childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (09/15/89)
Well, it's finally happened, thanks to all the amoral money-grubbers and
wannabees who are just out for a fast buck or are too lazy to gather their
own mailing lists. I've received mail that clearly contains information
which was derived from my site's map entry. Among other things ...
o it includes my full 9-digit zip code, which was in the map entry ;
o it includes the names of all divisions I support, which would
only come from the map entry ( Record / Video Systems Divisions ) ;
o and the form letter addresses me as "Dear Northern California
UUCP site contact", I kid you not. ( These people have never
heard of computer addressing ? )
And, goddamn it, at the bottom, it mentions ClariNet and IN MODERATION.
-=*=-
And it was only two weeks ago that _someone_ was broadcasting their total
lack of intentions to utilize the Usenet as a commercial entity, and was
it only a few days ago that they were trying to downplay democracy as a
way of making decisions for groups of people.
So whom was this charming document from ? I'll be damned if I'll type in
their pap, but I'll be glad to offer up names and numbers.
Anterior Technology ( should've been 'Posterior' )
POB 1206
Menlo Park, CA 94026-1206
(415) 328-5615
( Somehow, I'm not surprised that they're operating from behind a POB. )
It was signed by Geoff Goodfellow, now there's a good fellow. (-:
He's invited me to attend their booth at INTEROP '89. If I do, it'll only be
to ball them out in public at the top of my voice. Or maybe I'll give it to
the most troublesome adolescent I can find. My mind boggles at the possible
uses of this pass.
-=*=-
Some particularly offensive pap :
"The IN MODERATION Network is an evolving new hierarchy of USENET
netnews groups and Internet mailing lists. Our charter is to provide
the on-line community with useful, instructive, entertaining infor-
-mation which satisfies commonly accepted standards of good taste
and principled discourse."
Evolving ? It's an entity, now, is it, responding to its environment, no
people behind it making profit at all, nosirree bob ...
USENET ? Isn't that in the public domain ? Is it really appropriate for a
private company to associate itself with a public-domain consortium, albeit
a totally unstructured and chaotic one, when it hasn't the slightest intent
of conforming to the value system that brought these diverse participants
together, lo, many years ago, in the interest of Freedom of Information,
shared resources, and peerhood ?
That they are getting this from the USENET and Internet and reselling it,
without paying those from whom it acquired this material, is parasitic.
Just because the USENET has no legal status is no reason to sell it to the
highest bidders. Ethics preceed laws, and laws only approximate ethics.
In this case, an absence of laws has only highlighted an absence of ethics.
Charter ? And from whom did you derive this charter ? The USENET ? Or the
boardroom full of chuckling, grinning sharks, each avoiding the eyes of the
other as they anticipated the flow of money and minimal outlay ? Bah, ptui.
Useful, instructive, entertaining ... yet, conforming to commonly accepted
standards of good taste and principled discourse. Whose principles ? Those
who arranged this whole fiasco, smoothly covering up their intentions with
oiled words and vague statements ? Great. I'm kind of curious as to where
this 'commonly accepted' set of standards was derived from, given the outcry
that resulted when certain parties first broached the possibility of using
the map database as a commercial resource without doing the commercial thing,
first, which is to pay for it.
Well, people, time to put a (copyright 1989 your_name_here) in your .signature
and prepare for a lot of lawsuits. I am disgusted.
-- richard
--
* *
* Intelligence : the ability to create order out of chaos. *
* *
* ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho *coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/15/89)
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >USENET ? Isn't that in the public domain ? According to my recollection of the copyright law changes in 1989, no. I seem to recall the copyright laws are now such that there is an implied copyright unless it's explicitly waived. To my way of thinking, this could put quite a crimp on Usenet redistribution services. Of course, this gets back to the issue about whether Usenet is a publishing medium or not, etc. There seems to be a definite waiver of some redistribution rights inherent in posting, but that may apply only to Usenet in general. Of course, some of us add lines like: 'You may redistribute only if your recipients can' (anyone remember the Stargate flap?) which tend to settle the issue once and for all: unless the recipient of a moderated news flow is free to send my postings on, they can't themselves carry my postings. >Well, people, time to put a (copyright 1989 your_name_here) in your .signature >and prepare for a lot of lawsuits. I am disgusted. Imminent Death of the Net predicted! I'm not really sure the copyright statements are necessary (but see my .sig anyway), but with any luck it won't get to the point where anyone really thinks a lawsuit is necessary. If it gets to that point, we've ALL already lost... >-- richard --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (09/16/89)
In article <2048@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes:
-Well, it's finally happened, thanks to all the amoral money-grubbers and
-wannabees who are just out for a fast buck or are too lazy to gather their
-own mailing lists. I've received mail that clearly contains information
-which was derived from my site's map entry. Among other things ...
Oh, you poor thing! A mean nasty person sent you a LETTER? You must be
absolutely devastated! What a HEARTLESS, CRUEL, WICKED thing for them
to do. How could they?!? Isn't there a law against that sort of thing?
What's this world coming to, when TOTAL STRANGERS can send unsolicited
LETTERS to perfectly innocent geeks like you?
-He's invited me to attend their booth at INTEROP '89. If I do, it'll only be
-to ball them out in public at the top of my voice. Or maybe I'll give it to
^^^^
I suspect you meant "bawl them out"; what you wrote could be construed
quite amusingly.
Feh.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146" Maynard) (09/16/89)
In article <2048@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes, in the middle of a righteous, commercialism-is-eeeeevil flame: }And it was only two weeks ago that _someone_ was broadcasting their total }lack of intentions to utilize the Usenet as a commercial entity, and was }it only a few days ago that they were trying to downplay democracy as a }way of making decisions for groups of people. } }So whom was this charming document from ? I'll be damned if I'll type in }their pap, but I'll be glad to offer up names and numbers. } } Anterior Technology ( should've been 'Posterior' ) } POB 1206 } Menlo Park, CA 94026-1206 } (415) 328-5615 } }( Somehow, I'm not surprised that they're operating from behind a POB. ) } }It was signed by Geoff Goodfellow, now there's a good fellow. (-: Note the first paragraph, and the rest of the flame (including the part I mercifully deleted). The first paragraph strongly implies that Brad Templeton is associated with Anterior Technology and In Moderation. Richard, you really oughtta be careful where you point that flamethrower. Brad has repeatedly denied any connection with IMN and/or Anterior Technology and/or Geoff Goodfellow. If you have any information to the contrary, tell us about it; otherwise, I think you owe Brad an apology. Or are you simply too pissed off to pay attention to what you're saying? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "The unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to g
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/16/89)
As quoted from <1989Sep15.160053.25109@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> by coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge): +--------------- | Usenet in general. Of course, some of us add lines like: | 'You may redistribute only if your recipients can' (anyone remember the | Stargate flap?) which tend to settle the issue once and for all: unless | the recipient of a moderated news flow is free to send my postings on, | they can't themselves carry my postings. +--------------- This can get you in trouble, too. Pat Townsend rejected a submission of mine to the Telecom Digest because he could not guarantee that the people he mailed Telecom to were willing to redistribute it. Note that this is not *his* doing, but he would be in effect violating the copyright if he sent a Digest containing my submission to someone who operated (or was forced to operate) under a rule forbidding redistribution. So what's the problem? Because of a *few* recipients of Telecom Digest, *no* recipients got to see my submission. (I didn't resend it, because CWRU's network got zapped soon after I got the rejection notice and someone else had responded by the time it was fixed.) Some may call this tyranny, but it's not Pat Townsend's, nor any other moderator's, job to maintain special "these-sites-and-all-sites-fed-by-them-and-so-on-down-allow-redistribution" lists -- and I guarantee you that the maintainers of the sites in question don't review incoming postings and remove those which they are not permitted to carry. (Although they should, since it's *their* responsibility to make sure they obey the law.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/16/89)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <1989Sep15.160053.25109@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> by me: >+--------------- >| Usenet in general. Of course, some of us add lines like: >| 'You may redistribute only if your recipients can' (anyone remember the >| Stargate flap?) which tend to settle the issue once and for all: unless >| the recipient of a moderated news flow is free to send my postings on, >| they can't themselves carry my postings. >+--------------- >This can get you in trouble, too. Pat Townsend rejected a submission of mine >to the Telecom Digest because he could not guarantee that the people he mailed >Telecom to were willing to redistribute it. Note that this is not *his* >doing, but he would be in effect violating the copyright if he sent a Digest >containing my submission to someone who operated (or was forced to operate) >under a rule forbidding redistribution. That's quite true. Weighing the costs, though, of each policy (allowing unlimited transfer vs. restricting transfer to "free" sites), I'll still side with restricting redistribution. Why? Because the point of the entire exercise isn't to sue people; heaven knows I don't have the money, and if we get to the point where we're all sueing each other, we've already lost. The point *IS* that restrictions like this are intended to force those that restrict redistribution to realize that they're acting directly against the wishes of the people who wrote the posting they're carrying. After all, I spent the time to write this article --- I want _everyone_ to carry it, not have it stopped by some license :-). On the other hand, I'll voluntarily remove such a restriction when posting to things like Telecom, or rec.humor.funny, or other such services that may go off into commercial-land, because I suppose I'd rather have my postings seen by somebody than by nobody. But then, I haven't ever posted to either of those groups (or any others that would require special handling). For general Usenet postings, I'll leave in the restriction, because it reflects what I want Usenet to be like. >[...] and I guarantee you that the maintainers of the sites in question >don't review incoming postings and remove those which they are not permitted >to carry. (Although they should, since it's *their* responsibility to make >sure they obey the law.) Quite right. I don't do this either --- but then I don't restrict any sites that I feed either. This is a reflection of a more general problem: what to do when postings are clearly out of bounds (break copyright, advocate illegal acts, etc). My feeling here is that Usenet (and its constituant sites) _should_ be considered a common carrier; that all responsibility in these cases lies with the original poster, and not with any Usenet sites in general. But this is an open question, and the best we can do is muddle along and stomp any obviously wrong things that we notice. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
" Maynard) (09/16/89)
In article <2892@splut.conmicro.com> I wrote: >Richard, you really oughtta be careful where you point that >flamethrower. Brad has repeatedly denied any connection with IMN and/or >Anterior Technology and/or Geoff Goodfellow. If you have any information >to the contrary, tell us about it; otherwise, I think you owe Brad an >apology. I sit corrected. Brad tells me that Anterior Technology is a ClariNet customer and redistribution point, and that that's why Brad was mentioned in the letter Richard was frothing at the mouth about. Still, Richard, this doesn't mean that I don't think you owe Brad an apology: you were flaming IMN and Anterior Technology, and Brad had nothing to do with the map usage or any redistribution of Usenet articles for a fee. Now put that flamethrower down before you hurt yourself with it. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "The unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food." - RAH
howard@hasse.ericsson.se (Howard Gayle) (09/17/89)
Many organizations with internal address or phone lists put a "ringer" name somewhere in the list. Mail addressed to this fake name suggests that the sender has obtained the internal list and is sending mail to everyone on it. System administrators who do not wish to receive mail simply because their names appear in UUCP map entries could use the same strategy. Make up a fake name unlikely ever to be the name of a real person in your organization, and put that in your map entry. Toss any mail to the ringer. If anyone phones and asks for the ringer, take a message. -- Howard Gayle TN/ETX/T/BG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126 25 Stockholm Sweden howard@ericsson.se uunet!ericsson.se!howard Phone: +46 8 719 5565 FAX : +46 8 719 9598
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/17/89)
Here we go again.... In article <1989Sep15.160053.25109@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes: : childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: : >USENET ? Isn't that in the public domain ? : : According to my recollection of the copyright law changes in 1989, no. : I seem to recall the copyright laws are now such that there is an : implied copyright unless it's explicitly waived. That is correct. And the compilers of the maps, not the individuals who provides the map entries hold the copyright. The individual map entries may or may not be copyrighted; that is a fine point I haven't looked up. : To my way of thinking, : this could put quite a crimp on Usenet redistribution services. This particular issue has been hashed over in the publishing business. A user of something like the maps may not duplicate the maps themselves (other than for "fair use") but may make use of the *information* contained therein. The argument would then be whether a mailing list made by extracting lines from the file is a copy. My guess is that the courts would say that using the lists raw would be making a copy. However, there is a gotcha. If the user of the list were to admix any effort of their own, say by looking each address up in a phone book, or cross-checking it against another list, the courts are likely to rule the other way. : If it gets to that point, we've ALL already lost... I think that a lawsuit settling the copyright issue on Usenet would freshen a lot of stale air. We really do need to know whether the Usenet is legally a publishing medium (nevermined that in reality it is: the law frequently invents its own reality); we really do need to know if any of our copyrights are valid, in particular the GNU copyleft and other forms of redistribution restriction. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (09/17/89)
In article <1513@ericom.ericsson.se> howard@ericsson.se (Howard Gayle) writes: >Many organizations with internal address or phone lists put a >"ringer" name somewhere in the list. Mail addressed to this >fake name suggests that the sender has obtained the internal >list and is sending mail to everyone on it. Or, you can do as I do, and insert a bogus #O/organization line: #O Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. Whenever I get mail with *any* of that in the address, I know that something's afoot. (I *still* get the Sun Observer, after about 8 or 9 months of never having sent them a dime. :-) -- "[On mars] there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- VP Dan Quayle J. Eric Townsend unet!sugar!flatline!erict com6@uhnix1.uh.edu EastEnders Mailing list: eastender@flatline.UUCP
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/18/89)
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >Here we go again.... Let's hope not. So far, this is still a limited exchange :-). >In article <1989Sep15.160053.25109@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: >: childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >: >USENET ? Isn't that in the public domain ? >: >: According to my recollection of the copyright law changes in 1989, no. >: I seem to recall the copyright laws are now such that there is an >: implied copyright unless it's explicitly waived. >That is correct. And the compilers of the maps, not the individuals >who provides the map entries hold the copyright. The individual map >entries may or may not be copyrighted; that is a fine point I haven't >looked up. That wasn't exactly my point, though it is true. My point was that each individual article was copyrighted by its author, and that redistribution of articles could be affected by that copyright. The map maintainers probably have a compilation copyright (just like Brad Templeton), but the map entries are almost certainly copyrighted by their respective authors. However: >This particular issue has been hashed over in the publishing >business. A user of something like the maps may not duplicate the >maps themselves (other than for "fair use") but may make use of the >*information* contained therein. I'm sure this is correct, and I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise. My point was about resending articles in full, not using excerpts or information from them. Excerpts of articles almost certainly come under fair use, and the information contained in Usenet postings (including the maps) is there for anyone to use, including the mailing list people. >: If it gets to that point, we've ALL already lost... >I think that a lawsuit settling the copyright issue on Usenet would >freshen a lot of stale air. We really do need to know whether the >Usenet is legally a publishing medium (nevermined that in reality it >is: the law frequently invents its own reality); we really do need to >know if any of our copyrights are valid, in particular the GNU >copyleft and other forms of redistribution restriction. In some ways I agree. If we could somehow find out these things without a real court, I'd love it. But that's obviously impossible, and my fear is that all the noise generated by a full-scale lawsuit of this form might destroy the organizations it's supposed to protect: if Usenet (what is Usenet, anyway, that it can be sued? Will each admin be help liable separately? Or the posters? Or the sites?) winds up defending itself, the resulting stress might destroy Usenet as we know it (yes, yes, I know: Imminent Death of the Net predicted :-)). Similarly, a GNU suit might result in 1) the FSF wins outright --- and lots of developers stop using GNU tools, or 2) the FSF loses, and stops writing free software (which, if the copyright were to be judged non-binding, they might very well do). --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/18/89)
In article <1989Sep17.180618.1434@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
: >That is correct. And the compilers of the maps, not the individuals
: >who provides the map entries hold the copyright. The individual map
: >entries may or may not be copyrighted; that is a fine point I haven't
: >looked up.
:
: That wasn't exactly my point, though it is true. My point was that each
: individual article was copyrighted by its author, and that redistribution
: of articles could be affected by that copyright. The map maintainers
: probably have a compilation copyright (just like Brad Templeton), but
: the map entries are almost certainly copyrighted by their respective
: authors. However:
There are three possible copyrights involved. The first is the UUCP
Mapping Project's, the second is that of each person who submits a
compilation of maps, and the third is that of the individual map
entry submitter. The first should have rights to the entire
collection of maps, the second should have rights to each posting,
but the question is open as to whether the third has any rights at
all. Given that the individual map entries are fixed in form and of
strictly informational content, I believe, by analogy to decisions in
the print publishing field, that copyright does not apply.
: >This particular issue has been hashed over in the publishing
: >business. A user of something like the maps may not duplicate the
: >maps themselves (other than for "fair use") but may make use of the
: >*information* contained therein.
:
: I'm sure this is correct, and I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise. My
: point was about resending articles in full, not using excerpts or
: information from them. Excerpts of articles almost certainly come under
: fair use, and the information contained in Usenet postings (including
: the maps) is there for anyone to use, including the mailing list people.
Well, it is a wholly open question as to whether posting to the
Usenet will entail giving up some of one's copyright. The primary
question is whether Usenet is a publishing medium. I'm of the opinion
that the courts will hold that it is since the legal definition of
"publish" is mostly "to make known to people in general", and Usenet
certainly does that at least as well as publishing a book does. Now,
I expect that the law will say that distribution of postings via
Usenet and its associated mechanisms is not a violation of copyright.
The argument for that one is simple: posting to the net implies that
one grant agency to the net (considered as an entity) for the
purposes of propagating the message. If that argument is accepted,
the author can not enforce restrictions on the propagation of
postings on normal channels of Usenet since, by posting, he has to
allow Usenet to act as his agent.
To the extent that Usenet is considered to act as an agent for the
poster, the rights entailed by that agency will have been lost by the
poster. This also suggests the limits that the courts will place on
that loss of rights.
So, resending an article through the net, archiving, distributing
articles from archives, and processing maps for routing, are likely
to be considered rights that the posted has transferred to the net,
or more properly, to each person on the net responsible for these
activities. It will be interesting to see just exactly what legal
fiction is invented to deal with all this. :-) (Not that I'm decrying
legal fictions: the law invents entities of wierd kinds in order that
it be possible to deal with real things. By doing so it makes it
possible for us to come to some kind of agreement about them. In many
cases, and the net is certainly one, any fiction that does not simply
outlaw the net or require manual intervention for each posting at each
site is likely to be safer than the legal limbo the net is in right
now.)
: >: If it gets to that point, we've ALL already lost...
:
: >I think that a lawsuit settling the copyright issue on Usenet would
: >freshen a lot of stale air. We really do need to know whether the
: >Usenet is legally a publishing medium (nevermined that in reality it
: >is: the law frequently invents its own reality); we really do need to
: >know if any of our copyrights are valid, in particular the GNU
: >copyleft and other forms of redistribution restriction.
:
: In some ways I agree. If we could somehow find out these things without
: a real court, I'd love it. But that's obviously impossible, and my fear
: is that all the noise generated by a full-scale lawsuit of this form
: might destroy the organizations it's supposed to protect:
That is a possibility. Which suggests that the right way is for there
to be a series of small suits, each carefully selected to test one
piece of the law. This does not have to be acrimonious.
: Similarly, a
: GNU suit might result in 1) the FSF wins outright --- and lots of
: developers stop using GNU tools, or 2) the FSF loses, and stops writing
: free software (which, if the copyright were to be judged non-binding,
: they might very well do).
More likely, something between. Whatever the law decides, I'm sure
that people will be able to find some way to distribute free software
while retaining the copyrights they want.
Here's an example of how that could be done. Suppose that I set up an
archive on my system and, before accepting anything for archiving,
got a signed agreement from the author stating that, in exchange for
my protecting his copyright, he will let me distribute his software.
And suppose that I got a signed agreement from anyone who I was
willing to let access my system that he would agree to abide by the
copyrights stored with the archived data in exchange for the right to
obtain that material. One could also have agreements from sites that
indicates that they get such an agreement from anyone who would
access my archive from that site, thus decentralizing the paperwork.
This effectively gets the agreement of the user to the copyright
conditions and completely eliminates the question of whether the
copyright is valid. In fact, "copyrights" becomes something of a
misnomer; they are really addenda to the various agreements. The
question would become whether those conditions are valid as a part of
a contract, a much easier question for which the usual answer is
"yes".
One could also envision an agency which collects these agreements as
a service to archivists and runs an authentication server for them.
Heck, one could envision a government agency for just that purpose.
Better, if the electronic authentication problem gets a solution that
is legally satisfactory, all this could just be yet another protocol
on the Internet....
For the security of knowing just what the law is, I'd be willing to
deal with the additional troubles of such a system. And, knowing the
ignorance of government officials, I'd prefer a system invented by us
than one mandated by them.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comcoolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/18/89)
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <1989Sep17.180618.1434@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: >There are three possible copyrights involved. The first is the UUCP >Mapping Project's, the second is that of each person who submits a >compilation of maps, and the third is that of the individual map >entry submitter. The first should have rights to the entire >collection of maps, the second should have rights to each posting, >but the question is open as to whether the third has any rights at >all. Given that the individual map entries are fixed in form and of >strictly informational content, I believe, by analogy to decisions in >the print publishing field, that copyright does not apply. Sounds about right to me, except that I suspect the author of the individual map entry does retain copyright, as far as it goes, but has implicitly granted all sorts of usage rights by submitting the entry. >[Usenet is most like a publishing medium so:] >I expect that the law will say that distribution of postings via >Usenet and its associated mechanisms is not a violation of copyright. >The argument for that one is simple: posting to the net implies that >one grant agency to the net (considered as an entity) for the >purposes of propagating the message. If that argument is accepted, >the author can not enforce restrictions on the propagation of >postings on normal channels of Usenet since, by posting, he has to >allow Usenet to act as his agent. Yes, but what exactly *IS* Usenet? Anyone who gets the news? I doubt that, since lots of places very few of us would consider part of the Usenet (Compuserve, for instance) receive at least part of the news. Just UUCP sites? Nope, because that leaves out Internet sites (like me :-)). How about just the sites that follow the Usenet distribution tradition? Maybe the best definition, if you can pin down just what Usenet traditions really are, and find a way of making them legally binding. But that definition would make the implicit copyright important again by restricting what restricted-redistribution sites could do with the article. And then there's the case of those (like me) whose articles carry an explicit copyright which also explicitly allows redistribution under circumstances met by all of the sites which *I* would consider part of the Usenet (those that allow free redistribution to their downstream sites). Perhaps my explicit copyright notice is voided by an implicit grant of permission caused by posting, but without a court case I would tend to bet the other way... >That is a possibility. Which suggests that the right way is for there >to be a series of small suits, each carefully selected to test one >piece of the law. This does not have to be acrimonious. It doesn't have to be acrimonious, but I doubt that enough people will spend the time or money to conduct a lawsuit without some bad feelings either existing or being created in the process. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (09/18/89)
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Richard, you really oughtta be careful where you point that >flamethrower. Brad has repeatedly denied any connection with IMN and/or >Anterior Technology and/or Geoff Goodfellow. If you have any information >to the contrary, tell us about it; otherwise, I think you owe Brad an >apology. You mean I'm not the first person whom has suggested the connection ? >Or are you simply too pissed off to pay attention to what you're saying? I was pretty annoyed, this was pretty blatant. There seem to be a set of people whom are willing to ignore public commentary and force the issue by deliberately ignoring a significant number of people whom object to their site map entries being used for commercial purposes. I'm still pretty annoyed. I think Geoff Goodfellow's assertion ( via phone ) that Erik Fair had approved it was especially annoying. He has no neither a right nor a responsibility to do that. -- richard -- * * * Intelligence : the ability to create order out of chaos. * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho *
zvs@bby.oz (Zev Sero) (09/19/89)
In article <> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: As quoted from <> by coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge): +--------------- | Usenet in general. Of course, some of us add lines like: | 'You may redistribute only if your recipients can' (anyone remember the | Stargate flap?) which tend to settle the issue once and for all: unless | the recipient of a moderated news flow is free to send my postings on, | they can't themselves carry my postings. +--------------- This can get you in trouble, too. Pat Townsend rejected a submission of mine to the Telecom Digest because he could not guarantee that the people he mailed Telecom to were willing to redistribute it. Note that this is not *his* doing, but he would be in effect violating the copyright if he sent a Digest containing my submission to someone who operated (or was forced to operate) under a rule forbidding redistribution. I don't get it - If Mr Townsend permits recipients of his mailing list to redistribute your article, then it seems to me that he has complied with the copyright notice. All it says is `if your recipients *can*', not `if your recipients *want to*'. If a Digest recipient refuses to redistribute it any further, that's fine. If a Digest recipient redistributes articles, but restricts *her* recipients from further redistribution, then *she* would have the responsibility to delete any articles containing a copyright notice forbidding such restriction. -- Zev Sero - zvs@melba.bby.oz.au "Men give women jewels when they have absolutely no idea what might please them, and are not willing to take time to find out". - Sheri S. Tepper
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (09/19/89)
In article <1989Sep18.123046.20135@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >>In article <1989Sep17.180618.1434@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: > >>That is a possibility. Which suggests that the right way is for there >>to be a series of small suits, each carefully selected to test one >>piece of the law. This does not have to be acrimonious. > >It doesn't have to be acrimonious, but I doubt that enough people will >spend the time or money to conduct a lawsuit without some bad feelings >either existing or being created in the process. > >--John > All this neat legal theorizing is fine and dandy but there are some little details you have to take care of. You will have to establish standing to bring the suit and a cause of action. It is my suspicion that you would have difficulty with both in your proposed friendly little suits. Contrary to what most folk seem to believe, the courts are not able or willing to decide every legal point that can be constructed in the mind of the readers of the net. The injury involved here is so insubstantial that no court will be willing to waste its time on it. Not that this will stop net discussion. It is a safe topic since no one will be proven wrong. We will be treated to replays every 3 months or so. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) (09/20/89)
Even assuming that the maps were copyrighted, in what way do you think that prevents someone from using them to make a mailing list? Or do you think that a using the names in the mailing list is in some way republishing the maps? Just how much power of restriction do you think a copyright grants?
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/20/89)
In article <1989Sep18.123046.20135@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes: : bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: : >In article <1989Sep17.180618.1434@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: : >There are three possible copyrights involved. The first is the UUCP : >Mapping Project's, the second is that of each person who submits a : >compilation of maps, and the third is that of the individual map : >entry submitter. The first should have rights to the entire : >collection of maps, the second should have rights to each posting, : >but the question is open as to whether the third has any rights at : >all. Given that the individual map entries are fixed in form and of : >strictly informational content, I believe, by analogy to decisions in : >the print publishing field, that copyright does not apply. : : Sounds about right to me, except that I suspect the author of the : individual map entry does retain copyright, as far as it goes, but has : implicitly granted all sorts of usage rights by submitting the entry. My reason for believing that the submitter of the original map entry does not have a copyright is this: copyright does not extend to something for which there is pretty much only one way to do it. Form filling (which is mostly what a map entry is) is just that. But, as I said, it is an open issue. : >[Usenet is most like a publishing medium so:] : >I expect that the law will say that distribution of postings via : >Usenet and its associated mechanisms is not a violation of copyright. : >The argument for that one is simple: posting to the net implies that : >one grant agency to the net (considered as an entity) for the : >purposes of propagating the message. If that argument is accepted, : >the author can not enforce restrictions on the propagation of : >postings on normal channels of Usenet since, by posting, he has to : >allow Usenet to act as his agent. : : Yes, but what exactly *IS* Usenet? The law tends to be pretty pragmatic about these things. My guess is that they will say that Usenet is a collection of entities which do automatic processing of news for local reading, forwarding, or other purposes closely tied to the newsgroups (like processing comp.mail.maps). And that posting grants agency sufficient to make the automatic processing legal. This, BTW, probably does void your copyright notice. : >That is a possibility. Which suggests that the right way is for there : >to be a series of small suits, each carefully selected to test one : >piece of the law. This does not have to be acrimonious. : : It doesn't have to be acrimonious, but I doubt that enough people will : spend the time or money to conduct a lawsuit without some bad feelings : either existing or being created in the process. Well, Usenet generates bad feelings in its normal processes, just as any other social activity can; the question is not whether those things will arise but whether they will get out of control. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/20/89)
In article <3121@ccnysci.UUCP> dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) writes:
: All this neat legal theorizing is fine and dandy but there are some
: little details you have to take care of.
Details you can be sure I'm aware of. You might want to check before
assuming ignorance.
: You will have to establish
: standing to bring the suit and a cause of action.
Well of course! What a concept! In a lawsuit, you have to be someone
who is allowed to bring the suit! And you also have to have something
real to sue them about!
Amazing.
: It is my suspicion
: that you would have difficulty with both in your proposed friendly
: little suits.
Now that I've got my ire out of the way, agreed. Not just any suit
would do. There would have to be the possibility of real damages, and
it is the damaged party (in most cases) that has to file the suit.
Nonetheless, my suggestion is a possibility.
However, I more expect that when the big crunch does come, it will be
some big company trying to sue the whole Usenet.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comscs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (09/20/89)
brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >Even assuming that the maps were copyrighted, in what way do you think >that prevents someone from using them to make a mailing list? Or do you >think that a using the names in the mailing list is in some way >republishing the maps? >Just how much power of restriction do you think a copyright grants? That's a darned good point. Clearly one can use copywritten material as research data to create a work which is not covered by the original copyright. So if somebody grabs the maps, extracts the addresses, re-forms them to match what the mailing list needs, mixes them with addresses from other sources, has there been copyright violation? If so, every paper which involved research is a copyright violation. -- Steve Simmons scs@vax3.iti.org Industrial Technology Institute Ann Arbor, MI. "Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/21/89)
In article <10017@ucsd.Edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
: Even assuming that the maps were copyrighted, in what way do you think
: that prevents someone from using them to make a mailing list? Or do you
: think that a using the names in the mailing list is in some way
: republishing the maps?
:
: Just how much power of restriction do you think a copyright grants?
I answered this one in an earlier message in this thread.
Assuming that the courts take a stance similar to the one they do on
dictionaries and the like, just taking the names from the list,
without verifying them or otherwise putting in some of your own
effort into making your mailing list, would be a copyright violation.
However, if one does some (non mechanical) verification of the data
or uses the list, say, as verification for another list, that would
not be a copyright violation.
This does not prevent someone from making a mailing list from the
maps, it just means that they have to work a bit for their list.
Remember: this is assuming that they treat these as they do similar
printed informational works.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.commark@isi.UUCP (Mark Bailey) (09/22/89)
In article <3833@itivax.iti.org>, scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
% That's a darned good point. Clearly one can use copywritten material
% as research data to create a work which is not covered by the original
% copyright. So if somebody grabs the maps, extracts the addresses, re-forms
% them to match what the mailing list needs, mixes them with addresses from
% other sources, has there been copyright violation? If so, every paper
% which involved research is a copyright violation.
Copyright law allows very liberal use of copyrighted material for educational
and research purposes. What is a legal use of copyrighted material in a
research paper may very well be illegal when used to compile a mailing list.
--
Mark Bailey (I didn't really say this.)
via: ...!uunet!pyrdc!isi!mark ------Have a 8-| day!!!!!jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) (09/22/89)
Brian Kantor writes: > >Even assuming that the maps were copyrighted, in what way do you think >that prevents someone from using them to make a mailing list? Or do you >think that a using the names in the mailing list is in some way >republishing the maps? It is not clear to me that mailing lists can be copyrighted. Copyrights are for original works, and there is nothing original, even in the compilation, of the UUCP map addresses. Since we do not have a case of patentable material either, this leaves only trade secret protection. Unfortunately, you have to go to some lengths to keep data you call trade secret from falling into the wrong hands, and the UUCP maps almost certainly fail this test. I suspect the UUCP maps are fair game for abuse, legally, much as I regret that. The only real defense I could see would be a non-disclosure agreement. And of course, all these problems do not include any of the very real obstacles to enforcing whatever legal protections we do have. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) (09/23/89)
In article <1446@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <2048@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: > >-Well, it's finally happened, thanks to all the amoral money-grubbers and >-wannabees who are just out for a fast buck or are too lazy to gather their > >Oh, you poor thing! A mean nasty person sent you a LETTER? You must be >absolutely devastated! What a HEARTLESS, CRUEL, WICKED thing for them >LETTERS to perfectly innocent geeks like you? > >-to ball them out in public at the top of my voice. Or maybe I'll give it to > ^^^^ >Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. >campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street >wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146 This was uncalled for. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of my mailbox being full of junk I neither want nor requested. The problem with all of this is not that people are getting junk mail, but rather that they are using a medium which has traditionally untainted by politics, greed, avarice, and commercial ventures. Usenet is not a business and should not be run as one, nor should information gained about individuals be used without their consent. If this is not nipped in the bud, I can foresee the day when we cannot use .sig files for fear of having forty billion sales people bugging the hell out of us. I for one am perfectly willing to participate in helping with a lawsuit against these greedy a@#$#$&*!! It's about time we stood up for what we want instead of bowing to the whims of the almighty business community and dollar. -- Jesse W. Asher Dynasys (901) 382-1705 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 uunet!dynasys!jessea
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/23/89)
In article <1989Sep21.220406.14140@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
: It is not clear to me that mailing lists can be copyrighted.
: Copyrights are for original works, and there is nothing original, even
: in the compilation, of the UUCP map addresses.
Sigh.
For the six zillionth time, yes they are copyrighted. Compilations of
data can be copyrighted. Specifically, mailing lists can be
copyrighted.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comgary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (09/23/89)
In article <1989Sep21.220406.14140@algor2.algorists.com>, jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: > Brian Kantor writes: > > > >Even assuming that the maps were copyrighted, ...... > > It is not clear to me that mailing lists can be copyrighted. I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Call TIDS (Technical Information Distribution Service), or any magazine (Byte, for example) who sells their subscriber list and ask if their mailing list and it's subsets are copyrighted. I think their reply will be a most emphatic YES! Otherwise, nothing could prevent someone from buying a mailing list and then reselling it in competition with the originator. > I suspect the UUCP maps are fair game for abuse, legally, much as I > regret that. There's alwasy flame wars...... Anybody grepping the maps for a mailing list is obviously connected to the net somehow. Dropping their postage- prepaid cards and envelopes in the mail without filling them in is also a simple means of expressing displeasure, since it costs them money... > jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey -- Gary Heston { uunet!gary@sci34hub } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (09/24/89)
In article <328@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: > In article <1989Sep21.220406.14140@algor2.algorists.com>, jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: > > It is not clear to me that mailing lists can be copyrighted. > I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Call TIDS (Technical Information > Distribution Service), or any magazine (Byte, for example) who sells their > subscriber list and ask if their mailing list and it's subsets are > copyrighted. I think their reply will be a most emphatic YES! Otherwise, > nothing could prevent someone from buying a mailing list and then reselling > it in competition with the originator. Not true. We have "bought" quite a few mailing lists in the last 5 years. There is no claim of copyright but you contract with the supplier of the list. The contract stipulates that you have not purchased the list but rather the use of the list for a single mailing. Some organizations (/usr/group I think) will also require that you send them a copy of what you will be mailing so they can decide if they like it before they will sell you use of their list. It the owner of the list feels you might rip them off they may require that the mailing list be sent directly to a company that just does mailings rather than to you. This, by the way, is usually a pain as we like to do our own mailing incrementally so we don't get a huge bubble in orders. We have also been approached by others for the use of our mailing list. (We sell UNIX Pocket References and a lot of our business is mail-order.) As a matter of policy we have never sold it because we feel that our customers deserve some say in what they get (plus it saves trees :-). ) On the other hand, some of the names on our list have come from Usenet. We don't automatically extract map information but when someone in the office sees a person they feel might be interested in our products, they will add them to a flyer mailing list. If we don't hear from that person in a few months, their name is automtically purged. The real problem is where to draw the line. I personally have no problem with someone sending me a "new product announcement" that has something to do with UNIX. I buy stuff like that. On the other hand I have no interest in my Usenet address being used to offer me "a great deal on a new VISA card" or "better toilet paper". Maybe we could add a field to the map information about what kinds of junk mail we would accept. Options might be: [] UNIX new product announcements [] some other operating system stuff [] computer stuff [] useless junk mail > > > I suspect the UUCP maps are fair game for abuse, legally, much as I > > regret that. > > There's alwasy flame wars...... Anybody grepping the maps for a mailing > list is obviously connected to the net somehow. Dropping their postage- > prepaid cards and envelopes in the mail without filling them in is also > a simple means of expressing displeasure, since it costs them money... > > > jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey > > -- > Gary Heston { uunet!gary@sci34hub } System Mismanager > SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) > Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX amc-gw!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (09/24/89)
In article <1989Sep22.232859.8517@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >For the six zillionth time, yes they are copyrighted. Compilations of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By who? I noticed that some of the individual maps are Copyrighted by the EUUG and some entries by specific companies. But I didn't see anyone claiming compilation copyright. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) (09/24/89)
In article <328@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: >In article jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >> It is not clear to me that mailing lists can be copyrighted. > >I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Call TIDS (Technical Information >Distribution Service), or any magazine (Byte, for example) who sells their >subscriber list and ask if their mailing list and it's subsets are >copyrighted. I think their reply will be a most emphatic YES! But do they believe their own answer? Their actions show they do not. After asking if their mailing list is copyrighted, ask also if they have registered it with the Copyright Office, enclosing the appropriate copies. (This is necessary for them to file suit for infringement). I will bet the answer is no, because they do not want to release the copies. And hence they will never file for infringement. What they are doing is treating the mailing list as a trade secret. This means of protection, unlike patent and copyright, does not require disclosure. Something can never be both a trade secret and copyrighted. Anyone can claim a copyright. I can post Moby Dick to the net with my .signature asserting a copyright below it. The question is could such a copyright be defended in court (even given legal resources were free). The sellers of mailing list will never even attempt such a defense. >Otherwise, nothing could prevent someone from buying a mailing list >and then reselling it in competition with the originator. Wrong. There is also trade secret protection, which is in fact what they rely on. They require buyers to agree not to reuse the list, and take steps (such as not distributing it in electronic form) to ensure that others not bound by agreements cannot get their hands on it. Of course, such agreements are legally enforceable on the people who have signed them. After all, think about it. Copyrights are for original creative efforts. Imagine the lawyer trying to argue with a straight face that a subscriber list or the UUCP maps are "literary works". [ Note: compilations can be copyrighted, but they must involve creative effort. An example of a copyrightable compilation is a book of "Greatest Poetry of the 18th Century", which incorporates a lot of creative thought. An unselected list of subscriber names and addresses is hardly what is meant. ] >> I suspect the UUCP maps are fair game for abuse, legally, much as I >> regret that. > >There's alwasy flame wars...... Anybody grepping the maps for a mailing >list is obviously connected to the net somehow. Dropping their postage- >prepaid cards and envelopes in the mail without filling them in is also >a simple means of expressing displeasure, since it costs them money... All of the above is clearly illegal. To defend a right of dubious (at best) legal standing by clearly illegal steps is not wise. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/24/89)
In article <1989Sep23.200844.22022@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: |In article <328@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: |>There's alwasy flame wars...... Anybody grepping the maps for a mailing |>list is obviously connected to the net somehow. Dropping their postage- |>prepaid cards and envelopes in the mail without filling them in is also |>a simple means of expressing displeasure, since it costs them money... | |All of the above is clearly illegal. To defend a right of dubious (at |best) legal standing by clearly illegal steps is not wise. I'm not sure what "all of the above" refers to, but if it refers to sending back postage paid cards without filling them out, I'd like to know why you think it's illegal (not that I have any information that it's not, I'm just curious as to why it would be illegal). If "all of the above" refers to something else, what was it, as I didn't see much of anything in Gary's article that looks illegal. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sigma.UUCP Six Sigma CASE, Inc. +1 206 854 6578 PO Box 40316, Bellevue, WA 98004
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (09/27/89)
Some thoughts on the issue: 1. It is a settled point of law that mailing lists and other unique assemblages of facts, bibliographic information, etc., are copyrightable as compilations. The Copyright Office has accepted such works for registration for many years and the concept has been upheld in the Federal courts. Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides that a "compilation" is "a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship". There is no requirement that the work be "creative". It would be a "literary" work, but in copyright law the term "literary" really means "verbal" (as opposed to "musical" or "audiovisual", etc.) Computer programs, for example, are "literary works". I have no doubt, based on what UUCP map coordinators and the UUCP mapping project do, that the maps would constitute a copyrightable compilation. 2. Even if a compilation copyright was claimed in the UUCP map files, this would not be sufficient to prevent use of map entries as sales leads, telemarketing info, a mailing list, etc. The so-called "bundle" of exclusive rights granted to the owners of copyrights are enumerated in Section 106 of the Act, and include (in paraphrase) the following: (1) the right to reproduce the work in copies; (2) the right to prepare derivative works; (3) the right to distribute copies of the work to the public; (4) the right to perform the work publicly; and (5) the right to display the work publicly. None of these exclusive rights (or anything in the Moral Rights codex of the Berne Convention) would prevent the holder of a copy of the work from using it to his commercial advantage, so long as none of the enumerated rights in Section 106 are infringed. 3. A choice-of-law issue may arise with respect to claims of copyright in map entries prepared outside of the United States (I believe some of the EUUG map files bore copyright notices, but haven't looked to see recently). The choice-of-law issue is complicated by the fact that the maps themselves are published in the United States (Rutgers University) but authored/compiled outside the U.S. Even if European copyright (or data privacy) laws prevented the commercial use of the map information, this would be unlikely to be given extraterritorial effect, meaning that U.S. firms would be free to use the information for commercial advantage. -- Michael C. Berch Member of the California Bar mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb (until 9/28) mcb@mica.berkeley.edu / ucbvax!mica!mcb (thereafter)
jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) (09/29/89)
In article <489@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >Some thoughts on the issue: > >1. It is a settled point of law that mailing lists and other unique >assemblages of facts, bibliographic information, etc., are >copyrightable as compilations. The Copyright Office has accepted >such works for registration for many years and the concept has been >upheld in the Federal courts. I consulted my lawyer, who specializes in intellectual property in the computer field. The above is correct, and my previous assertions to the contrary in this forum wrong. He brought up another point. If we were to seriously seek protection for the UUCP maps, it would be best to make anyone getting them via proper channels sign an agreement stating their proper use and distribution. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090