brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/06/89)
I am distressed by this recent tone of "ownership of intellectual work is evil" on the net. Is it just a loud few, or is it a real, amost unanimous sentiment? To find out, if the tone of this discussion doesn't change in a week or so, then we will hold a vote. Clearly the vote should not be conducted by myself or my attackers. I suggest that one impartial person on a major site hold the vote. Two statements will be prepared, independently. (Neither will get to see the other before posting.) The statements, and a description of the vote will be posted to rec.humor.funny. The readers will register their opinion. We will then know what the netters think, and can then work from facts rather than speculation and flamage. Those of you who wish to argue against the concept of compilation copyright and the implications I have outlined should get together and form your document. While right now it may seem like an argument over one newsgroup, it actually is an argument of what political philosophy reigns on the network. As the net is actually a private federation without a governing body, it is, in fact a libertarian or "minarchist" system. It has almost no rules, but does exist and is governed by the laws of the nations in which net sites reside. These provide rules like copyright, electronic communications privacy, private control of individual sites, obscenity laws, freedom from (or being subject to) government censorship, and of course a court system that sits behind it all. That's the reality, but other internal structures are possible. Some desire a "communist" system, where nothing can be owned, and everything is free -- where everything comes from each participant according to his/her abilities and to each participant according to his/her needs. Some opt for pure communism (a subset of anarchy) where no rules enforce that, and some, like the Free Software Foundation, opt for a communism where this is enforced by the rules of the outside world. Some would like anarchy, but the net will have trouble staying truly anarchist, as some, Jonothan Richmond being a prime example, will always go outside the system if they feel it necessary. This was his right, you know, although I wish he had had a greater understanding of what he was doing when he did it. Some would prefer a more strucutred system. There are vestiges of democracy, such as the newsgroup voting process and the vote I have described above. There are also feudal lords who reign over large sites. There are even "benevolent dictators," if you will, such as moderators and people who maintain things like the checkgroups messages. There was once even an oligarchy, known as the backbone cabal. At times, some have suggested a real structure, with membership agreements and the works. This have never progressed very far. It is my feeling that it is best to stick with the real, minarchist structure that underlies the net. But others disagree. The communist ideal of complete and free flow of information has appeal, but it is my belief that private ownership actually encourages the development and flow of resources/information in both the real world and the information world. ------- To close off, let me warn those of you in the USA that I don't use the word communist in the perjoritave sense that most Americans do. I use it in its true sense -- as descriptive of a philosophy that is primarily associated with the concept of the absence of private property. Nothing to do with the soviets at all. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/07/89)
In article <2726@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am distressed by this recent tone of "ownership of intellectual work >is evil" on the net. Is it just a loud few, or is it a real, amost >unanimous sentiment? I don't see any "ownership of intellectual work is evil" thinking here. I don't see anyone saying you should not own intellectual work. But you yourself have said that your work has been that of compiler; not author. There is no intellectual process involved in editing messages and having the right to post edited text on the network. If you want to create something of your own, claim ownership and profit from it, please do. No problem with that; the newspapers buy my stuff occassionally also. The sentiment is that people are posting things on Usenet, via your group, which they posted in good faith as PUBLIC DOMAIN material. The sentiment is that many, many people participate in the daily production we call Usenet. Public, non-profit networks of this sort are unique, in that they rely on the goodwill of all to make them succeed. What if someone, like a backbone administrator for example, were to cull through the messages on the entire net over a two year period -- including messages in r.h.f., and then publish something called "The Best of Usenet Messages" -- and claim compilation copyright based on the several hours he had to labor each week getting his machine to work properly in handling news? Would you like that? >Those of you who wish to argue against the concept of compilation copyright >and the implications I have outlined should get together and form your >document. There is no argument with compilation copyright where many publications are concerned....just that it does not belong on Usenet. It would work fine, and in fact be quite appropriate on Compuserve, or Dow Jones, or Source. But not here. >That's the reality, but other internal structures are possible. Some >desire a "communist" system, where nothing can be owned, and everything >is free -- where everything comes from each participant according to his/her >abilities and to each participant according to his/her needs. Some opt >for pure communism (a subset of anarchy) where no rules enforce that, and >some, like the Free Software Foundation, opt for a communism where this >is enforced by the rules of the outside world. But communism is not what we have here. Usenet is a mutual network of participating system administrators and others who have agreed to pass news groups back and forth, in echange for the benefits that each recieves from their ease in reading what others have posted. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with communism, democracy or any other political theory. >At times, some have suggested a real structure, with membership agreements >and the works. This have never progressed very far. > >It is my feeling that it is best to stick with the real, minarchist structure >that underlies the net. But others disagree. The communist ideal of >complete and free flow of information has appeal, but it is my belief >that private ownership actually encourages the development and flow of >resources/information in both the real world and the information world. I think its going to have to become a 'real structure' one of these days, or the net will collapse under its own weight. The people who really have concern for the welfare of the net and its future should begin thinking about the day that things have to be spelled out more closely. In my time here, I have already seen incidents which have stunk everything up, and been appalled at some of the things people have done. So you believe that 'private ownership actually encourages the development and flow of resources.....' Indeed, it does. Trouble is, you don't own anything, at least in this context. What is here is owned by everyone here, at least where the information is concerned. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (02/08/89)
In article <7650@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >What if someone, like a backbone administrator for example, were to cull >through the messages on the entire net over a two year period -- including >messages in r.h.f., and then publish something called "The Best of >Usenet Messages" -- and claim compilation copyright based on the several >hours he had to labor each week getting his machine to work properly in >handling news? Would you like that? > >There is no argument with compilation copyright where many publications are >concerned....just that it does not belong on Usenet. It would work fine, >and in fact be quite appropriate on Compuserve, or Dow Jones, or Source. >But not here. > I have a modest proposal. Since Brad Templeton has asserted that people have an unlimited right to collect material from USENET such as jokes from rec.humor, organize them and the sell the result for profit, I propse the following: I'll take my archives of comp.unix.wizards and comp.unix.questions and news.announce.newusers and .... And I'll publish a book on Everything You Wanted to Know About UNIX and Were Afraid to Ask. I'll include Doug Gwyn's articles about UNIX and System V, and Guy Harris' on how things work, and of course John Mashey and dmr@alice on how things were in the old days, and the concensus on what good coding standards, etc. Publish the 100 most asked UNIX questions. Hints and kinks for new users. And not one original line of text. Hmmmm, I wonder if markov3 or mvs@alice is available to help? Someone else can tackle comp.arch and publish a book on computer organization. Someone else could take rec.arts.movie.reviews and publish them as a book. We could collect sci.med.aids and sell it to people as a subscription service. Alt.sex could be sent to Hustler and Penthouse. To quote an Oscar Brand song "my god how the money rolls in". In the above modest proposal in the sense of Jonathan Swift I mention some moderated groups and some un moderated groups. Either Brad is right and ANYONE can take material off of USENET, compile it and publish, or no one can. If Brad is right, the only question is are your companies willing to carry the feed for copyrighted material that they will be held liable for controlling distribution and use? Ask your lawyers. The current situation is getting to the point where any system administrator is subject to legal problems if the so-called owner of rec.humor.funny wants to object. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (02/08/89)
In <7650@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.UUCP (Patrick A. Townson) says: > >What if someone, like a backbone administrator for example, were to cull >through the messages on the entire net over a two year period -- including >messages in r.h.f., and then publish something called "The Best of >Usenet Messages" -- and claim compilation copyright based on the several >hours he had to labor each week getting his machine to work properly in >handling news? Would you like that? > Well, under recent copyright laws, it would seem that USEnet articles are distributed with an implied copyright which would disallow redistribution for profit. Further take into account the many posters who place copyright notices at the ends of their postings. Such a person would presumably be required to get the permission of every person whose postings he culled, or risk the first class-action lawsuit filed by a large group of USEnet posters. However, the act of sending a joke to rec.humor.funny implies that the sender has no objection to the distribution of the joke. This analogy rates a good five milligillies. fc allegra!psuvax1!psuvm.BITNET!rwc102
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/08/89)
In article <7650@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >In article <2726@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I am distressed by this recent tone of "ownership of intellectual work >>is evil" on the net. Is it just a loud few, or is it a real, amost >>unanimous sentiment? > >I don't see any "ownership of intellectual work is evil" thinking here. >I don't see anyone saying you should not own intellectual work. But you >yourself have said that your work has been that of compiler; not author. >There is no intellectual process involved in editing messages and having >the right to post edited text on the network. I don't care what anyone says. Weeding through 10,000 jokes to cull out 500, correcting spelling mistakes, corresponding with authors, taking flak, drafting ground rules, setting up automated posting software ...... sounds like a fair bit of work. And *that* is why you have the concept of compilation copyright. To prevent someone from taking advantage of that work without permission. Just as the original author of each article has rights, so does the person who assembles them. Please note that these are separate and distinct. Just because they both have the same word "copyright" in them, doesn't make them the same. The owner of the compilation copyright has no rights with respect to individual parts, the original author does. The owner of the compilation copyright has the right to restrict the use of what he has produced while it is in substantially the form that he produced. I've no idea what percentage change you would have to make before you could claim that he has no rights. I suspect it would relate to how much additional information you add. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/12/89)
In article <2212@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >I don't care what anyone says. Weeding through 10,000 jokes to cull out 500, >correcting spelling mistakes, corresponding with authors, taking flak, >drafting ground rules, setting up automated posting software ...... sounds >like a fair bit of work. > Yet none of those are grounds for claims to copyright. Likewise for typing, typesetting, printing, and binding -- all a fair amount of work; none are grounds for copyright claims. Now, concerning what has been called in the past "common law copyright" (since Brad brought that up recently, though not in those words): The notion of "common law copyright" is that the creator of a work is assumed to be the owner of all copyrights even without public declaration of them. What Brad left out of this is that once the work circulates beyond the immediate control of the creator, things become quite a bit more complicated, and the burden is, again, on that person to substantiate any claims to such. For example, lets call the creator of a work Person A. Now if Person B registers claim to copyright with appropriate institution, then unless Person A has extremely substantial evidence to the contrary that he/she is the actual creator of a work, the copyright will be granted to Person B. Another example: If Person A does not declare or register claim to copyright and there is sufficient public distribution of the work, generally all claim to copyright is lost and the work is declared by the court to be in the "public domain". On the issue of "implicit" understandings, if an author has given implicit consent to allow a work to be freely distributed by submitting it to a moderated group such as rec.humnor.funny, then isn't it also reasonable that a moderator has given implicit consent that the compilation may be freely distributed by agreeing to volunteer as a moderator, whether or not he changes his mind in the course of the activity. If such an implicit agrement is violated, it seems reasonable that those who agreed to allowed him to volunteer can likewise replace him. I also wonder how such volunteer work relates to the issue of "work for hire", even though no money has exchanged hands. In the "work for hire" situation, the creator has given up claim to copyright to the hiring party or company in exchange for a fee (reasonable or not :-)). BTW, I'd like to agree with some statements to the effect that in no way can any claims to copyright protect anyone from legal action, civil or criminal, in the areas of libel, slander, or civel rights violations; it would, instead simply strengthen the plaintiff's charge of responsibility on the part of the copyright claimant. Because of that, I'd rather not see a "Usenet Collective Trust" or such claiming compilation copyrights (valid or not) -- as that may make us all subject to liability whether or not we have *anything* to do with such groups as rec.humor.funny, which I don't. I would hate to see the U.S. courts, for example, subject the entire computer networking community to shelling out money annually as the result of somje class-action suit. Don't think it can be done? Look at the music record industry. They must pay a certain percentage of their receipts to the "Music Performance Trust Fund" as the result of such a suit. (I happen to be in favor of that one, though.) Lets leave the copyrights in the hands of the the creators of individual works and keep as much as is practical in public domain. And if someone doesn't want the the results of their moderating work to be public domain, they need not volunteer. Incidentally, regarding services like CompuServe (tm), I don't think they're going to continue to pose all that much of a threat. I enrolled for the free examination period, and sent their processor into an endlessly repeating "stack overflow error" just by requesting a particular news -- I guess they've just gotten too big for their BBS :-). Also their "pay by credit-card or automatic-bank-withdrawl only" policy is unappetizing to say the least. As more people discover and/or create alternatives (many of their "information services" could be provided by the cable TV companies as well, if not better) I suspect that they will not have such an easy time; this is recently evidenced by a big marketing push on their part (in my estimation, the advertising is greater than the sum of their services). Needless to say, I un-enrolled soon after that before any charges accrued. --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (02/12/89)
In article <2466@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
#I have a modest proposal. ...
#I'll take my archives of comp.unix.wizards and comp.unix.questions
#and news.announce.newusers and .... And I'll publish a book on
#Everything You Wanted to Know About UNIX and Were Afraid to Ask.
#Someone else can tackle comp.arch and publish a book on computer organization.
What a good idea - why don't you? I might even buy a copy if it's any good.
You'll need to take a few safeguards - if taken from a group YOU
moderate, you should include in the 'administrivia' the fact that
you plan to produce a book which will include articles from the group,
and that submitting an article to you without objection to this possibility
grants permission to publish the article in such a compilation.
If you include articles from other groups, you should of course
contact the original poster first and request their permission.
Brad *does* post such a notice. (Maybe he didn't way back when the group
started, but he does now). I don't see any objection to his forwarding
articles from rec.humor into rec.humor.funny either, though as that group
does not have a statement from its (non-existant) moderator saying
"I may publish your joke in a for-sale book if you don't object", I do
not think Brad should use articles posted to rec.humor in his annual book
without first asking the poster, (hopefully he does, or will in future).
--
Regards,
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWWhinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com (Daniel Hinojosa) (02/14/89)
In article <1018@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >In article <2466@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >#[...] >I do >not think Brad should use articles posted to rec.humor in his annual book >without first asking the poster, (hopefully he does, or will in future). This is an issue I take with Brad also. I have posted an article to rec.humor and much to my surprise it showed up in r.h.f. . I probably wouldn't care with the exception that I posted the article in rot13. When Brad posted it to r.h.f., it was not rot13 and still had my name on it. This offends my better senses because I am still responsible for the article. I used my judgement, right or wrong, to do all that I could to pro- tect myself from any backlash the article may bring. Brad sees my posting, likes it, it's a slow day on r.h.f., so he uses it. But not the way I posted it. I have taken this up with Brad to no avail other than his promise to in the future make a notation that if the article was posted origanially in rot13. I seem to only be able to protect myself by using a copyright on all of my articles to r.h., which I don't really want to do, but from all I've heard and from responses to questions posed here, I have no other choice. The long end of this is of course that it almost seems that Brad basically gets "the best of rec.humor" for his book. I personally think this is somewhat of an abuse of the net. But, that is my opinion. -- ===================================================================== email - uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!hinojosa \ / uunet!hplabs!hp-sdd!hinojosa ---------------------------- ---==( o )==--- ---------------------- Jesus saves..but Gretzky gets the rebound! He shoots. HE SCOOORES!!!