free flow of messages between the two parties, all messages must carry a permission to reprint, and the receiving party may not copyright messages from the donor, or all messages must be placed in the public domain. -- Diane Barlow Close {nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada canada@crash.cts.com Free Canada -- Trade Mulroney
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/22/89)
canada@crash.cts.com writes:
This is the part that concerns me the most. According to an author who
specializes in books on copyrights:
``The matter of Dave violating or not violating the law is totally
up to USENET, not the attorney general. You see, these laws are
not enforced unless someone cries "fowl".
Flamingo! Er, ostrich! No, I mean, uh, loon! Yeah, that's it.
LOON!
(For the humor-impaired, :-)
--Karljdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (12/24/89)
In article <KARL.89Dec21144149@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >canada@crash.cts.com writes: > This is the part that concerns me the most. According to an author who > specializes in books on copyrights: > ``The matter of Dave violating or not violating the law is totally > up to USENET, not the attorney general. You see, these laws are > not enforced unless someone cries "fowl". > >Flamingo! Er, ostrich! No, I mean, uh, loon! Yeah, that's it. >LOON! > >(For the humor-impaired, :-) > Hehehehehehe.... On a more serious note. If anyone is aware of comp.unix.wizards and their respective net.worlds, they have stated for quite sometime that they would like to get entirely rid of comp.other.worlds entirely for the sake of savings of groups of bandwidth & so everyone can "really" get things done. Usenet in itself in "original conception" was to be a place to extend everyone's unixsex abilitys. And, for quite sometime they argued back & fro about trying to ax all other non-pertenant newsgroups alltogether. Sort of a comp.apocalypse of sorts. (hehehe). -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg (use uuhosts or such to find path to rochester) Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not theirs.
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/24/89)
The base note, SIGH!, discusses Genie's anthology-copyright on USENET notes. Diane, I would appreciate it if you would stop discussing a HYPOTHETICAL thing -- GEnie attempting to place an anthology copyright on USENET notes -- in such "guilty until proven innocent" tones. The entire USENET<-> Genie link is *experimental*. If the management there was not VERY flexible and open to new ideas, it wouldn't be there at all. I fully expect to be able to drop them a line after they get back from holidays, and come back to the newsgroup here with the assurance they will do no such thing. I'll even get 'em to sign it in blood. Look, they WANT this to work out! Not to leech profits, not for base motives, but to provide their users with services. Anyone who thinks that at $6/hr GEnie is ripping people off has never run a mainframe plus nationwide telephone access service -- it's cheap. I have found GEnie willing to support EXTREMELY experimental and new ideas in RoundTables, that won't make money (if at all) for years. They're in trying, Diane, and you're in here poisoning the water, telling us what Dark and Evil things await. Diane, if they try *ONCE* to put an anthology copyright on USNET notes, I'll have nothing more to do with them. There, you can hold me to it. Now would you PLEASE let there be a little "innocent until proven guilty" here in this link discussion? I know USENET has been burned by CIS and BIX (I know *now*, not 4 days ago); but give GEnie a chance -- and me, too, huh? I'm very tired of paranoid views of large companies always being profit-mongering evil entities, out to stamp out anything good in the world. Such stuff belongs in tired propaganda. -- sincerely, Dave Small / Gadgets
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Sigh... I was hoping someone else would tackle this one... The information provided by Dianne Barlow Close' coorespondent, Richard Kelsch was very good, and goes right to the heart of the matter.. Unfortunately, it was interpreted slightly wrongly.. First of all, the correct term is "Compilation Copyright". This is the way you protect a new collection of existing works, such as a collection of stories, sheet music, artwork, whatever... including "Newsnet" messages. The works within the compilation may already be covered by copyright, or they may be in the Public Domain. The Compilation Copyright applies only to the collection, not to the individual works. Thus, while Beethoven's music is in the Public Domain, you could NOT copy the sheet music that appears in a newly printed book which is covered by a Compilation Copyright. Every time you sign onto GEnie (or CompuServe or Delphi or any of the other commercial information services), you see a (C)opyright notice. You may never notice it, or pay any attention to it, but what it's saying is that everything that appears on your screen from that point on until you disconnect, belongs to GEnie and may NOT be copied. That includes Public Domain programs that have been uploaded to their databases, messages from other users, transcripts of conferences, *everything*. Now, here's what most people don't understand... GEnie is NOT saying that they own a copyright on, say, Charles F. Johnson's PINHEAD program, which he released as shareware.. they ARE saying that they own the COPY that appears on GEnie, under their "Compilation Copyright" and that you may NOT copy it and pass it on anywhere else. If you get a copy from Charles, fine.. you can upload it anywhere you please, but not the copy you get from GEnie. Pretty silly, right..? How can they tell the difference between the two? Obviously they can't, and in all practicality the compilation copyright is practically unenforcable. CompuServe found that out when they threatened some BBS operators who were stupid enough to publicize that they had the "latest from CompuServe" in their downloads. Where the GEnie copyrig would be enforcable would be material which obviously originated on the service in the first place. So, yes, GEnie is claiming a copyright over your UseNet messages which appear on GEnie, and no, it has no practical effect on anything. A side note, Dave Small would be bearing the brunt of ANY legal actions. Because of the fine print in their contracts, GEnie practically CANNOT be sued for anything. The individual little guys have to pay it all. BobR
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (12/26/89)
Just to echo Dave's words, GEnie has been *exteremely* receptive to new ideas and newsgroups on their system. Two years ago I and a few other veteran wargamers had a vision of creating a large newsgroup of board wargamers and starting some Play-By-E-Mail games. GEnie was very helpful in getting us starting and giving us a chance to prove that the people were out there to support our idea. Two years later we have a thriving Diplomacy and Wargaming Category with industry support from ever major game manufacturer and have hundred of regular readers - I know of NO other service that would allowed us this opportunity and taken this chance. Peter Szymonik