webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) (02/09/89)
novice question.
Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a
copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a
compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something
that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history
book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling
a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr
connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights
being violated? Nothing I read, when I first started rn_ing, said
anything about a moderator (or anybody else) "collecting" and compiling
information and using it to generate revenue (for any reason).
novice question 2.
If this kind of compilation copyright is legitimate, and moderators
and information collectors are allowed to steal people's work, art,
etc. on the pretext that "it takes to time to compile all this and
therefore I should be compensated" .. then shouldn't the newuser
announcement contain a VERY PROMINENT WARNING to that effect?
...jjwebb...chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Raspach) (02/10/89)
>Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a >copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a >compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something >that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history >book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling >a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr >connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights >being violated? Definitely. If you affix a copyright notice on a work and someone else re-uses that work under any circumstances (except in specific, limited excerpts) then that person is in violation of your copyright. Also, be aware that when the U.S. adopted Berne, the copyright requirements were tweaked so that (if I've read things right) every published work now has an implicit copyright. Registration and copyright notices are still recommended for help in proof of violation, but the assumption on any piece of writing published now is that there is a copyright attached unless there is proof otherwise. Getting damages for violations where no registration or copyright mark exists is practically speaking impossible, so there's no practical difference, but the intent is clear. Since the latest revision of the copyright laws, unless you (1) have permission to use the work in question or (2) your use falls under the fair use requirements, you should assume you're violating someone's copyright. Now, a number of caveats to that previous paragraph: 1) I'm not a lawyer, much less a copyright lawyer. Your mileage may vary. 2) This applies to U.S. copyrights. International copyrights are a whole different ballgame -- and, for what it's worth, Brad is in Canada, so international copyrights apply. (For that matter, Brad could be in Armenia, and if he picked up the stuff in Canada, Canadian copyright law would be in force. Once it crosses the borders, the protections of the U.S. laws go away, even if that's the point of publication). 3) implicit copyrights are on published material. Whether posting to USENET constitutes 'publishing' it is not known -- there's no legal precedent I'm aware of. And if you ask me, I wouldn't want to bet either way on that issue. The bottom line: If you post something, you own a copyright to that material. Practically speaking, however, that means nothing -- because the data flows internationally and many of the restrictions of implicit copyright are meaningless once they leave the borders of the U.S. So if you want to protect your work, put an explicit copyright on it and note whatever restrictions you require. Don't leave it up to chance or goodwill -- if you care about your words, make sure people know what the restrictions are. >If this kind of compilation copyright is legitimate, and moderators >and information collectors are allowed to steal people's work, art, >etc. on the pretext that "it takes to time to compile all this and >therefore I should be compensated" .. then shouldn't the newuser >announcement contain a VERY PROMINENT WARNING to that effect? If it's public domain material, it's not stealing. You can *not* own public domain material. If it's not public domain material, then it's not legitimate or legal. chuq Chuq Von Rospach/Editor,OtherRealms/Member SFWA chuq@apple.com This signature under construction
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/10/89)
In article <5982@leadsv.UUCP> webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) writes:
Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a
copyright statement to it. Now, [somebody compiles something
including my work and] declares a compilation copyright [on it].
If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights being
violated?
Any violation of your rights occurs, if it occurs, when your work is
copied for inclusion in the collection. If you allowed it to be
included, then there is no problem. If you didn't allow it to be
included, then your legal rights are violated already even if there is
no compilation copyright claimed.
The act of claiming the compilation copyright does not abridge your own
legal rights. The compilation copyright does not supersede your own
copyright.
You are free to explicitly disallow the copying of your work for
inclusion in collections over which a compilation copyright is
claimed.
Magazines usually hold a compilation copyright on each issue. You will
often find a copyright statement at the bottom of a page that contains
advertisements. Yet these same advertisements will also be found in
other magazines too. This doesn't mean that any of these magazines
hold a copyright on the individual advertisement (the ad agency that
designed each ad probably does, or its client). But each magazine is
claiming a copyright on the layout of the magazine. If you copied an
entire page of ads from a magazine that contained several ads laid out
in some special way, then you could possible get sued (and lose too).
If you copied a single ad, only the ad agency would be able to sue.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer, I just know how to sound like one.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edusl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/10/89)
In article <5982@leadsv.UUCP> webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) writes: >Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a >copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a >compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something >that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history >book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling >a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr >connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights >being violated? Nothing I read, when I first started rn_ing, said >anything about a moderator (or anybody else) "collecting" and compiling >information and using it to generate revenue (for any reason). Yes they would be if that was the scenario. If you have a copyright then no-one can include it without your permission. Some people are saying that in some cases you have a copyright without explicitly saying so, althought whether that would extend to a discussion type article (like this one) is open to debate. In the case of r.h.f it should be pointed out that people are sending in jokes for publication in the moderated group and now in the annual book. It would be difficult to track down the originator of the joke because in almost all cases the jokes are *NOT* the property of the submitter. They are usually at the very least derivitive from something else (humor specialists have tracked many jokes back hundreds of years). >If this kind of compilation copyright is legitimate, and moderators >and information collectors are allowed to steal people's work, art, >etc. on the pretext that "it takes to time to compile all this and >therefore I should be compensated" .. then shouldn't the newuser >announcement contain a VERY PROMINENT WARNING to that effect? They are not allowed to. Normally if your "work" is included in a compilation you will be entitled to some fee or royalty. Just be sure it is your work and that you have identified it so if your are posting it in a context in which the implicit copyright might not be apparant. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (02/10/89)
In article <5982@leadsv.UUCP> webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) writes: novice question. Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights being violated? Nothing I read, when I first started rn_ing, said anything about a moderator (or anybody else) "collecting" and compiling information and using it to generate revenue (for any reason). You sue him and collect. If the material is already copyrighted one may not compile it without the copyright owner's consent. Only public domain material are exempt. That is material for which the copyright has expired or the author has explicitly abandoned the copyright. For example, in the Hofnung Interplanetary Music Fextival there was a piece {title eludes me} subtitled "Lets Fake and Opera" and the plot had characters from all operas and music from all composers except one -- as the liner notes said, Scarpia could not appear because Puccini still was under copyright. Exception to the above: in some countries one must have the words "All rights reserved." affixed following the copyright notice. Also a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta was nearly placed in the public domain because of copyright law. G&S had to arrange public performance in the US and Great Britain at the same time to avoid this. novice question 2. If this kind of compilation copyright is legitimate, and moderators and information collectors are allowed to steal people's work, art, etc. on the pretext that "it takes to time to compile all this and therefore I should be compensated" .. then shouldn't the newuser announcement contain a VERY PROMINENT WARNING to that effect? See above. Compilation copyright is legal ONLY with the consent of the authors. Also NOONE can prohibit the reading of material. Only the copying of material is prohibited. Brad can copyright r.h.f but he can't prohibit it from being read, no matter who. He also is still held liable for libel and slander, etc. Pubication is by definition to the public. All Newspapers are copyrighted and they get sued all the time. Editors must use judgement on columns or get sued. See the latest Mike Royko case. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (02/10/89)
In article <5982@leadsv.UUCP>, webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) writes: } } novice question. } } Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a } copyright statement to it. Now, comes along a [moderator, a } compilation guru, a collector, historian, etc.] and includes something } that I've posted in his/her [joke book, poetry collection, history } book, etc.] and declares a compilation copyright. She/He starts selling } a printed version for $9.95 and an electronic version for $8-$9/hr } connect time. If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights } being violated? Yes, your rights would be violated. Such behavior is in fact illegal. The compilation copyright represents the ``value added'' by the compiler; that doesn't absolve the compiler of the need to legitimately acquire source material. An analogy is a person who builds patented widgets: the patent protects that person's intellectual work, but that does not grant the right to use other patented designs, or for that matter free raw materials. If you want to use something, you must do whatever is necessary to earn the right to. Brad undoubtedly feels that since articles are mailed to him, implicit permission has been granted for their incorporation. In a more formal world, that does not suffice; when you submit a paper to a journal, you are asked to sign a formal copyright release or copyright transfer form. I direct your attention to comp.org.usenix, which is seeking rights to republish electronically papers that have already appeared in their proceedings. They already had that copyright, but have a formal release form they want you to sign to grant them rights to the electronic version. Incidentally, you don't have to affix a copyright statement to have rights to your creations; current law says that an implicit copyright is vested in you at the moment the work was created. Enforcement is another matter, but the copyright exists. --Steve Bellovin
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/10/89)
It should be noted that another section of the monthly postings says that if you submit, you are giving permission for me to do electronic distribution and annual printed compilation. As for postings taken from rec.humor, as many people on this group have said, unclaimed postings to the net do imply unlimited distribution permission. Any net posting with a copyright on it describing specific distribution should be respected, wherever possible. I do this. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/11/89)
In article <5609@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <5982@leadsv.UUCP> webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) writes: > Suppose I post a poem, program, funny story, etc. and affix a > copyright statement to it. Now, [somebody compiles something > including my work and] declares a compilation copyright [on it]. > If he/she didn't get my permission, aren't my rights being > violated? > >Any violation of your rights occurs, if it occurs, when your work is >copied for inclusion in the collection. Not necessarily. It could depend on the phrasing of the statement of copyright. If I put "Copyright 1989, David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved Worldwide." at the end of this article, I believe a valid case could be made for a copyright violation as soon as this posting was propagated beyond the machines that I myself sent it to. Copying is inherent in the way Usenet propagates the news. I doubt that the fact that the administrators of the other machines did not know that they were transmitting a copyrighted work would be an admissible defense, any more than the distributor of a diskful of public domain software claiming he did not know one of the programs on the disk was copyrighted would be. If I were trying to defend against such an argument, I believe the best route would be to assert that the poster knew in advance that posting implied the creation of copies on machines all over the world, and had therefore implicitly granted a right to copy which overrides the embedded copyright notice. I have no idea whether or not a court would buy this argument. Assuming that posting to the net constitutes "publication", the main question that needs to be answered is: what rights does the poster of an article give up, and which rights does he/she retain? Those who claim that posting automatically puts the article in the public domain are claiming that the author gives up all rights by the act of posting, in which case an editor/compiler/moderator could take the work and use it in any way he wishes, including selling it for a profit. If, on the other hand, implied copyright applies, then the scope of that copyright needs to be determined. If the poster retains all rights, propagating news articles which don't contain a specific renunciation of copyright might be found illegal. Jordan Breslow, are you out there? -- Dave Mack, soon-to-be moderator of news.admin.paranoia and no, I don't even play one on TV.
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/11/89)
Excerpted without permission under the "Fair Use" provisions of US and international copyright laws: In article <25545@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Raspach) writes: >3) implicit copyrights are on published material. Whether posting to USENET > constitutes 'publishing' it is not known -- there's no legal precedent > I'm aware of. And if you ask me, I wouldn't want to bet either way on that > issue. > >The bottom line: If you post something, you own a copyright to that material. You're assuming an answer to 3). If this is correct, then it should be possible for me to sue every site that receives/transmits this article, since that constitutes copying. ("Yer Honor, the defendants, all 11,000 of 'em, infringed on my abiliity to make a livelihood by making thousands if not millions of copies of my postings, which I had planned to collect into a bestseller entitled _The Collected Postings of David Mack_. Now, I'm a reasonable man, yer Honor. All I want is a thousand bucks damages from each site.") If I can't sue, then I must have given up some of my rights by the act of posting. Which rights? In the long run, it would be much safer to deal with the net as if it were a publicly-accessible broadcast medium. -- Copyright 1989 David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Any duplication or retransmission of this work by any means, whether mechanical or electronic, without the prior written consent of the author is a violation of the applicable national and international copyright laws and may be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by those laws. ;-)
hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com (Daniel Hinojosa) (02/11/89)
In article <2749@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >[...] > >As for postings taken from rec.humor, as many people on this group have said, >unclaimed postings to the net do imply unlimited distribution permission. > >Any net posting with a copyright on it describing specific distribution >should be respected, wherever possible. I do this. Brad, does this mean that anything less than a copyright on an article stands to be "culled" from rec.humor? You and I have gone a round or two on this one before. I have taken to putting a 'DisApproved: rec.humor.funny' in my articles to r.h . Are these STILL subject to being used when things are slow in r.h.f? I want to know how to protect MYSELF from this 'culling' business. -- ===================================================================== email - uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!hinojosa \ / uunet!hplabs!hp-sdd!hinojosa ---------------------------- ---==( o )==--- ---------------------- Jesus saves..but Gretzky gets the rebound! He shoots. HE SCOOORES!!!
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (02/12/89)
In article <4536@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > Copyright 1989 David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. | Any duplication or retransmission of this work by any means, > whether mechanical or electronic, without the prior written | consent of the author is a violation of the applicable national > and international copyright laws and may be prosecuted to | the fullest extent allowed by those laws. ;-) Oh Damn! I guess this means that I'll have to call the publisher and cancel out on ``Dave Mack's Greatest Hits''. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/12/89)
In article <25545@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Raspach) writes: >[...] >2) This applies to U.S. copyrights. International copyrights are a whole > different ballgame -- and, for what it's worth, Brad is in Canada, so > international copyrights apply. (For that matter, Brad could be in Armenia, > and if he picked up the stuff in Canada, Canadian copyright law would be > in force. Once it crosses the borders, the protections of the U.S. laws > go away, even if that's the point of publication). > >[...] > >The bottom line: If you post something, you own a copyright to that material. >Practically speaking, however, that means nothing -- because the data flows >internationally and many of the restrictions of implicit copyright are >meaningless once they leave the borders of the U.S. So if you want to protect >your work, put an explicit copyright on it and note whatever restrictions you >require. For those interested in international protections, the U.S.A. is party to two major agreements: The International Copyright Convention, and the Pan-American Copyright Convention. Protection under the International Copyright Convention is indicated by the "circle-C" [ or (c) and (C) for ascii files ]. Protection under the Pan-American Copyright Convention is represented by the phrase "All Rights Reserved" [ or its equivalent in other languages ]. Now you know what those markings are for. In the U.S.A., the word "Copyright" is no longer necessary where the "circle-C" is used. I do recommend including the Pan-American protection phrase which covers countries like Brazil and Argentina, which are apparantly not party to the ICC. --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (02/12/89)
In article <96@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: > In the U.S.A., the word "Copyright" is no longer necessary where the >"circle-C" is used. The most recent ACM had a column on Copyright, page 169, and it says the following: Until March 1, 1989, all one needs to do is place a copyright notice on any publicly distributed copies of the work. ... After March 1, notice will no longer be required but is advised. Anybody know what the scoop is? -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
mhyman@hsfmsh.UUCP (Marco S. Hyman) (02/13/89)
In article <96@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: > For those interested in international protections, the U.S.A. is >party to two major agreements: The International Copyright >Convention, and the Pan-American Copyright Convention. > Protection under the International Copyright Convention is >indicated by the "circle-C" [ or (c) and (C) for ascii files ]. The last time I talked to a lawyer regarding the (c) and (C) notation I was told that it was meaningless; it had no legal value whatsoever. Only the word Copyright or the circle-c had any legal meaning. Has this changed? --marc -- --Marco S. Hyman --UUCP: ...!sun!{sfsun,hoptoad}!hsfmsh!mhyman --Domain: {sfsun,hoptoad}!hsfmsh!mhyman@sun.com
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (02/13/89)
In article <671@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: } The most recent ACM had a column on Copyright, page 169, and it } says the following: } Until March 1, 1989, all one needs to do is place a } copyright notice on any publicly distributed copies } of the work. } ... } After March 1, notice will no longer be required but } is advised. } Anybody know what the scoop is? Yah -- the U.S. just ratified the Bern convention, and passed enabling legislation; that changes the rules a bit. As was pointed out, the phrase ``All Rights Reserved'' is necessary in some countries; remember that we're playing in an international arena.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/14/89)
>>3) implicit copyrights are on published material. Whether posting to USENET >> constitutes 'publishing' it is not known -- there's no legal precedent >> I'm aware of. And if you ask me, I wouldn't want to bet either way on that >> issue. >>The bottom line: If you post something, you own a copyright to that material. >You're assuming an answer to 3). Well, yes I am. I'm assuming that in a court of law, USENET would be held to be a common carrier (i.e. that the distribution medium is passive and can not be held liable for the content, since USENET sites doesn't have any control over the content. Instead the post (and/or the posting site) would be the point of control and legally liable). Common carrier status is the most likely format for USENET, since otherwise that would imply that every site had to approve every article before forwarding to protect itself legally -- not close to practical. >If this is correct, then it should be possible for me to sue every site >that receives/transmits this article, since that constitutes copying. Yup. You could. Knowing the vagaries of the court, you might even win. There are no precedents to say one way or another, and communication law is complicated enough that I won't hazard to guess who anyone would rule on anything. >If I can't sue, then I must have given up some of my rights by the >act of posting. Which rights? Well, your copyright message notwithstanding (of which excerpts above are quoted under the fair use precepts of copyright law, so I'm covered (nyah)) you posted the message to the network with the knowledge that, copyright message notwithstanding, it'd be distributed automatically without sites checking for the copyright and getting your permission. Since you posted the message knowing that the copyright would be violated, a good case would be made that you had to know the copyright was unenforceable and therefore by posting anyway you gave an implicit right to redistribute and the unenforceable parts of the copyright are invalid. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and definitely not a communication law or copyright specialist (just a knowledgable laymen) so I'd suggest heavily you find (and pay for) a real expert if you want definitive answers. Chuq Von Rospach/Editor,OtherRealms/Member SFWA chuq@apple.com This signature under construction
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/14/89)
>The last time I talked to a lawyer regarding the (c) and (C) notation I was >told that it was meaningless; it had no legal value whatsoever. Only the >word Copyright or the circle-c had any legal meaning. Has this changed? I've heard of one case where the '(c)' was upheld. That case set no precendent and is, last I heard, under appeal. In general, the '(c)' carries no legal force and means nothing. This is especially true on USENET where data flows internationally, so is under the international agrements instead of the U.S. agreements. The only terms with any legal standing are 'Copyright' and 'Copr.' [another note: using the troff equivalent for the c-in-a-circle isn't legally binding, either, since it's not in the proper representative form.]. Be aware that even if the laws are liberalized in the U.S., if the product is shipped internationally (like USENET messages are) then the stricter international laws take effect instead -- so don't assume the existence of implicit copyrights that the U.S. gives you. Chuq Von Rospach/Editor,OtherRealms/Member SFWA chuq@apple.com This signature under construction
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/16/89)
In article <25731@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Well, yes I am. I'm assuming that in a court of law, USENET would be held to >be a common carrier (i.e. that the distribution medium is passive and can >not be held liable for the content, since USENET sites doesn't have any control >over the content. Instead the post (and/or the posting site) would be the >point of control and legally liable). It would be great if a court could be convinced that a system composed of 11,000 odd computers passing traffic sequentially is passive. However, I wonder what they would make of the fact that the transmission technique involves making permanent (or at least static) copies of each message at each relay point. > Common carrier status is the most >likely format for USENET, since otherwise that would imply that every site >had to approve every article before forwarding to protect itself legally -- >not close to practical. I'm not sure that a "practicality" argument would bear much weight in court. It's clearly desireable to have USENET considered a common carrier, but if a court someday decides that it isn't... >>If I can't sue, then I must have given up some of my rights by the >>act of posting. Which rights? > >Well, your copyright message notwithstanding (of which excerpts above are >quoted under the fair use precepts of copyright law, so I'm covered (nyah)) >you posted the message to the network with the knowledge that, copyright >message notwithstanding, it'd be distributed automatically without sites >checking for the copyright and getting your permission. Since you posted the >message knowing that the copyright would be violated, a good case would be >made that you had to know the copyright was unenforceable and therefore by >posting anyway you gave an implicit right to redistribute and the >unenforceable parts of the copyright are invalid. OK, let me take another approach on this. Suppose that I print out verbatim copies of every issue of OtherRealms that you've posted, make about 10,000 copies of each, and start selling them for $1 each at SF Cons. Have I violated your copyright? (I'm assuming that OR contains a copyright notice - I don't have any issues on my system to look at right now.) If you sue me for copyright violation, I will argue that, by making OR available to an unlimited audience at no cost to them, you have effectively put OR into the public domain. I have deprived neither you nor your contributors of income, since everyone I sold a copy to could have had a copy for nothing by joining the USENET. (Note that I'm talking about the electronic version only, not the "real" illustrated OtherRealms.) If I get away with this, it means that everything posted to the net is in the public domain, regardless of any copyright notices included in the articles, and the argument that everything posted to the net has an implicit copyright is spurious. I'm crossposting this to misc.legal just to annoy everyone. -- Dave the Litigious Copyright 1989 David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved Worldwide, except First Viewing Rights which are granted to all USENET sites operational on or before Feb. 15, 1989. This work may be viewed by users at the aforementioned sites an unlimited number of times but may not be transferred to non-magnetic media. Or I'll sue your ass off. :-)
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/16/89)
In article <4535@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <5609@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >>Any violation of your rights occurs, if it occurs, when your work is >>copied for inclusion in the collection. > >Not necessarily. It could depend on the phrasing of the statement of >copyright. If I put "Copyright 1989, David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved >Worldwide." at the end of this article, I believe a valid case could >be made for a copyright violation as soon as this posting was >propagated beyond the machines that I myself sent it to. For your phrasing, it would be true in countries that are signatory to the Pan-American Copyright Conference ("All Rights Reserved" but the word "Worldwide" has, I think, no legal impact at all) but not the International Copyright Conference (you used the word "Copyright" not the circle-C (C) of the ICC). >Copying is inherent in the way Usenet propagates the news. I doubt that >the fact that the administrators of the other machines did not know that >they were transmitting a copyrighted work would be an admissible >defense, any more than the distributor of a diskful of public domain >software claiming he did not know one of the programs on the disk >was copyrighted would be. > Agreed. At best, it's a defense that is used to avoid fines for punative damage, but not against guilt nor fines for loss of profit by the plaintiff. Consider this: If I pass newsgroups that I or my users don't read, and one of those transmissions, unbeknownst to me, includes copyrighted material is propogated without permission, am I liable for damages because I participated in the propogation without knowing it? Better still, would the telephone company be liable because their transmission lines were involved in the propogation? I wonder if (in the same sense as prohibition of obscene phone calls) the phone companies have any policies concerning, or even disclaiming transmissions of illegally copied materials. At this time, I don't think charges concerning those thingbs would hold up well in courts, mostly because of the great difficulty of stopping such (technically) without shutting down activity altogether, plus the tenuous nature of proving complicity of the transmission-passing party. >If I were trying to defend against such an argument, I believe the >best route would be to assert that the poster knew in advance that >posting implied the creation of copies on machines all over the >world, and had therefore implicitly granted a right to copy which >overrides the embedded copyright notice. > I think this is ultimately the understanding that needs to be affirmed as common practice, at least in light of the nature of Usenet propogations. Rule of thumb: Don't say anything on the net you wouldn't say out loud in a room with 1/4-million people in it. :-) >I have no idea whether or not a court would buy this argument. > Neither do copyright and patent attorneys. The rule of thumb there is "case by case" basis; there are not many "sure things" in copyright litigation. >Assuming that posting to the net constitutes "publication" >[...and so forth...] There are two things we haven't covered: 1) In addition (in the U.S.A.) to Federal copyright laws and international agreements, there is the matter of the intellectual property laws of the individual states (most "common law" protection is, I understand, state, not federal) and even local laws that may apply. 2) There also exist the issues of "legislative history" in the creation of copyright laws and "legal precedent" in litigation. As many people have mentioned on-and-off, most particulars concerning the impact of existing and developing computer and networking technology on copyrights have *not* been tested in litigation, and new particulars are emerging every day. We have the opportunity to have an impact on how current and future copyright laws affect Usenet by influenceing legislative history (speaking and reporting to lawmaking bodies in session as laws are created and voted upon) and legal precedent (filing "friend of the court" papers as a third party in important litigation). So we really need, through discussions such as these, to come to terms with what impact *we would like for such laws to have* on the operation of Usenet, even if it's just "leave it alone". Otherwise, other (likely less informed people, eh?) will decide such things for us. --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/17/89)
In article <98@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
) Consider this: If I pass newsgroups that I or my users don't
)read, and one of those transmissions, unbeknownst to me, includes
)copyrighted material is propogated without permission, am I liable
)for damages because I participated in the propogation without knowing it?
Unknown.
) Better still, would the telephone company be liable because
)their transmission lines were involved in the propogation?
No. The telephone company is a common carrier, they are not
and cannnot be held (legally) responcible for the information that they
transmit. This was settled back in the early days of telephony.
The net, on the other hand, is a big question mark. While it
seems to have some aspects of a common carrier, the fact that systems
people feel free to exercize editorial control at times weakens this
defence. Either you freely pass what you recieve and can qualify as
a common carrier, or you don't, that has been the legal viewpoint in
the past.
It seems obvious to those of us that know the medium that this
distinction is insufficient. We, as sites, cannot edit everything we
carry, as a newspaper or a journal can. But we also feel that we should
be able edit things from time to time, something a common carrier can not
do. But the simple legal fact is that there is no middle ground between
these two.
It *appears* that the not just you, but every site on the net,
would be liable in the situation stated above. The same would be true
in cases of libel as well. But what a court would actually say is no
doubt another story altogether.
[I am not a lawyer, though I've eaten dinner with one once or twice.
I took a look at this area of the law a couple of years ago as part
of my undergraduate work in Telecommunications. Court rulings and
legislative action may have radically changed the outlook on this
since then, but I have kept a part time eye on the area, and haven't
seen anything major yet. The law, as it stands, simply doesn't know
we exist.]
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/17/89)
>It would be great if a court could be convinced that a system composed >of 11,000 odd computers passing traffic sequentially is passive. However, >I wonder what they would make of the fact that the transmission technique >involves making permanent (or at least static) copies of each message at >each relay point. The important point with this, though, is that even though copies are stored and forwarded, it's all done automatically. There is no choice made (except at a very broad level) on what messages are accepted or not -- therefore there's no control or liability involved in handling the messages. Of couse, if I were suing the net instead of defending it, I'd take exactly the tack you're taking. Which is why having USENET go into court would be a heyday for lawyers and heartburn for everyone else. No precedents and lots of really interesting, complex subjects to misrepresent and confuse... >I'm not sure that a "practicality" argument would bear much weight in >court. It's clearly desireable to have USENET considered a common carrier, >but if a court someday decides that it isn't... It all depends on how well each side argues their point and whether the judge understands the issues. It could, frankly, go either way depending on many factors, which is why I prefer to avoid trying to set these precedents at all. I know how it "ought" to happen -- but I also know that there's no guarantee that the courts will see it the same way. >OK, let me take another approach on this. Suppose that I print out >verbatim copies of every issue of OtherRealms that you've posted, >make about 10,000 copies of each, and start selling them for $1 each >at SF Cons. Have I violated your copyright? Yes, you have. Fairly blatantly. >If you sue me for copyright violation, I will argue that, by making >OR available to an unlimited audience at no cost to them, >you have effectively put OR into the public domain. There are a number of tacks I could take to rebut this: 1) you violate the non-commercial restriction of the copyright. If you *gave* them away instead of sold them, you could avoid this. 2) by reproducing it on paper, you infringe upon the copyrighted material in OtherRealms, as opposed with Electronic OtherRealms. The copyright for OR is non-commercial, electronic forms only. 3) I could also argue that you are violating the individual copyrights owned by the contributors, since what you are doing is a reprint of the original issue, and you don't have reprint permission since those rights belong to the authors. What I'm most likely to do, however, is: 4) Pull OtherRealms off the net, call you nasty names, and tell all my electronic subscribers that if they don't like losing access to the magazine they should complain to you -- preferably by phone, at 3AM or something. That's much cheaper than hiring a lawyer, and just as likely to have positive results -- especially considering the dollar losses we're talking about here. By the way, if you want to try to sell OtherRealms to 10,000 people for a dollar a pop, let me know. One, you won't be able to reproduce it that cheaply, and two, handing out *that* many copies would go a long way towards helping my circulation. (no. this is not permission to do so. But you can ask if you really want to waste all that money....) Realistically speaking, all a copyright violation on OtherRealms is going to do is get you yelled at. It's not worth my time or money to prosecute violations unless one of the authors that is violated insists. What *would* happen, though, is that I would make sure that the violation path (i.e. Electronic OtherRealms) would go away, making sure that someone couldn't do it again. >I have deprived >neither you nor your contributors of income, since everyone I sold >a copy to could have had a copy for nothing by joining the USENET. >(Note that I'm talking about the electronic version only, not the >"real" illustrated OtherRealms.) Actually, this is a specious argument, simply because while they 'could' have joined USENET, they didn't. You made a reproduction and then sold it to a new audience that wasn't part of the original agreement. That's like taking a CD, making a cassette tape of it and selling the tape and claiming that it isn't a copyright violation because these folks could have gone out and bought a CD player. A second problem is your argument of depriving my contributors of income. Notwithstanding that my contributors don't currently get paid for either edition, your ignoring the fact that copyright violation damages are not only paid on the event, but on the effect of future marketability of the works in question. You'd not only have to prove that you didn't cost them income now, but that you also won't cost them income in the future. >If I get away with this, it means that everything posted to the >net is in the public domain, regardless of any copyright notices >included in the articles, and the argument that everything posted >to the net has an implicit copyright is spurious. Also not true. Why? Because even if you invalidate the copyright on OtherRealms, that doesn't imply that all copyrights are invalid. Or even that a copyright couldn't be written to protect material on USENET assuming that all current copyrights are invalid. Generalizing from a specific case is, at best, dangerous and potentially stupid. For instance, a piece of code with a restriction on non-commercial uses has a much different copyright than OtherRealms. If you tried to sell the code by assuming that its copyright was invalid because mine was (assuming the worst, here) you're in trouble -- because my copyright tries to encourage duplication within reason and is a lot more open to interpretation than the ones on the programs being posted to the net. Copyrights are a in many ways a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't make generalized assumptions without expecting them to come back and bite me later, usually when I least expect it. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Signature quotes? We don't need no stinkin' signature quotes!
tab@mhgya.att.com (Tracey Baker) (02/17/89)
In <25921@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) wrote: >2) by reproducing it on paper, you infringe upon the copyrighted material >in OtherRealms, as opposed with Electronic OtherRealms. The copyright for OR >is non-commercial, electronic forms only. I'm probably going to be sorry I asked this, but I really am curious: what happens if someone has a hardcopy-only terminal? Or if they print a batch of news articles (without reading them first) to read off-line? How about printing an extra copy (or 10,000 :-) for friends who don't have net access? What if the person who prints the stuff doesn't actually read those newsgroups (so they wouldn't know about any electronic-only distribution restrictions)? What if money is charged for those copies (even if it's just the cost of printing and distribution)? -- Tracey Baker att!mhuxu!tab or tab@mhuxu.att.com For some, the sky's the limit... For a unique few, it's just the beginning.
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (02/17/89)
In article <4564@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
: OK, let me take another approach on this. Suppose that I print out
: verbatim copies of every issue of OtherRealms that you've posted,
: make about 10,000 copies of each, and start selling them for $1 each
: at SF Cons. Have I violated your copyright? (I'm assuming that OR
: contains a copyright notice - I don't have any issues on my system to
: look at right now.)
If his copyright does not give you permission to do this, and you
don't get explicit permission, then yes.
: If you sue me for copyright violation, I will argue that, by making
: OR available to an unlimited audience at no cost to them,
: you have effectively put OR into the public domain. I have deprived
: neither you nor your contributors of income, since everyone I sold
: a copy to could have had a copy for nothing by joining the USENET.
: (Note that I'm talking about the electronic version only, not the
: "real" illustrated OtherRealms.)
You will argue in vain. The courts don't give a flying f*ck whether
the audience has to pay. Consider, for example, bulk mailed
advertisements addressed to "occupant". These are mailed to an
indeterminate (not unlimited, Usenet is not unlimited, hah!) audience
and at no charge to them. However, you won't get a court to accept
that that makes the ads public domain. Similarly, you won't get the
courts to accept that being posted to Usenet makes something PD solely
because it was posted.
Usenet is just one more publishing medium.
---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!billmgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/18/89)
In article <25733@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>The last time I talked to a lawyer regarding the (c) and (C) notation I was >>told that it was meaningless; it had no legal value whatsoever. Only the >>word Copyright or the circle-c had any legal meaning. Has this changed? > >I've heard of one case where the '(c)' was upheld. That case set no >precendent and is, last I heard, under appeal. In general, the '(c)' carries >no legal force and means nothing. > >This is especially true on USENET where data flows internationally, so is >under the international agrements instead of the U.S. agreements. The only >terms with any legal standing are 'Copyright' and 'Copr.' [another note: >using the troff equivalent for the c-in-a-circle isn't legally binding, >either, since it's not in the proper representative form.]. > If this is true concerning (c) and (C) then it's going to prove quite interesting, since the circle-C is the required marking for protection under the ICC agreements. A case of "good faith" could be made for the gesture of (C) or (c) to represent circle-C, since the genuine circle-C in ascii files is technically impossible. There also is a common historical use of that gesture, which might carry some weight. (So what do we do in terms of ICC to get recognition of (C) and (c) as "proper representative form?") Re "terms with any legal standing" I'll repeat the use of "All Rights Reserved" is the one used for the Pan-American Copyright Conference protection. If used *alone*, however, it carries no legal weight in the U.S.A.. The word "Copyright" or "Copr." has been the standard for protection within the U.S.A.; the circl-C is required for ICC protection, and using it alone *is* proper form for protection within the U.S.A. *without* the word "Copyright" or "Copr.". --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/18/89)
>>2) by reproducing it on paper, you infringe upon the copyrighted material >>in OtherRealms, as opposed with Electronic OtherRealms. The copyright for OR >>is non-commercial, electronic forms only. > I'm probably going to be sorry I asked this, but I really am curious: what >happens if someone has a hardcopy-only terminal? Or if they print a batch of >news articles (without reading them first) to read off-line? Aw, hell. I *love* copyrights. Everything's so crystal clear..... Let's see if we can't nit-pick this to death and be done with it... I'm going to cover this in two forms: my view of legality and practicality. Legally, if you have hard-copy only, but print it out only so you could read it, it isn't a copyright violation. If you print it out and show it to friends, I also don't think it'd be a violation, since it's still personal use. If you start printing out multiple copies and/or selling the copy, it becomes republication. >How about >printing an extra copy (or 10,000 :-) for friends who don't have net access? legally (again, talking only for OtherRealms): If you give the copy to your friend, it ain't a problem. If you sell it to him (some friend) it is. Somewhere in the term "friends" it becomes a problem it'll become a problem, but exactly where depends a lot on the instance and intent -- definitely more than three and definitely less than "many". Practically (as opposed to legally) none of this matters one whit. The only reasons OtherRealms is copyrighted in the first place is to make sure that my authors rights are protected (and, to be honest, mine as well). They have a right to be sure their stuff doesn't fall into the public domain and get ripped off. My copyright is pretty explicit about this: I don't particularly care about copies (I *like* OtherRealms being passed around and read) as long as the following restrictions are maintained: 1) articles aren't being reprinted in another publication. (why? it should be obvious. You can't republish things you don't have the rights to) 2) The copyright notices, author credits and publication credits are kept on the material (why? the first to make sure this stuff doesn't fall into the public domain. The author gets the credit, since he's the author. And the publication credits are because I got tired of having people catch me at conventions coming up and saying "You publish OtherRealms! I've seen four issues, but none of them had any information on how to contact you!" -- THAT's why things like my net and U.S. mail addresses are important. You may not need them, but the person who gets a copy from the person you pass it on to does....) From a purely practical basis, if you treat the material fairly and decently, I'm not going to get upset. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Signature quotes? We don't need no stinkin' signature quotes!
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/19/89)
In article <25921@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>OK, let me take another approach on this. Suppose that I print out >>verbatim copies of every issue of OtherRealms that you've posted, >>make about 10,000 copies of each, and start selling them for $1 each >>at SF Cons. Have I violated your copyright? > >Yes, you have. Fairly blatantly. Allow me to explain, yer Honor: By making OR available to an effectively unlimited audience at no charge, Mr. von R. has, for all practical purposes put the electronic version of OR in the public domain. Since it was clearly his intent to make E-OR available to anyone who wanted it at no charge, I have simply assisted him in doing so, and done it in a way which more efficiently reaches the audience whom Mr. von R. wishes to reach, science fiction fans. >>If you sue me for copyright violation, I will argue that, by making >>OR available to an unlimited audience at no cost to them, >>you have effectively put OR into the public domain. > >There are a number of tacks I could take to rebut this: > >1) you violate the non-commercial restriction of the copyright. If you >*gave* them away instead of sold them, you could avoid this. They sell disks full of public domain/copylefted software all over the place. "Recovering reproduction costs." Is uunet violating your copyright by charging me when I receive OR? >2) by reproducing it on paper, you infringe upon the copyrighted material >in OtherRealms, as opposed with Electronic OtherRealms. The copyright for OR >is non-commercial, electronic forms only. It is a verbatim transcript of E-OR - it lacks the artwork, formatting etc. of print OR. I argue that E-OR, and E-OR only, has effectively been put in the public domain. OR and E-OR are separate issues. Since anyone who wants it can get E-OR for free, it is the artwork and formatting, as well as to-your-door delivery that is being sold in OR. >3) I could also argue that you are violating the individual copyrights owned >by the contributors, since what you are doing is a reprint of the original >issue, and you don't have reprint permission since those rights belong to >the authors. Nope, sorry. You're the one who put it in the public domain, not me. If your authors feel their copyrights have been violated, you're the one they should sue, not me. >What I'm most likely to do, however, is: [at this point, Chuq loses track of the topic a bit and starts discussing how he would avenge himself. Irrelevant, since all this is purely hypothetical.] Chuq, first of all, I don't want you to pull OR off the net. I like it, and I appreciate the service you're providing. However, you've portrayed yourself as the resident expert on the copyright of posted material, so I've used your magazine as my example in this argument. Perhaps I've used the Socratic method poorly. So... There seem to be two schools of thought on the net: either everything posted to the net is public domain, or everything posted to the net is copyrighted. I believe that the most likely resolution would be something between these two - postings are "intellectual property" and so are copyrighted, but because of the mechanism of transmission, certain aspects of normal copyright protection are given up. Copyrights are intended to serve two purposes - 1) to provide proper attribution of authorship and 2) to ensure that the author receives payment for the use of his work. I strongly suspect that the second set of protections - the royalty aspect - is implicitly sacrificed through posting to the net. I think it could be successfully argued that since the author has made the work available at no charge to an effectively unlimited audience (variously estimated at between 500,000 and 1.5 million people, last I heard), the author has for all practical purposes renounced any intention of making commercial use of the work. If so, any reproduction of the work (including for sale) would be legal, as long as proper attribution was included. This argument would fail if Usenet were legally considered to be a common carrier, as Chuq has contended. I think the argument for this is shaky. How do you justify common carrier status when every receiving site automatically makes a permanent copy of everything it receives? Common carrier status applies to things like the Post Office, telephone companies, etc.. It allows them to transmit information without being held liable for the content of what they transmit. Usenet is not merely a transmission medium, it is also a storage medium. Usenet news is not point-to-point delivery, it is broadcast. For email, the net might be considered a common carrier, but for news? DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not studying to be a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. I'm just a concerned citizen - very concerned since I was recently accused of violating someone's copyright in something I posted. It turned out to be a misunderstanding, and everything's OK now, but it's only a matter of time before something happens that results in litigation. (Some of you may recall that a while back, weemba found out that something he had posted to the net had been published in a newsletter by some high IQ society without, as I recall, attributing it to him. He was somewhat incensed but didn't take it to court.) -- Dave Mack
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/20/89)
In article <4564@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <25731@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> Common carrier status is the most >>likely format for USENET, since otherwise that would imply that every site >>had to approve every article before forwarding to protect itself legally -- >>not close to practical. > >I'm not sure that a "practicality" argument would bear much weight in >court. It's clearly desireable to have USENET considered a common carrier, >but if a court someday decides that it isn't... > Then perhaps legislation should be proposed to specifically give USENET and similar networks such common carrier status. (But what would be the "fallout" from that? Control by some kind of Public Service Commission, eh? Beats me; any ideas?) --Mark Gresham +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark Gresham ARTSNET Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/20/89)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "common carrier" status an official status that is given by a regulating body (like the FCC in the USA or the CRTC in Canada), and doesn't it result in the carrier having to follow a whole set of regulations. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that to get common carrier status, a net has to exist. Usenet has no legal existence. At best, each individual site could apply for common carrier status. And believe me, I don't think they want to. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/21/89)
In article <388@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <4564@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >: If you sue me for copyright violation, I will argue that, by making >: OR available to an unlimited audience at no cost to them, >: you have effectively put OR into the public domain. I have deprived >: neither you nor your contributors of income, since everyone I sold >: a copy to could have had a copy for nothing by joining the USENET. >: (Note that I'm talking about the electronic version only, not the >: "real" illustrated OtherRealms.) > >You will argue in vain. The courts don't give a flying f*ck whether >the audience has to pay. Consider, for example, bulk mailed >advertisements addressed to "occupant". These are mailed to an >indeterminate (not unlimited, Usenet is not unlimited, hah!) audience >and at no charge to them. However, you won't get a court to accept >that that makes the ads public domain. Similarly, you won't get the >courts to accept that being posted to Usenet makes something PD solely >because it was posted. > >Usenet is just one more publishing medium. I doubt it. Copying is inherent in the propagation of Usenet news. By posting, you are essentially giving permission to make an unlimited number of copies of your work. In publication (and in the analogy you give above), the publisher decides how many copies to create, creates and distributes them. On the net, the author creates a single copy and allows every site on the net to make copies - as many as they want, in the form of backups or whatever. He has no control over how many receive people copies or who they are. When Chuq creates a copy of the "real" OtherRealms, he has N copies made and mailed out. He controls the duplication and distribution. Neither is true in the case of the electronic version. Usenet more closely resembles a broadcast medium than a publishing medium, but there's still the problem of the automatic creation of static copies at every receiving site. -- Dave Mack
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/22/89)
It's important to note that none of us are lawyers, and we don't even play one on TV. And that reminds me of an excellent proof that stuff posted to the net is not effectively PD if it has a copyright message on it. TV stations are *not* common carriers, although they are licenced and regulated. They broadcast their programs to a potentially unlimited audience. More unlimited even than usenet. The programs are fully protected by copyright and remain so. People who get them can tape them for private use, to watch later. But that's it. (Most TV stations don't mind retransmission of their signal as long as the commercials go along with it, of course. Just try to retransmit a broadcast program subbing in your own commercials, and you'll see that the copyright is very much in force.) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/22/89)
In article <2787@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >For one thing, I'm pretty sure that to get common carrier status, a >net has to exist. Usenet has no legal existence. > Does anyone else find it curious that someone is laying legal claims to compilation copyrights within an entity that has no legal existence? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark Gresham ARTSNET Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dwtamkin@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) (02/22/89)
In <2799@looking.UUCP> Brad Templeton wrote: | TV stations are *not* common carriers, although they are licenced and | regulated. They broadcast their programs to a potentially unlimited | audience. More unlimited even than usenet. | The programs are fully protected by copyright and remain so. People who | get them can tape them for private use, to watch later. But that's it. Individual television programs are under copyright by their production companies or perhaps occasionally by their distributors or syndicators. I've yet to see any station or network claim a compilation copyright on its aggregate schedule, neither at sign on nor at sign off nor when they used to announce their NAB membership. "Today's broadcast schedule is copyright (c) 1989, KCUF Television, All Rights Reserved." Do stations or networks claim compilation copyrights? David W. Tamkin Post Office Box 567542 Norridge, Illinois 60656-7542 dwtamkin@chinet.chi.il.us CIS: 73720,1570 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN Anyone on Chinet who agrees with me is welcome to speak up on his or her own.
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/23/89)
In article <117@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: )In article <2787@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: )>For one thing, I'm pretty sure that to get common carrier status, a )>net has to exist. Usenet has no legal existence. )Does anyone else find it curious that someone is laying legal )claims to compilation copyrights within an entity that has no legal )existence? Nope. The "Publishing Industry" has no legal existance, yet produces copyrighted output. "Radio" has no legal existance, (You can't sue "Radio") yet it produces copyrighted output. "TV"... You get the idea. -- Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure. SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (02/23/89)
In article <2958@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > By making OR available to an effectively unlimited audience at no > charge, Mr. von R. has, for all practical purposes put the electronic > version of OR in the public domain. No. He has not given up any of his rights. The work is still copyrighted (copywritten?). It is not in the public domain. > I think > it could be successfully argued that since the author has made the > work available at no charge to an effectively unlimited audience > (variously estimated at between 500,000 and 1.5 million people, last > I heard), the author has for all practical purposes renounced any > intention of making commercial use of the work. If so, any reproduction > of the work (including for sale) would be legal, as long as proper > attribution was included. Just because he has decided not to exercise his right to make commercial use of the work does not mean he has given up that right. And in no way does it mean that you inherit his right. As a counter-example to your way of thinking look at the GNU distribution. The GNU stuff is freely distributed to an effectively unlimited audience. Does this make it public domain? No way. Try taking the GNU distribution and selling it commercially. You'll end up with the FSF's lawyers taking big, bleeding bites out of your behind. Do us all a favor and go read about copyright law a little before you continue spouting noise to the net. > Dave Mack Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy Hey Richard! Did I do it right?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/23/89)
In article <6580@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > Nope. The "Publishing Industry" has no legal existance, yet > produces copyrighted output. "Radio" has no legal existance, (You can't > sue "Radio") yet it produces copyrighted output. "TV"... You get the > idea. Aha! I've wondered what the net is... It's a broadcasting medium. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` People have opinions. Companies have policy. And typos are my own business.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/23/89)
In article <3173@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva writes: > > Aha! > I've wondered what the net is... > It's a broadcasting medium. Are you sure, Peter? I mean, what is the *legal* difference between a broadcasting medium and a narrowcasting medium? Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- IN CASE OF EMERGENCY EVACUATION, REMEMBER THE TIME-HONORED RULE: WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND TECH AIDES FIRST.
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/24/89)
In article <2958@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >There seem to be two schools of thought on the net: either >everything posted to the net is public domain, or everything >posted to the net is copyrighted. > >I believe that the most likely resolution would be something >between these two - postings are "intellectual property" and >so are copyrighted, but because of the mechanism of transmission, >certain aspects of normal copyright protection are given up. > Dave's right in that it's not just an "either/or" issue. We're dealing with huge gray areas. That's why I'm amused when people get furious that I ask, "Ok, how are you going to explain and justify your copyright claim?" And I mean explaining it to people who are not specialists in the field -- be it computer technology, music, literature, or whatnot. Usually I get expressions of frustration followed by something like, "Well, I just KNOW it's protected. Anyone who REALLY KNOWS the work knows what goes into it!" That's a *frequent* reaction. But say you're talking to a judge and jury that doesn't know beans about computers, software, or networks, much less Usenet. Convince *them*. Telling them they're morons because they're not privy to the technology is not going to get you very far; especially while your legal opponent makes simple, lucid arguments against your case. --Mark Gresham +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark Gresham ARTSNET Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jgreely@diplodocus.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (02/24/89)
In article <3175@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Are you sure, Peter? I mean, what is the *legal* difference between >a broadcasting medium and a narrowcasting medium? Simple. A broadcasting medium discriminates against women. "No, no, he's still breathing. See how the blood bubbles out of his nose?" -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely) The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Sciences
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/24/89)
No, the net is actually a "narrow"casting cooperative, if you want to use that word. It's like a network of cable companies that feed back and forth, and let their subscribers exchange programs. Unlike cable companies, the nobody claims any sort of "natural monopoly" exists in this sort of thing (yet) so the net is not regulated, but otherwise it is like the cable companies. And yes, there is a thing called "cable," and it's full of copyrighted (and some non-copyrighted & freely distributable stuff) but you can't sue "cable." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/25/89)
In article <2514@ssc-vax.UUCP> coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) whines: >In article <2958@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >> By making OR available to an effectively unlimited audience at no >> charge, Mr. von R. has, for all practical purposes put the electronic >> version of OR in the public domain. > >No. He has not given up any of his rights. The work is still >copyrighted (copywritten?). It is not in the public domain. As has been pointed out previously, the actual protection provided by the copyright laws depends not only on the presence of a copyright notice in the work, but on the manner in which the author/publisher distributes the work. By posting a work to the net, an author is effectively saying, "This is my intellectual property but you have my permission to make as many copies as you want. You can send it to other machines on the net, and they can send it to still other machines. Users on your machine may store copies of this work and you may make backup and archive copies. You may print copies of this work and mail them to your grandparents, or use them as toilet paper." While this is not really public domain, it is clear that it is not fully protected by the included copyright notice. Nor is it clearly "copylefted". The question is, what rights have been sacrificed and which are retained? At this point, no one (and least of all you) knows the answer to that. >> I think >> it could be successfully argued that since the author has made the >> work available at no charge to an effectively unlimited audience >> (variously estimated at between 500,000 and 1.5 million people, last >> I heard), the author has for all practical purposes renounced any >> intention of making commercial use of the work. If so, any reproduction >> of the work (including for sale) would be legal, as long as proper >> attribution was included. > >Just because he has decided not to exercise his right to make >commercial use of the work does not mean he has given up that right. >And in no way does it mean that you inherit his right. It is not merely that he hasn't made commercial use that is at issue here, it's also the fact that he has given implicit permission to copy. >As a counter-example to your way of thinking look at the GNU >distribution. The GNU stuff is freely distributed to an effectively >unlimited audience. Does this make it public domain? No way. Try >taking the GNU distribution and selling it commercially. You'll end >up with the FSF's lawyers taking big, bleeding bites out of your >behind. The FSF stuff is "copylefted", and the legal validity of that notice has never been tested. It is some lawyer's opinion on what statement of contract would ensure the obligations that Richard Stallman wants associated FSF's software. It is quite possible that a judge would throw copyleft out as not being legally binding. The fact that the FSF software contains a copyleft notice does not make it law. >Do us all a favor and go read about copyright law a little before >you continue spouting noise to the net. Do us all a favor and stop parading your uninformed opinions as wisdom. I've thrown up a few strawmen for people to shoot at, and the resulting dialogue has been occasionally interesting, but the main result has been a consensus that nothing will be definite until a court rules on these issues. That day will come eventually. -- Copyright 1989 David W. Mack. All Rights Reserved in the United States and maybe some other parts of the world. Right to transmit and copy this work is granted, provided that you agree to distribute it as widely as possible. If you fail to provide copies of this work to everyone you know and everyone you meet in the next thirty days, you will be in violation of this copyright and I will sue your ass off. :-}
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/26/89)
In article <6580@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >In article <117@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >)In article <2787@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >)>For one thing, I'm pretty sure that to get common carrier status, a >)>net has to exist. Usenet has no legal existence. > >)Does anyone else find it curious that someone is laying legal >)claims to compilation copyrights within an entity that has no legal ^^^^^^ >)existence? > > Nope. The "Publishing Industry" has no legal existance, yet >produces copyrighted output. "Radio" has no legal existance, (You can't >sue "Radio") yet it produces copyrighted output. "TV"... You get the >idea. > As Brad has pointed out to me, that (within) was poorly phrased and not clear; it didn't convey what I was trying to get across. Needless to say, the above response at first seems quite true in terms of comparing "Publishing Industry", "Radio", and "TV" with, lets say, "Computer Networking" in general re what my question appeared to be asking. But give it a bit of thought and see if there aren't some things that don't really jive. "Print Publishing (Industry)", "Radio", "TV", and "Computer Networking" are all "kinds" of communications/transfers of information, they are not entities, legal or not. ("Industry" is a red herring word here.) "Print Publishing Industry", "Broadcast Industry", "Computer Networking Industry" are all terms encompassing anyone/everyone whose business participates in some way in the manner of the various "kinds" mentioned above. They are entities in the broadest sense; they are not "particular" entities, but terms that we need to encompass a "complete set of all..." whatever. They don't "produce copyrighted works" -- entities that function within them produce copyrighted works. (No, I don't think you'll find (C)1989 The Publishing Industry.) As for: >"Radio" has no legal existance, (you can't sue "Radio") ...or any of those "Industries" -- DON'T BET ON IT! The fact is that the "Record Industry" *has* been sued, and lost. Yes, I said "THE RECORD INDUSTRY." The whole thing. One result was the establishment of the Music Performance Trust Fund by U.S. federal court, a fund to which *all* record companies must contribute based on a formula established by the court. There are other examples of this kind available. I also submit that Usenet is a more *particular* entity than "The Computer Networking Industry." It exhibits manners of operation that are not necessarily reflective of the "Computer Networking Industry" as a whole; they are not one and the same -- there is networking going on outside of Usenet, after all. :-) So the notion of equating Usenet to one of the "omni-Indutries" is a bit off, I think. --Mark Gresham +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark Gresham ARTSNET Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/28/89)
Dave, You are so far out into left field it's silly. Why don't you do us all a favor and be quiet until you have some understanding about what you're trying to talk about? >By posting a work to the net, an author is >effectively saying, "This is my intellectual property but you have >my permission to make as many copies as you want. You can send it >to other machines on the net, and they can send it to still other >machines. Users on your machine may store copies of this work and >you may make backup and archive copies. You may print copies of >this work and mail them to your grandparents, or use them as >toilet paper." If you ever try to go into court and talk about implied intent, they're going to laugh you out of the state. *You* may think this is the intent, but I'll thank you to quit putting words into my mouth. The intent of distributing OtherRealms is the same as the copyright notice. No more, no less. What you're blathering about has nothing to do with reality or law. What it *is* is what you want reality and law to be, because you feel that this flavor of reality is more to your advantage. My *only* worry in all this is that someone might actually believe what you say. Otherwise, I'd just let you mutter to yourself. This discussion has lost any basis in reality or usefulness, so I'm shutting up, but I couldn't let it drop without pointing out just how stupid this whole thing is. >>As a counter-example to your way of thinking look at the GNU >>distribution. The GNU stuff is freely distributed to an effectively >>unlimited audience. Does this make it public domain? No way. Try >>taking the GNU distribution and selling it commercially. You'll end >>up with the FSF's lawyers taking big, bleeding bites out of your >>behind. It depends on who you talk to. I've seen opinions from three corporate legal staffs and a copyright lawyer that the GNU copyleft is not only legally unenforcable but isn't a legal restriction in force of law in and sense of the word. It is, at best, a moral manifesto, not a legal document or set of legal restrictions. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Signature quotes? We don't need no stinkin' signature quotes!