phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/08/89)
In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: | |This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in |the public domain, DON'T POST IT. I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. You've just helped me decide not to bother. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "In Texas, they run the red light after it turns red." "In Taiwan, they run the red light before it turns green."
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (02/08/89)
In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >| >|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in >|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. > >I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, >useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. > >You've just helped me decide not to bother. This disturbs me. It doesn't disturb me because Phil doesn't want to urge his organization to share some software, but because I got an eerie feeling about a similar decision I reached some time back. John says that is it appears on usenet, it's public domain. That may be true as a practical matter but not in point of fact. Any number of things have been posted that were specifically _not_ public domain, said so in the preamble. I'm disturbed with John's statement (generously paraphrased, the original is above) "you put it here, we own it, or else" and Phil's reaction (ditto) "Oh, in that case, we'll not share what we had planned to share". Further, I'm disturbed with the mood I feel on the net, as evidenced by my paraphrase of the above. The eerie feeling I mentioned I got while thinking about a nifty little gadget I wrote, use, and like. Phil won't post his because John says he loses any rights he might want to retain. Bob Webber did post his and got soundly flamed because the presentation/technique didn't meet someone elses standards of usa/porta/bility. OK, I'm a hopeless romantic, but I remember when this was a cooperative forum in which people could post problems and get help; share ideas and get attribution; express opinions and get discussion. I'll not forecast the imminent death of the net, but it seems that the pugnacious nature of the current mood has persisted far longer than usual. Frankly, I'm intimidated by the current mood, I don't think I should post anything of substance (in which this article does not pretend to qualify) lest I be beaten against the wall by hoardes who think that nihilism is the order of the day. What happened to common courtesy? It left popular urban society long ago. Is that what made it leave the net? As much screeching as we do about autonomy and freedom, it makes sense (to me) that people should not be discouraged from posting something they think is useful. Followups are directed to poster (me) because this discussion has precious little to do with news administration. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
mark@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (02/09/89)
In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >| >|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in >|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. This is blatently wrong. There are a number of people on the net which have posted copyrighted source to the net, including myself. The copyright includes permission to copy the software freely for non-profit use, or whatever restrictions you wish to add. Take a look at comp.os.minix. The stuff in there is definitely NOT public domain. It is all copyrighted, and protected by US copyright laws. Take a look at flex, the sources to news 2.11, and others. >I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, >useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. > >You've just helped me decide not to bother. If you have something useful and free, then you should post it. It is this kind of empathy that keeps the net running and useful for all of us. -- Mark H. Colburn "Look into a child's eye; Minnetech Consulting, Inc. there's no hate and there's no lie; mark@jhereg.mn.org there's no black and there's no white."
dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (02/09/89)
>In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in >|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, >useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. >You've just helped me decide not to bother. Phil, Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong. (The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; but I have no evidence that John doesn't know the difference.) MUCH discussion in the "sources" and "legal" groups seems to support the notion that a posting with a proper copyright notice is simply another form of publication; it in no way places the published material in the public domain. I've posted my own copyrighted stuff, and not feared for its fate. Stuff that's copyrighted and NOT "freely copyable" probably shouldn't be posted, but I assume that's not what you're talking about. Just be sure your posting contains: - A statement that it's copyrighted. - A statement of the conditions for copying, reposting, modifying, etc. - A statement that the original copyright notice MUST accompany any distribution of your work or its derivatives. If you doubt it, just look at what gets posted in groups like comp.sources.misc or comp.binaries.ibm.pc. And note that when someone inadvertently posts something that shouldn't have been, the net community gets on him/her pretty quickly. Perhaps the net IS "public domain", whatever that means. To the same extent, so is the public library. But that doesn't place everything there in the public domain; it just makes it available to the public. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
fmayhar@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Frank Mayhar) (02/09/89)
In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in >|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. >I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, >useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. >You've just helped me decide not to bother. Fortunately for Richard Stallman, AT&T, and others like them, software posted to the net does NOT automatically become public domain. If a copyright notice is attached, there should be no problem. For a good example of this, see the Gnu Emacs distribution. (I mention AT&T because of the mistaken posting of YACC [their proprietary software], some time ago.) My advice to John DeArmond: Look before you leap. -- Frank Mayhar UUCP: fmayhar@killer.dallas.tx.us ARPA: Frank-Mayhar%ladc@bco-multics.hbi.honeywell.com USmail: 2116 Nelson Ave. Apt A, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Phone: (213) 371-3979 (home) (213) 216-6241 (work)
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/09/89)
In article <1139@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >>In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >>| >>|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in >>|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. >> >>I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, >>useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. >> >>You've just helped me decide not to bother. > >This disturbs me. It doesn't disturb me because Phil doesn't want to urge >his organization to share some software, but because I got an eerie feeling >about a similar decision I reached some time back. John says that is it >appears on usenet, it's public domain. That may be true as a practical >matter but not in point of fact. Any number of things have been posted that >were specifically _not_ public domain, said so in the preamble. > >I'm disturbed with John's statement (generously paraphrased, the original is >above) "you put it here, we own it, or else" and Phil's reaction (ditto) >"Oh, in that case, we'll not share what we had planned to share". Further, >I'm disturbed with the mood I feel on the net, as evidenced by my paraphrase >of the above. The eerie feeling I mentioned I got while thinking about a >nifty little gadget I wrote, use, and like. Phil won't post his because >John says he loses any rights he might want to retain. Bob Webber did post >his and got soundly flamed because the presentation/technique didn't meet >someone elses standards of usa/porta/bility. > >OK, I'm a hopeless romantic, but I remember when this was a cooperative >forum in which people could post problems and get help; share ideas and >get attribution; express opinions and get discussion. I'll not forecast >the imminent death of the net, but it seems that the pugnacious nature of >the current mood has persisted far longer than usual. Frankly, I'm >intimidated by the current mood, I don't think I should post anything of >substance (in which this article does not pretend to qualify) lest I be >beaten against the wall by hoardes who think that nihilism is the order >of the day. What happened to common courtesy? It left popular urban >society long ago. Is that what made it leave the net? As much screeching >as we do about autonomy and freedom, it makes sense (to me) that people >should not be discouraged from posting something they think is useful. > >-- >Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill > internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Bill, I'm afraid it has a bunch to do with the administration of this net. First, paraphrasing someone generally gets flame wars started. I'm not afraid to defend what I said. I don't need your help in paraphrasing. As a veteran of the legal wars - having prosecuted a total of 4 lawsuits, 2 of them major, and one involving intellectual property - I have some experiences and opinions that are fairly unique among the pseudo-lawyers on the net. As an ex-employee once said, "in a lawsuit, there are 2 winners and 2 loosers. You and your opponent are gonna be the loosers" Very true. I never cease to be amazed at the level of ignorance of the copyright laws displayed by the group on the network - a group supposed to be at least a bit literate on these subjects. I'd suggest anyone wanting to be taken the least bit seriously regarding copyright law to study the law AND caselaw - what little exists - and consult a copyright lawyer. You do others similarly uninformed a great disservice with your unfounded pronouncements. Funny, Brad and I are (have been) in very similiar professional situations. The difference is I sold my company to get away from the stress of running a software company. (Brad owns Looking Glass Software, for those of you just tuning in) I'm afraid that the same hardheadedness that makes a good CEO simply makes enemies on this network where operating practice and rules are governed by agreement and concensus. Brad MAY be technically correct regarding compilation copyrights but I doubt it. I've found that most judges apply a reasonableness test to any arguement, especially when a technicality is attempting to be used against an opponent. I really cannot imagine getting up in front of a judge and trying to explain the reasonablness of a claim that i have a copyright on a collection of things written by others and posted to a public network. This is almost a contradiction in terms. I SURE cannot imagine defending this line under cross examination from the opposition. To address the issue a bit more globally, does anyone really think that he retains any real (as opposed to theoretical) control over anything posted to a public network like Usenet? The reality is that anything posted to this net will be received by thousands of people, read by thousands, copied by thousands, and used by thousands. In many cases, "use" will involve exerpting or copying in total, the end result being material gain to the copier. I daresay there is not a truthful person on this net who can say that at some time they have not used someone elses' so-called intellectual property for their own purposes. I'd guarantee no programmer can. We all build on work done by others and hopefully we in turn contribute back to the public domain. Let's consider the case for a moment, of the one instance of someone trying to prosecute alledged copying of code released to the public - the famous ARC wars between PK and SEA. SEA published an archiving utility based on a long algorithmic evolution. SEA released the source to the public. (so good so far). PK allegedly took this code, modified it to enhance its performance and rereleased it as beg-ware. SEA got into a snit and sued. But let's look at the result. PK, lacking resources to fight, capitulated and gave in to SEA's onslaught. SEA won, right? WRONGO!! Public opinion was so opposed to what SEA did that SEA was damaged, perhaps fatally. Many sites, this one included, have banned SEA products. Most BBS ops have flushed SEA's products, including those unrelated to the ARC war. Meanwhile, most people have gone over to ZOO (thanks Rauhl), PAK or are waiting for PK's new ZIP product. So who was the winner. Well, obviously the lawyers. Who lost - both of them and us, the users. Who REALLY lost? SEA. While SEA possibly had a thread of legal basis for suit, the exercise of that basis so incensed the public that most people will never have anything to do with SEA or its products. So let's pull this back to the Usenet. Anything posted to this network is defacto public domain regardless of the poster's statement to the contrary. This network is run and financed by a combination of public and private money, is governed by a concensus opinion of those who care enough to participate, and is here for the mutual benefit of everybody. The problem posed by people like Brad asserting some godly right of control is that to the backbones and system administrators, it raises the spectre of a bunch of maddog crazed lawyers running amok against the network. This possibility layered on top of the increasing load from the influx of new users and the increasing noise-to-signal ratio of postings and the possibility of more worms A LA RTM is enough to cause many to pull the plug on the net. Our site is an example. We have to weigh the benefit of the net to our *commercial* goals against the risks. This balance has tipped perilously close to the negative. we've been able so far to assuage the worries of upper management vis a vie our exposure vs benefits. We're probably more liberal in this area than most. So to those of you like Bill or Phil Agai who feel some commercial exposure by posting your latest utility or algorithm, I can only suggest that you NOT POST IT. I'd hope that in the interest of fair play you would scrupulously avoid TAKING anything back from the net. and who knows, your little ditty may take off like Lotus. At the opposite end of the spectrum, I hope that we at ST can be an example of model net.citizens. Consider X-Windows as an example. We are very close to releasing a commercial product based on X. The exercize of taking an academic experiment and making a commercially sound product has cost thousands and has pretty much drained the team members. We obviously benefited from the advise and code available from the network. And we consider X to give us a pretty good advantage over our competition. Be that as it may, we are freely sharing our experiences and code fixes with anyone on the network interested enough to read the newsgroup or email questions. (Don't ask me any details - it's not my project :-) So does this help our competitors? Possibly. Does it matter enough to keep this knowledge to ourselves? Nope. We realize we will always be one step ahead of anyone who really needs the advise we dispense here. So in closing, I can only say that perhaps a reality check is in order for Brad and those who support his position on this copyright drivel. Brad, you know that the network will support you in your fight against the idiots and facists. We will support you morally and financially. If you want to lob a few lawyers toward JEDR, U of Waterloo, Sanford or the media, let us know. we'll send bucks and generate massive negative publicity for the perpitrators. At the same time, we will not allow you or any other person jepardize this very valuable resource. Please - drop you copyright dribble and go back to doing what you do well - spreading mirth across net.land. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/09/89)
In article <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes: > >Phil, >Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong. >(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public >domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; but I have no >evidence that John doesn't know the difference.) > Hardly "ranting" sir. There is no such legal definition of the term "frely distributable copyrighted stuff" I have a great deal of very expensive and hard won experience on this subject. Rather than waste net.bandwidth, I'll vector interested parties to net.admin for support of this statement. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/09/89)
This paragraph is so good that I just *have* to excerpt it. The
original article was pretty long and probably lots of people are already
'n'ing the subject.
In article <3025@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
Be that as it may, we are freely sharing our experiences and code fixes
with anyone on the network interested enough to read the newsgroup or
email questions. (Don't ask me any details - it's not my project :-)
So does this help our competitors? Possibly. Does it matter enough
to keep this knowledge to ourselves? Nope. We realize we will always
be one step ahead of anyone who really needs the advise we dispense here.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
If you can, help others.
If you can't, at least don't hurt others--the Dalai Lamadmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (02/09/89)
>In article <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (that's me) writes: >>Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong. >>(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public >>domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; but I have no >>evidence that John doesn't know the difference.) In article <3028@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >Hardly "ranting" sir. There is no such legal definition of the term >"frely distributable copyrighted stuff" I have a great deal of >very expensive and hard won experience on this subject. Rather >than waste net.bandwidth, I'll vector interested parties to >net.admin for support of this statement. Let me encourage anyone who's following this discussion to read John's thoughtful note in news.admin (NOT net.admin), message <3025@stiatl.UUCP>. In it, he points out a number of practical difficulties of depending on the copyright laws to protect your rights. And yes, he's right that there's no legal definition of "freely- distributable copyrighted stuff". So why don't I feel chastised? Because there IS a legal definition of "public domain", and I responded to John's use of that term to characterize everything on the net. After reading his posting, I'd like to point out that there exists: 1- Public domain software, which belongs to nobody (not even its author has any special rights). 2- Commercial software, whose owners intend to do what is necessary to make a buck selling it. 3- Copyrighted software, whose owners don't charge for it but want to retain "control" of some sort. (E.g.- make sure my name stays attached, or make sure nobody calls me with bug reports of bugs introduced by someone else.) This is what I meant by "freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; it's not a legal definition, but I don't see why I need one now. Most of John's comments address type 2. I agree with them (including the implication that shareware authors are unduly optimistic about their rights). (John, I hope that paraphrase doesn't start a flame war.) But that wasn't what I had in mind; John's comments equated type 1 and type 3. Legally, they are quite distinct. Practically, (as John points out) they are not as distinct in the face of unprincipled others; only the lawyers win. To address this, I need again to fall back on the analogy of the public library. Books in the library, by and large, bear copyrights. However, it's easy for an unprincipled cardholder to abuse the copyrights for private use (i.e.-treat the books as if they were public domain). The law is clear, but only the lawyer will win in any attempt to enforce it. In the face of this, public libraries DO IN FACT WORK; there are abuses, but they aren't sufficiently prevalent to destroy the system. I continue to feel the analogy between the net and the public library is a good one. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/14/89)
In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: )In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: )|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in )|the public domain, DON'T POST IT. )I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free, )useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. )You've just helped me decide not to bother. )Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil I hope that subsequent postings have caused you to reconsider. -- 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.
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (02/14/89)
The idea that things that are posted become public domain has been
adequately refuted. I want to respond to the attitude that leads
people on the net to make this type of statement by pointing to some
experience in a rather different area.
Conclusions first. Attractive as the idea of freely distributed
information is, the protection of intellectual property rights through
copyrights and related legal mechanisms is an unavoidable minor evil.
That doesn't mean that rantings like this require that sort of
protection, but things of potential value do require it. Rhf is an
example of something which requires that kind of protection.
Now the example. Back in the dark past -- in the 1950's -- just as
folk music was becoming popular there was a strong feeling that "folk
music" should not be copyrighted or in other ways restricted. This
kind of protection was "against the folk tradition". Various folk had
taken songs and melodies from the folk tradition and so protected
them. They then wouldn't let other people duplicate these songs and
otherwise restricted their use. They even collected royalties when
the songs were performed. Those people were *BAD PEOPLE*!
A good friend of mine was one of the strong supporters of the "folk
tradition". Not only that, he was a contributor to that tradition.
One of the things that he did was write a very beautiful tune to an
old traditional ballad for which there was no known tune. He didn't
protect his work. Other folk singers picked up this song. Some of
the more commercial ones recorded it, protected their "arrangement" of
the song and made money from it. No mention was ever made of the real
author of the tune.
Now, some 20 years later, the real author of the tune is usually
mentioned in the fine print. I doubt that he is really bothered by
the money that he might or might not have made. But the credit for
the creative effort that should have gone to him was for the most part
lost.
Folk music is now routinely protected. The idealistic belief in the
folk tradition just didn't work. Folk music hasn't been hurt by this
change. It keeps the good guys from being ripped off by the bad guys.
The net has grown to the point where "tradition" doesn't provide
adequate protection any more. People will take action to protect
their intellectual property so they aren't stolen blind. The net will
survive. There may be some bad moments like the recent ones
surrounding Brad's claims. But they will get worked out.
It was just another one of those predictions of the death of the net.
--
Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@ccnysci City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.bitnet New York, NY 10031
(212)690-6868keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/14/89)
|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in |the public domain, DON'T POST IT. And... Books in the Public (there's that heinous P-word again) Library are available for "free" so if you don't want your book in the public domain, don't publish it!! kEITH (seems like a logical extension to me) eRICSON
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/18/89)
In article <1262@ccnysci.UUCP> dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) writes: >Now the example. Back in the dark past -- in the 1950's -- just as >folk music was becoming popular there was a strong feeling that "folk >music" should not be copyrighted or in other ways restricted. This >kind of protection was "against the folk tradition". Various folk had >taken songs and melodies from the folk tradition and so protected >them. They then wouldn't let other people duplicate these songs and >otherwise restricted their use. They even collected royalties when >the songs were performed. Those people were *BAD PEOPLE*! > >A good friend of mine was one of the strong supporters of the "folk >tradition". Not only that, he was a contributor to that tradition. >One of the things that he did was write a very beautiful tune to an >old traditional ballad for which there was no known tune. He didn't >protect his work. Other folk singers picked up this song. Some of >the more commercial ones recorded it, protected their "arrangement" of >the song and made money from it. No mention was ever made of the real >author of the tune. > Since this analogy is in my ballpark, I really feel I have to respond. There are some things that need to clarified, and then I'll give my own example. First, there was a statement concerning aversion to copyrighting material taken "from the folk tradition". Then a statement concerning a "contributor" to that tradition who "wrote a very beautiful tune" to some words from the folk tradition. There are two *very* different things going on here. (And I think these are important to the discussion, even though the analogy is music.) 1) The aversion to copyrighting clearly public domain material from the folk traditions is valid. Arrangements of music are quite copyrightable, but there is a wide range of "significant creative input" that can occur in the process of that arranging. For a "high end" example, consider the choral arrangements of Robert Shaw and Alice Parker of a number of hymns and spirituals of the "folk tradition". The original materials (tune, text) are clearly in the public domain. The arrangements, however, not only demonstrate significant original creative input, but are also clearly not within the scope of how those public domain sources would ever be presented within the confines of the *commonly known and practiced craft, manner, and skills* of the "folk traditions" from whence they came. These factors demand copyright to protect the original creative work of the arrangers. On the "low end" side, an "arrangement" may simply consist of an individual's personal manner of performance, though well within the *commonly known and practiced craft, manner, and skills* of the traditions from which the public domain material was drawn. Copyright, in this case, could be *claimed*, but the claim may not be valid. (You can't have copyright to an "arrangement" just by singing a song faster. :-)) In neither case can the public domain materials of the oral traditions be copyrighted. 2) The friend who was described as having been a contributor to the "folk tradition" wrote a tune to a set of public domain words because there was no known tune. The tune demanded copyright because it was an *original* piece of work. It apparantly did *not* evolve from an existing public domain tune, and was "significant creative input". Writing a new tune is definitely copyrightable! If it *had been* a public domain tune, but had *never* been matched to that particular set of words before, that's what's called a "setting", and is likewise copyrightable due to the "significant creative input" of matching tune to text (considered a distinct skill from either writing music or writing words). But that still wouldn't mean that anyone could be prohibited from using the same public domain sources in another way. It's at this juncture that I need to point out that the issue has been muddied by a misunderstanding of the difference between music of a "folk tradition" and the commercial enterprise that has grown up around music in what is called a "folk style". Now for my example: Cat Stevens made popular a song called "Morning Has Broken", and in a published collection of his songs he is credited by the publisher as having written both words and tune. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The tune, "Bunessan" is an old Gaelic melody which appears in a number of sources, in particular Lachlan Macbean's collection "Songs and Hymns of the Gael" published in 1900. (That collection is, of course, now in public domain.) The words are by Eleanor Farjeon, a British writer, and they were written specifically for setting to the tune "Bunessan" for the collection "Songs of Praise" (1931, and so *isn't* public domain) with a new harmonic arrangement by Martin Shaw (copyright held by Oxford University Press). It has since been used with permissions in several other hymnals. In the case of the tune, this is what the aversion to copyright was about: someone taking a clearly public domain work and claiming it as their own (by whatever reasoning) and trying to prevent others from using the materials which have been clearly public, having been passed from person to person in the oral tradition. It is unlikely the tune has any one author/arranger, but was shaped and honed to its presently known form by the common crafts, manners, and skills of the trade, as well as the "survival factor" that always affects music of genuine "folk traditions." In the case of the words and setting, the case is clear for the significant creative input of one individual. Likewise to the harmonic arrangement. (Note that one hymnal indicates the permissions for the words and the harmonic setting were obtained seperately from the author and from OUP.) We have two very different issues. It's too bad they got clouded in the story of the "contributor to the folk tradition." So, after all that, how does this relate to the news.admin discussion? It touches on several things: public domain traditions, original creative work, and several creative/non-creative aspects of arranging, collecting, and compiling. I think the call about "Usenet traditions" are similar to the notions of "folk traditions" in music because there seems to have been some manners of operation which have been practiced and passed on in a similar way. The notion that "things have changed" is only slightly relevant, as that happens in the oral traditions of music also; the point is that there are many things about the operation of the network which have no single authorship, but have evolved by "doing" (and will continue to do so). Where clear original creative work of an individual is involved, the notion of intellectual property rights seems to also be agreed upon. The areas of arrangement, setting, compilation, editing, etc. are all grayer areas, and (as in my example) something that needs some examination and clarification. What in a moderator's activities are to be considered "common practice" and what are "original creative input." --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (02/20/89)
In article <1262@ccnysci.UUCP> dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) writes: > [discussion of copyright issues in folk music tradition, analogous > to copyrighting software vs public domain] Software, as with folk music, substantially developed in an academic / amateur environment, where the rewards for doing something are primarily aesthetic rather than financial, and having someone else use your work is its own reward (assuming they credit you for it.) The difficulties in both areas come when you want cash rather than prestige. It's been especially interesting to watch these issues resolve in the Christian music field - people who want to be professional musicians need protection of their work, while the music has traditionally been in the public domain, with funding provided by patrons or church employment (e.g. Bach was a paid choirmaster.) Especially gets strange when you throw in AFCAP union-ish rules. In article <101@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: :1) The aversion to copyrighting clearly public domain material :from the folk traditions is valid. Arrangements of music are :quite copyrightable, but there is a wide range of "significant :creative input" that can occur in the process of that arranging. ... : In neither case can the public domain materials of the oral :traditions be copyrighted. :Now for my example: : Cat Stevens made popular a song called "Morning Has Broken", and :in a published collection of his songs he is credited by the :publisher as having written both words and tune. ... : The tune, "Bunessan" is an old Gaelic melody [ pre-1900 public-domain] ... : The words are by Eleanor Farjeon, ...... (1931, and so *isn't* public :domain) with a new harmonic arrangement by Martin Shaw (copyright :held by Oxford University Press). .... On the other hand, Stevens's guitar arrangement is rather different from the hymnal version, so it's legitimate to credit him with it rather than Shaw. :In the case of the words and setting, the case is clear for the :significant creative input of one individual. Likewise to the :harmonic arrangement. (Note that one hymnal indicates the permissions :for the words and the harmonic setting were obtained seperately :from the author and from OUP.) : Where clear original creative work of an individual is involved, :the notion of intellectual property rights seems to also be :agreed upon. : The areas of arrangement, setting, compilation, editing, etc. :are all grayer areas, and (as in my example) something that needs :some examination and clarification. What in a moderator's :activities are to be considered "common practice" and what are :"original creative input." -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # # News. Don't talk to me about News.
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/22/89)
In article <468@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.[ho95c],2G218,x0705,) writes: >:Now for my example: >: Cat Stevens made popular a song called "Morning Has Broken", and >:in a published collection of his songs he is credited by the >:publisher as having written both words and tune. ... >: The tune, "Bunessan" is an old Gaelic melody [ pre-1900 public-domain] ... >: The words are by Eleanor Farjeon, ...... (1931, and so *isn't* public >:domain) with a new harmonic arrangement by Martin Shaw (copyright >:held by Oxford University Press). .... > > On the other hand, Stevens's guitar arrangement is rather > different from the hymnal version, so it's legitimate to credit > him with it rather than Shaw. > You missed the side of the barn. Cat Stevens was credited with having written both the words and the tune, not with the arrangement. It's blatantly clear that he wrote neither the words nor the tune. I have no argument with the fact that his guitar accompaniment is his arrangement. But the tune and the text are exactly as appears in the hymnals -- Farjeon's text, with the public tune BUNESSAN. He was falsely credited with their creation. No mention of "arrangement by" or "guitar arrangement by" -- no, flat-out origination was the claim; he and his publisher violated Farjeon's copyrights by doing so. --Mark +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mark Gresham ARTSNET Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++