brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/07/89)
Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation copyright. Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new, compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next monthly posting. Now first of all, you all recall the copyright message on the "rn" program: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rn Kit, Version 4.3 Copyright (c) 1985, Larry Wall You may copy the rn kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will use this as the base of my new policy, as thus: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you are the one who put it together. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now (almost) nobody can complain about this sort of declaration, since it is a well established, years-old net precedent that controls the very program many people are using to read this message! I could always use the "inews" copyright which forbids things like renting, "marketing" and insists a prominent copyright notice to be put in by any distributor. (I'll deal with the almost nobodies down below.) 8-) Since a number of posters feel that I should have absolutely no control over who feeds what to who on usenet (and I can see some merit in that), I would also very much like to add the following: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors. and No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords or rotation schemes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's face it. The last thing that I or the net need is for a site to give accounts to a pile of ten year olds and then complain at us about how bad we were. Also, if a newspaper ever prints something like this again, as the Boston Herald did: Richmond, a native of London now living in Cambridge, first became aware of the jokes when he turned on his computer on Nov. 8 and picked up this on his screen: (nasty joke, misquoted out of context) Now we all knew that was false, but it sure is nice to try to make sure it will always be false. (Richmond had to subscribe, ignore a warning that said "Jonathan Richmond don't read this" and then decrypt a coded joke to get that message on his screen.) Now, the other thing I said in my previous posting was that If somebody engaged in an all-out war against me the way Richmond and Stanford have, including libel in the press and the works, I wanted whatever weapons could be at my disposal. In particular, the right to say, "if you're going to do nothing but complain about it, don't read it" and MEAN it. But I have gotten a lot of flack about that one. So with regret, I will let it slip. I hope that in such attacks, net people will help me voluntarily. That's probably best, because most of you are good folks, I think. Now, I will also keep the rules for submitters pretty much as is. (Submitters, unless they ask otherwise, grant the right for me to electronicly distribute the submission and put it in the books.) Except for the last part, this always went without saying, but it's always better to make it clear so nobody gets surprised. At any rate, anybody can put limits on their submission like "not in the book" or whatever, and I will respect them, of course. I hope that this satisfies most of you who have had a problem with the original policy as posted back in early January and as qualified last week. If a lot of people object to my second clause (subscription, minors etc.) then we could have a vote on that. Now back to the first clause. I will provide more information on that later, because there are some philosophical and net administration issues to discuss. I said almost nobody can object. I feel this is so because I feel compilation copyright is a valid, legal concept, and that otherwise this clause is a well accepted net practice for intellectual property creations fed to the net. Those who object have to explain how a copyrighted posting or program is fundamentally different from a compilation, when copyright law says they aren't. Objections might go: A) A compilation copyright isn't valid (for whatever reasons) If this is so, there is no reason for you to object. If it isn't valid, then I'm the one who would have to pay the high cost of testing it if it ever got that far. B) Compilation copyrights exist, but they should be barred from USENET. This is the philosophical issue. It is my belief, and there is a mountain of evidence for it, that ownership of created intellectual property is *fundamental* to the good "flow of information" that everybody talks about. People who say, "everything should be unowned because that helps the famous free flow of information." are just plain wrong in my book. It actually hinders it. I will prove this by argument in later postings, and by actual example in a short while. The people who would, after seeing my policy, shut off rec.humor.funny from sections of the net in the name of "free flow of information" remind me of the phrase "screwing for chastity." C) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not to you because you didn't announce these rules when the group was created (as OtherRealms and Gourmand did.) If you check the copyright Acts of the main nations on USENET, you will find that the concept of copyright does not have to be declared. It exists from the moment of creation unless explicitly renounced. To describe the always-existing right is not a midlife change. To renounce the compilation copyright, as Rich Salz did, is a mid-stream change, not that anybody seems to mind. E) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not to you because I don't like you. Have a nice day. TO SUMMARIZE: a) I will change the licence statement to one that everybody should be able to handle, and I'll even make it looser if necessary, adding the various promises I have made in this debate. b) I am asking if people object to the inclusion of a clause that puts responsibility where control is, asking site admins to worry about who reads what on their own site. c) I'm giving up my quest for rights I can use in fights against those who wish to destroy this newsgroup. d) Once again, I'm ready to give whatever assurances people need that I don't intend to be some sort of net dictator here -- randomly shutting off sites or demanding fees from honest, hardworking sites that charge to cover costs. People are talking like I have an army of lawyers and am planning lawsuit city. That's about as far from the truth as I can imagine. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
hack@merkin.UUCP (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new, >compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next >monthly posting. Write what you will, but make the subject constant, so we can put it in our permanent kill file. It's unpleasant to see unfunny things in rec.humor.funny so frequently.
lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
=Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation
=copyright. Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new,
=compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next
=monthly posting.
Incredible! And I thought net.people were incapable of compromise.
I sincerely apologize for my earlier derogatory statements to you,
Brad. Actually, I think we all owe Brad an apology.
This is the first time that I've ever seen a net war let to anything
constructive. Maybe it will set a precendent.
I do have a nit with the new copyright:
=You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or
=in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it,
=or pretend that you are the one who put it together.
This still leaves USENET resellers out in the cold. Rephrasing can correct
that.
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comjfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation >copyright. Sorry about that folks. Not to worry. To err is human, to moo bovine. [ Now for the disclaimer ... ] > This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider > offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some > minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that > nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and > all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are > necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors. >and > No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords > or rotation schemes. Uh, how am I supposed to insure that the newsfeed I just added to my sys file is free of morons and minors? Ultimately the burden should rest with the site administrator. Had this understanding existed in the beginning, it would have been the administration at Waterloo who would have been responsible. The USENET administrators should know damned good and well WHAT they are requesting. A much better disclaimer would admit that the newsgroup contains humor which individuals may find to be racist or bigotted, but that the SITE ADMINISTRATOR OF THAT SITE has chosen to receive the newsgroup based on the humor value of the postings. I know none of my users will object. What I don't know is how many users on how many of the sites I exchange news with will. >Let's face it. The last thing that I or the net need is for a site to >give accounts to a pile of ten year olds and then complain at us about >how bad we were. Also, if a newspaper ever prints something like this again, >as the Boston Herald did: Right. And the last thing I need is to be sued because some moron turned on HIS computer which HE requested a newsfeed for and read a joke YOU approved. Presumably the site administrator knows what a USENET is. Some stupid user, for example Jonathan Richmond as the perfect example of a moronic pinhead, may have NO idea what a newsgroup is. He didn't ask to be insulted - but the site administration must have because no one gives out newsfeeds for kicks. >Now we all knew that was false, but it sure is nice to try to make sure it >will always be false. (Richmond had to subscribe, ignore a warning that >said "Jonathan Richmond don't read this" and then decrypt a coded joke to >get that message on his screen.) I wasn't aware that `Offensive to Jews' meant `Jews don't read'. It should mean `It's your fault if you are offended because I said you would be.' But that is a mute point. You need to admit people will be offended and point them at the person who provided them with the newsgroup. If their policy is to hide their heads in the sand, let THEM remove the newsgroup. Better still, let them give Jonathan Richmond a f*cking frontal lobatomy. >E) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not > to you because I don't like you. What happened to D)? I might say that it would be a good idea for Brad to step down so the newsgroup will be free of the repressive and moronic laws which the Canadian government imposes upon their populace. I _might_ say that, but it is probably illegal to transmit a message which suggests the Canadian government enter the twentieth century, so I won't. -- John F. Haugh II +--Quote of the Week:------------------ VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Get it through your head: InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | CARS ARE THE ENEMY." UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +------ -- Bob Fishell ----------
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > [ new proposed copyright ] > Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection > > Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton > >You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or >in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it, >or pretend that you are the one who put it together. I have no problem with this wording. It eliminates my main concern, which was that asserting rights to restrict who could read or receive a newsgroup would make net management completely unworkable (moral objections aside). >Since a number of posters feel that I should have absolutely no control >over who feeds what to who on usenet (and I can see some merit in that), I >would also very much like to add the following: >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider > offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some > minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that > nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and > all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are > necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors. >and > No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords > or rotation schemes. I don't have any problem with this either. Responsibility for what goes on on a particular system is exclusively held by the owners and administrators of that machine; you've fulfilled your responsibility by giving them adequate warning. (Just the same, I wouldn't mind seeing more uniform standards for rot13'ing -- I see a lot of jokes with language you can't use on radio or television that are not rot13'd -- of course we all make mistakes from time to time). >TO SUMMARIZE: > > a) I will change the licence statement to one that everybody should > be able to handle, and I'll even make it looser if necessary, > adding the various promises I have made in this debate. Your statement is acceptable to me. > b) I am asking if people object to the inclusion of a clause that > puts responsibility where control is, asking site admins to > worry about who reads what on their own site. No problem here. > c) I'm giving up my quest for rights I can use in fights against > those who wish to destroy this newsgroup. Actually, Brad, I think your assertion of these rights would tend to work against you. If you took the position that the joke posters were responsible for the jokes and you were just a gatekeeper, your liability would perhaps be less than it would if you took a dictatorial stance about ownership, where no one but you could possibly be blamed. > d) Once again, I'm ready to give whatever assurances people need > that I don't intend to be some sort of net dictator here -- > randomly shutting off sites or demanding fees from honest, > hardworking sites that charge to cover costs. People are talking > like I have an army of lawyers and am planning lawsuit city. > That's about as far from the truth as I can imagine. I think it's important at this point not just to look at what rights we have as posters, admins, and moderators, but what rights we need to agree to relinquish to make Usenet workable. There simply aren't any legal precedents on Usenet. I know a lot of folks out there are lawyers or have talked to lawyers about what's what, but until there are actual rulings (and I hope that day never comes, to tell you the truth), any lawyer's opinion is just that -- an opinion. We'd be on more solid ground if we just agreed up front what rights people have, and what rights they relinquish. -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
dave@jplopto.uucp (Dave Hayes) (02/08/89)
>Now, the other thing I said in my previous posting was that If somebody >engaged in an all-out war against me the way Richmond and Stanford have, >including libel in the press and the works, I wanted whatever weapons >could be at my disposal. In particular, the right to say, "if you're going >to do nothing but complain about it, don't read it" and MEAN it. >But I have gotten a lot of flack about that one. So with regret, I will >let it slip. NO!! Brad, please! You DO have that right, dammit! This may not be a legal right, but it's a PERSONAL right. I know that you are trying to do the best thing, and back down (like the kind and stable person you are), but it depresses me to see you backing down on that issue. To me, that was the most important point about the whole thing. In fact, I would go so far as to say: "If you decide to read it, don't complain about it." > c) I'm giving up my quest for rights I can use in fights against > those who wish to destroy this newsgroup. Not this too? You really need some effective weapons against the more constipated netters out there. (Not that an AK-47 wouldn't do just fine, but I sense that a more subtle methodology is really out there for you to use! Like, maybe EX-LAX?) In point of opinion (And as another net.voice) I fully support whatever you have to do to keep JEDRs from ruining a fine information flow. What you provide is a free service to all of us, and I hope you realize that there are a FEW of us out here who really do appreciate that service. I think it would be a near fatal loss to the net if you were to stop doing r.h.f. I also think that other netters might appreciate what you do MUCH more if you were to stop doing it. If anything else, if someone attacks you again like the net.pinheads just did, IMO you should DROP r.h.f like a hot potato. >I hope that in such attacks, net people will help me voluntarily. Well, for what it's worth, you can count on me. I know it's not much, but it's all I've got. >That's probably best, because most of you are good folks, I think. With the obvious exception of Karl Denninger! :) (Sorry folks, but I'm STILL really pissed off at him. Maybe a good workout will calm me down...) ============================================================================ Opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<<<([Dave Hayes])>>>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dave%jplopto@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov | Jet Propulsion Laboratory M/S 300-329 {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!jplopto!dave | 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 BIX: dhayes | (818) 354-1910 "Where ever you are....well, that's the place to be!" ============================================================================
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
+>Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation
+>copyright. Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new,
+>compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next
+>monthly posting.
.........
+> Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection
+>
+> Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton
+>
+>You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or
+>in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it
+>or pretend that you are the one who put it together.
+>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+>
+>Now (almost) nobody can complain about this sort of declaration, since it
+>is a well established, years-old net precedent that controls the
+>very program many people are using to read this message! I could always
+>use the "inews" copyright which forbids things like renting, "marketing"
+>and insists a prominent copyright notice to be put in by any distributor.
+>(I'll deal with the almost nobodies down below.) 8-)
I've no problem with this as long as you reword it slightly to express that
what you're trying to prevent is someone selling your group for profit
alone; it's already established that many hundreds of people and companies
"sell" access to Usenet in one form or another (barter and other exchanges
of things that are valuable are "selling"; it doesn't have to be a cash
exchange).
+>I would also very much like to add the following:
+>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+> This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider
+> offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some
+> minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that
+> nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and
+> all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are
+> necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors.
+>and
+> No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords
+> or rotation schemes.
Sure; that I can live with as well under "disclaimer" or something similar.
+>Now back to the first clause. I will provide more information on that
+>later, because there are some philosophical and net administration issues
+>to discuss.
+>
+>C) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not
+> to you because you didn't announce these rules when the group was
+> created (as OtherRealms and Gourmand did.)
+>
+> If you check the copyright Acts of the main nations on USENET,
+> you will find that the concept of copyright does not have to
+> be declared. It exists from the moment of creation unless
+> explicitly renounced. To describe the always-existing right
+> is not a midlife change. To renounce the compilation copyright,
+> as Rich Salz did, is a mid-stream change, not that anybody seems
+> to mind.
The default and historic action on Usenet, though, _for moderators_, seems
to be to either (1) disclaim, or (2) never desire to enforce those Copyrights.
You can't enforce what you _deliberately ignore_ for long lengths of time;
Copyright is like that. You can lose your protection by intentionally
ignoring the requirements of the law.
I still submit that the default assumption when a person posts to the net is
that their posting is effectively PD. For this reason people sometimes do
put copyrights (and copylefts) on net postings, to "un-PD" their posted
material.
+> a) I will change the licence statement to one that everybody should
+> be able to handle, and I'll even make it looser if necessary,
+> adding the various promises I have made in this debate.
Good. That removes the reason for the ruckus and the vote.
+> b) I am asking if people object to the inclusion of a clause that
+> puts responsibility where control is, asking site admins to
+> worry about who reads what on their own site.
That sounds reasonable as well (although some others may have a problem with
it; I'll let them speak for themselves). I can't see where someone would
have much of a valid objection; universities would be the only potential
problem (I'd think).
+> d) Once again, I'm ready to give whatever assurances people need
+> that I don't intend to be some sort of net dictator here --
+> randomly shutting off sites or demanding fees from honest,
+> hardworking sites that charge to cover costs.
Ok....
I'll call off the vote; barring further changes the vote call is considered
cancelled. If someone out there still wishes to continue this measure, have
at it, but it won't be with my support.
The net wins this time; the doomsayers on both sides were wrong.
To Mr. Townson and others who want to establish a "formal" Usenet Organization:
Our current near-anarchy system seems to work; please don't advocate messing
with it. The desired outcome for everyone appears to have been achieved.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl)
Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/10/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
)--------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection
)
) Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton
)
)You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or
)in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it,
)or pretend that you are the one who put it together.
)--------------------------------------------------------------------------
)--------------------------------------------------------------------------
) This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider
) offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some
) minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that
) nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and
) all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are
) necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors.
)and
) No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords
) or rotation schemes.
)--------------------------------------------------------------------------
)I hope that this satisfies most of you who have had a problem with the
)original policy as posted back in early January and as qualified last week.
)If a lot of people object to my second clause (subscription, minors etc.)
)then we could have a vote on that.
)Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
This is completely acceptable, including the second part. Like
others, I had a number of problems with the earlier posted position, but
I was letting things stur around in the muck upstairs ("My brain hurts!")
before I said anything. Thank you for offering a compromise position.
--
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.leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (02/13/89)
[comments about "everything on usenet is PD unless you explicitly declare otherwise", deleted] According to an attorney working for a local firm that specializes in copyright, patent, and trademark law this WILL change. On April 1st, 1989 a new copyright law takes effect. Under it you no longer have to include a copyright notice to claim a copyright!!! Thus on the net we are going to have to start assuming that anything *without* a SPECIFIC diclaimer of copyright is in fact copyrighted. This is going to be a major mess... -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/15/89)
>On April 1st, 1989 a new copyright law takes effect. Under it you no >longer have to include a copyright notice to claim a copyright!!! >Thus on the net we are going to have to start assuming that anything >*without* a SPECIFIC diclaimer of copyright is in fact copyrighted. >This is going to be a major mess... Even more of a mess, since the new rules only apply as long as the messages are in the U.S. As soon as the message flows through the wire to Canada, international copyright takes over and the implicit copyright goes away. So if someone picks up the messages at a Canadian site, they don't have to worry about the implicit copyright (unless Canadian copyright also acknowledges the implicit copyright, which I'm not sure it does) 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!
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (02/15/89)
In article <25810@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>On April 1st, 1989 a new copyright law takes effect. Under it you no [ in the U.S.A.] >Even more of a mess, since the new rules only apply as long as the messages >are in the U.S. As soon as the message flows through the wire to Canada, >international copyright takes over and the implicit copyright goes away. So >if someone picks up the messages at a Canadian site, they don't have to >worry about the implicit copyright (unless Canadian copyright also >acknowledges the implicit copyright, which I'm not sure it does) My understanding (and, sorry, *I*'m not a copyright lawyer either) is that Canada has had this provision for a long time, and the U.S. is just now catching up. However, when it crosses ANY international border it probably comes under international copyright conventions, not those of the country in which it is received or from which it was sent. ../Dave (see header for address) Copyright (c) \copyright 1989 Dave Mason All Rights Reserved You MUST copy this note and within 3 hours pass it on to 2 people who've never seen it before! (A LOT of somebodys are going to be left holding the bag in about 4 days :-)
robertfe@microsoft.UUCP (Robert Ferguson 2/1073) (02/15/89)
In article <25810@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Even more of a mess, since the new rules only apply as long as the messages >are in the U.S. As soon as the message flows through the wire to Canada, >international copyright takes over and the implicit copyright goes away. So >if someone picks up the messages at a Canadian site, they don't have to >worry about the implicit copyright (unless Canadian copyright also >acknowledges the implicit copyright, which I'm not sure it does) This so-called "implicit copyright" is part of the Berne Copyright Convention, to which most of the major western nations are signatories. The U.S. is one of the last countries to get on board. Canada has been following the Berne Convention for some time. ---------- Rob Ferguson ...!microsoft!robertfe
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (02/17/89)
In article <2031@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >[comments about "everything on usenet is PD unless you explicitly >declare otherwise", deleted] > >According to an attorney working for a local firm that specializes in >copyright, patent, and trademark law this WILL change. > >On April 1st, 1989 a new copyright law takes effect. Under it you no >longer have to include a copyright notice to claim a copyright!!! >Thus on the net we are going to have to start assuming that anything >*without* a SPECIFIC diclaimer of copyright is in fact copyrighted. > >This is going to be a major mess... First off, I'm not an attorney, nor do I wish to criticize Leonard or the attorney he's talking about. I do want to clear up some details and offer some suggestions. I would suggest that we read the pertinent statutes and regulations. Many of the seminal parts are in plain English text, surprisingly devoid of "to wit"s and "hereuntofore"s. Excerpted from The Legal Guide to Computer Software Protection by Thorne D Harris III, Attorney at Law, page 42 The copyright laws of the United States are set out in Title 17 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 101 (17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). Additionally, numerous rules and regulations regarding the procedures and interpretations of the Copyright Office in Washington D.C., are published in the _Federal Register_. These promulgations are codified in Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR). and he goes on to suggest writing for more information... Register of Copyrights Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20559 Leonard's article suggests that an implicit copyright will exist on works after April 1, 1989. That's not new, in fact such a copyright has existed since the Copyright Act of 1909. There are some differences in how the protection was defined and applied, beyond what I'm trying to illustrate. The Copyright Act of 1976, effective January 1, 1978 changed the law such that the author's copyright was implicit regardless of the "published" or "registered" status of the work. On page 44 of the same book, Harris writes However, the 1909 act still applies to works, including computer programs, produced before 1978. Consequently, questions in that time period relating to unpublished works will still be controlled by the common law. However, since statutory copyright now comes into existence upon creation of the work rather than upon publication, the distinction between unpublished and published works in many respects is effectively abolished for works created after January 1, 1978. I'll repeat that I'm only trying to clarify Leonard's article. The author's rights have been established and protected since 1/1/78 and I would not think that would be thought new, different, or "a mess". As to what is and isn't covered, Section 102 of the Copyright Act says: "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Presumably (I'm guessing) that explains why some works forbid duplication by mechanical, magnetic, or chemical means. In conclusion, the existance of the author's copyright isn't an arguable point and probably doesn't need much more discussion. The way that an author defends and protects that copyright is probably moot with respect to usenet since it would appear that the nature of news distribution prohibits selective permission. As a practical (not necessarily statutory) matter, we probably forfeit or at least complicate our author's copyright when we post. I don't think that news administrators could be reasonably expected to alter the way that the distribution software works because an individual wanted to limit his/her original work. That doesn't mean that the author's copyright is forfeit or void, just not practically defensible. Should someone without rights or permission to do so submit someone else's original work to usenet, I would speculate that remedies would have to be sought from the person who posted the material rather than the machines and administrators who propagated it. Caveat poster? Sure, but that's been around for over ten years and in my opinion it's an individual judgement call rather than something news admins need worry about. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM