hamrick@convex.COM (Ed Hamrick) (12/22/89)
In article <45061@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: > >This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Chris Davis. >Redistribution for profit is prohibited. This copyright statement shall >not be construed to limit non-profit distribution, including but not >limited to UUNET's news forwarding services. This article may not be >gatewayed to GEnie without a license fee paid to the author. > I've been noticing similar "Copyright" notices in numerous usenet articles over the past few months, most of which seem to be in response to the use of usenet articles "for profit" by various companies, especially GEnie. There's also been quite a debate about the "rightness/wrongness" of GEnie having a one-way link from usenet. I'd like to address the issue of who "owns" or "controls" the articles that are sent out over usenet, and not address the issue of the one-way GEnie link. There appears to be a consensus that the only legal mechanism that can be used to control the use of usenet articles is the Copyright laws. I've never seen any assertions that any other law or regulation applies to these articles. There appears to be a commonly held belief that an author of a usenet article can control the "right to copy an article" by asserting that an article is "Copyright 1989 John Doe", and that the article may be copied/redistributed under certain limited circumstances. On the surface, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice, and is used in many computer journals (see ACM journals as an example). There are several problems I see in trying to extend this practice to articles deliberately transmitted to usenet: 1) Anything printed with copyrighted materials is generally sold, not given away. It seems doubtful that a judge would award damages under the Copyright laws to someone who gives away tens of thousands of copies of their works to the public (and then claims economic damage from someone making a few hundred more copies and selling them). 2) Someone who transmits an article to usenet knows that everything they send is automatically sent to any site connected to usenet. It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who claims economic damage from something they themselves caused (the transmission of their copyrighted materials to all connected usenet sites). The following is an example of why I believe that copyright notices embedded within usenet articles aren't worth the paper they're printed on: This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Ed Hamrick. Permission to copy and redistribute this article is granted provided it is printed on yellow paper, stored on 160 KByte floppy diskettes, or displayed on DEC VT102 terminals. I believe that this somewhat absurd paragraph (apologies to Christopher Davis) illustrates that there is not an unlimited right to assert rights under the Copyright laws for automatically distributed usenet messages. Regards, Ed Hamrick
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/06/90)
The news.misc article quoted below illustrates several common beliefs about copyright law; I address the legal issues. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with any state laws outside New York. In article <4198@convex.UUCP> hamrick@convex.COM (Ed Hamrick) writes: > In article <45061@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: > >This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Chris Davis. > >Redistribution for profit is prohibited. This copyright statement shall > >not be construed to limit non-profit distribution, including but not > >limited to UUNET's news forwarding services. This article may not be > >gatewayed to GEnie without a license fee paid to the author. > > I've been noticing similar "Copyright" notices in numerous usenet articles [ ... ] > There appears to be a consensus that the only legal mechanism that can be > used to control the use of usenet articles is the Copyright laws. I've > never seen any assertions that any other law or regulation applies to > these articles. Copyright law is the most obvious protection for a published work. Trade secret law cannot apply. Patent law doesn't apply to the *expression* of inventions, only their production. Trademark law is never a major issue. Copyrights are designed to preserve distribution rights, and that's what they do. > There appears to be a commonly held belief that an author of a usenet > article can control the "right to copy an article" by asserting that > an article is "Copyright 1989 John Doe", Yes. ``All rights reserved'' is necessary for some countries. A circled c is customary, though I don't know any countries that require it if the word Copyright is present. Anyway, the owner of a copyright most certainly does control the legal right to copy an article. > and that the article may be > copied/redistributed under certain limited circumstances. Yes. This addition is a copyright limitation; in general, someone can limit or completely give up his right to X by declaring the limitation. Sometimes limitations are restricted by further laws: for example, a minor might not be able to refuse medical treatment just on religious grounds. Copyrights are not life-and-death issues where the government sees a need to butt in, so you can limit copyrights any way you want. Unpublished works are automatically copyrighted. Published works enter the public domain (i.e., lose their copyright) if they do not carry a copyright notice. In countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, even published works are automatically subject to copyright, so that the author must explicitly declare a work as public domain (and then distribute it!) if he wants to give up his rights. For the moment, those countries respect United States copyrights, so there's little immediate pressure for us to switch. Note that even in the United States, any indication of authorship (a signature, for example, or even my typed ``---Dan'') is usually construed as a declaration of copyright. However, damages for infringement will be higher if an explicit copyright notice appears. > On the > surface, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice, and is used > in many computer journals (see ACM journals as an example). Yes. It works quite well and is easy to deal with in court. > There are several problems I see in trying to extend this practice to > articles deliberately transmitted to usenet: > > 1) Anything printed with copyrighted materials is generally sold, > not given away. It seems doubtful that a judge would award damages > under the Copyright laws to someone who gives away tens of thousands > of copies of their works to the public (and then claims economic > damage from someone making a few hundred more copies and selling them). You are correct in bringing up enforcement as a separate issue. 17 USC 105 (I think), the Copyright Act of 1976, classifies certain copying as ``fair use,'' so that it does not constitute infringement. It doesn't give explicit rules to decide what constitutes fair use. However, it does say that such a decision must consider several issues: the nature of the work (you can't make any money by copyrighting a document consisting of the word ``the''), the amount copied, the effect of copying upon the original work and its distribution, the use of the copies (profit versus nonprofit), etc. By now there's enough case law that it's easy to tell when you're safe; the government publishes a booklet with certain magic numbers below which you couldn't possibly be taken to court. I doubt that any judge would consider Genie's distribution of a copyrighted Usenet article to be fair use, because Genie is making a large number of copies for profit. On the other hand, the damages would probably be limited to a small multiple of the money Genie makes from those articles directly. (If they take in X dollars from each of M subscribers each year, and there are N articles each year, then I wouldn't be surprised at damages of XM/N.) In copyright infringement, as in the rest of civil law, the most important issue is almost always money. > 2) Someone who transmits an article to usenet knows that everything > they send is automatically sent to any site connected to usenet. > It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who > claims economic damage from something they themselves caused (the > transmission of their copyrighted materials to all connected > usenet sites). Nobody's claiming damages for USENET distribution, which is intentional. It's the GENIE distribution that's infringing. Here's a parody of that argument: 2) Someone who publishes a book with A-W knows that everything he writes is automatically sent to any bookstore serving A-W. It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who claims economic damage from something he himself had caused. True, but what about the bookstore that makes money behind the author's back by making more copies and selling them in its town? > The following is an example of why I believe that copyright notices > embedded within usenet articles aren't worth the paper they're printed on: > > This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Ed Hamrick. > Permission to copy and redistribute this article is granted provided > it is printed on yellow paper, stored on 160 KByte floppy diskettes, > or displayed on DEC VT102 terminals. Fine. (You don't need the ``excluding quoted text'' part.) You're asserting your copyright, and giving a rather ridiculous limitation that amounts to no limitation at all. > I believe that this somewhat absurd paragraph (apologies to Christopher Davis) > illustrates that there is not an unlimited right to assert rights under > the Copyright laws for automatically distributed usenet messages. Of course there is. Your absurd copyright notice is perfectly legal and possibly enforceable. If GENIE makes money by selling copies of your article, and you can prove that GENIE did so (which is easy), then you could be awarded damages. (In practice, as a mere distribution medium, they'd only be liable for contributory infringment; they'd still have to pay.) Unauthorized profit from a copyrighted article is very dangerous. ---Dan
magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) (01/07/90)
In article <600@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: >The news.misc article quoted below illustrates several common beliefs >about copyright law; I address the legal issues. Disclaimer: I'm not a >lawyer, and I'm not familiar with any state laws outside New York. > >> There appears to be a commonly held belief that an author of a usenet >> article can control the "right to copy an article" by asserting that >> an article is "Copyright 1989 John Doe", > >Yes. ``All rights reserved'' is necessary for some countries. A circled >c is customary, though I don't know any countries that require it if >the word Copyright is present. Anyway, the owner of a copyright most >certainly does control the legal right to copy an article. To begin with, as of last year, much of this is moot, since the U.S.A. is now a member of the Berne convention, so all works now carry a copyright regardless of this is stated or not. But, for formal declarations of copyright, the C in a circle is a synonym for the word Copyright. The use of (C) or (c) does not qualify as () is not a circle. In any case there must be either one or the other, and in many cases, both. It is also proper to use the phrase "All rights reserved" in order to afford full protection in many countries, (including some in Latin America/South America). >> and that the article may be >> copied/redistributed under certain limited circumstances. > >Unpublished works are automatically copyrighted. Published works enter >the public domain (i.e., lose their copyright) if they do not carry a >copyright notice. In countries subscribing to the Berne Convention, >even published works are automatically subject to copyright, so that >the author must explicitly declare a work as public domain (and then >distribute it!) if he wants to give up his rights. For the moment, >those countries respect United States copyrights, so there's little >immediate pressure for us to switch. We are now members of the Berne Convention, and so the formal declaration of copyright is no longer neccessary. However, that only applies to those countries that are also members of the Berne Convention, so you are always better off using "Copyright 1990 by Joe Smith. All Rights Reserved." in anything that may have international access. (Like, say, Usenet). >> On the >> surface, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice, and is used >> in many computer journals (see ACM journals as an example). > >Yes. It works quite well and is easy to deal with in court. Correct under most conditions. >> There are several problems I see in trying to extend this practice to >> articles deliberately transmitted to usenet: >> >> 1) Anything printed with copyrighted materials is generally sold, >> not given away. It seems doubtful that a judge would award damages >> under the Copyright laws to someone who gives away tens of thousands >> of copies of their works to the public (and then claims economic >> damage from someone making a few hundred more copies and selling them). He is right here. Or at least in part. It is commonly known that the entity known as "Usenet" is a public-domain, albiet loosly connected organization of "subscribers" much like a bulletin board. It is also known (or should be) by everyone on the net that any article you submit may be read by [hundreds of] thousands of people all over the world, and that you are not expecting compensation for anything submitted to this network. Knowing that, and also knowing that it is not feasible, as a manpower or economics issue for every site to screen every message for possible distribution restrictions in this public-access system, it would follow (and likely be held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the world. Any distribution restrictions could not be justified in that case, and so you would not be able to enforce any claims of misuse by usenet sites recieving your article(s). Of course, if an individual were to take your message and sell it verbatim to a magazine or such for a profit to him/herself, then you may have a case, although it still would be hard to win, especially if they changed the text in any form, and you still have to prove it. Remember, you cannot copyright an idea, only a particular implementation of an idea. >I doubt that any judge would consider Genie's distribution of a >copyrighted Usenet article to be fair use, because Genie is making >a large number of copies for profit. On the other hand, the damages >would probably be limited to a small multiple of the money Genie >makes from those articles directly. (If they take in X dollars from >each of M subscribers each year, and there are N articles each year, >then I wouldn't be surprised at damages of XM/N.) I believe you are in error here. Assuming that GEnie eventually becomes a real usenet site (allowing both sending and recieving of messages, although there is no law or rule that requires or even assumes that all usenet sites must allow 2-way traffic), it would then become nothing more than one of many usenet sites that charge their users access to their network, and use of facilities. They are not specifically charging their clients a surcharge to read your article over and above that what they would pay to access the network itself, nor are they attempting to sell the rights to your articles. They would be doing what many other usenet sites do, providing a service to the public, from which they are recieving compensation. There is nothing unfair about that. And, they are in no way making unfair use of the articles submitted to the network, more than are any other usenet site. It would also follow that even an explicit distribution statement (such as referred to at the beginning of this article) would not be legally binding, considering the fact that it would be impossible for every message in every newsgroup to be scanned by every usenet site in the world for possible distribution restrictions. That goes for GEnie and every other usenet site out there. A judge would likely suggest that if you do not want users of for-profit sites to have access to your message, that you should not submit it to the network at all. >In copyright infringement, as in the rest of civil law, the most >important issue is almost always money. > >> 2) Someone who transmits an article to usenet knows that everything >> they send is automatically sent to any site connected to usenet. >> It seems doubtful that damages would be awarded to someone who >> claims economic damage from something they themselves caused (the >> transmission of their copyrighted materials to all connected >> usenet sites). He's right in theory. But thats not a good explanation. >Nobody's claiming damages for USENET distribution, which is intentional. >It's the GENIE distribution that's infringing. That is not at all the case. Usenet is a loose term. It refers to any site that recieves or submits usenet messages. GEnie wouldn't be excluded from that label if they carried news in some way. Even via gateway. >> The following is an example of why I believe that copyright notices >> embedded within usenet articles aren't worth the paper they're printed on: >> >> This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Ed Hamrick. >> Permission to copy and redistribute this article is granted provided >> it is printed on yellow paper, stored on 160 KByte floppy diskettes, >> or displayed on DEC VT102 terminals. > >Fine. (You don't need the ``excluding quoted text'' part.) You're >asserting your copyright, and giving a rather ridiculous limitation that >amounts to no limitation at all. As does any restrictions on articles submitted to the network. They would not be binding. >> I believe that this somewhat absurd paragraph (apologies to Christopher Davis) >> illustrates that there is not an unlimited right to assert rights under >> the Copyright laws for automatically distributed usenet messages. > >Of course there is. Your absurd copyright notice is perfectly legal and >possibly enforceable. If GENIE makes money by selling copies of your >article, and you can prove that GENIE did so (which is easy), then you >could be awarded damages. (In practice, as a mere distribution medium, >they'd only be liable for contributory infringment; they'd still have to >pay.) Unauthorized profit from a copyrighted article is very dangerous. This is not a normal medium. It is not reasonable to suggest that any distribution restrictions could ever apply in usenet. Even with specific copyright and distribution notices, due to the nature of the net and how it operates. There is no way that sites could "censor" the news on a global basis, and so it could not be enforced. If you can prove that GEnie (or any other usenet site or individual for that matter -- lets not pick on GEnie constantly) is making money specifically from your article(s), and not for providing their clients with desired services, (only one of which may be access to usenet messages), then you may have a case. You do have a copyright and do indeed own your works, but by submitting them to the net, you have basically made them public-domain; at least in a distribution sense. If an entity or company sells your works in verbatim, and in a form in which they were not originally intended to be distributed (global access through the many usenet sites, BBSs and other news-gatewaying services out there), and makes money specifically off of the sale, and without your consent or knowledge, then you may have a case. But still, it would be tough to prove misuse. >---Dan I am not an attorney (yet), but I am a law major and am fairly familiar with the subject of computer law and how it applies to copyright law. I also have a few friends who are practicing attorneys with whom I have had discussions with regarding this subject over the last few months, and the ideas I submit are our general consensus (in my own words of course). The truth is, that usenet (or any large scale information sharing networks or large scale BBSs) are as yet mostly untouched in as far as copyright law decisions go, and any statements regarding how the courts would look upon all this is yet to be seen, but I base much of my discussion on current law and on decisions that I am aware of that apply in some way. Until such time as a precident is made, the subject will undoubtedly continue to rage. Note: My site doesn't recieve misc.legal, so I will be unable to see any followups made there (which is why I followed up here and suggest others to do so as well since this group probably has a larger subscription base anyway). -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (01/09/90)
I find it interesting that in the interminable USENET->GEnie discussions: 1) The principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty has apparently been suspended, with GEnie being accused of everything from copyright breach to "RAPE of USENET". 2) No one *EVER* bothered to ask GEnie what their policy was. Wouldn't it be a big surprise if GEnie offered to waive compilation copyright totally on the USENET area, told everyone they WANT 2-way notes a lot, and want a good email link? I know for a fact that well before I ever started any of this work GEnie was talking about it. 3) People have seen fit to jump into a war without finding out if there was even an enemy. Interestingly, the same "depersonalization" that takes place in propaganda against an enemy in war is going on here. Gee, GEnie will do this, do that, how will we defend our poor selves? The original "RAPE of USENET" note that kicked all t this off was based literally off someone who knew a friend that I'd mentioned a little bit of possible GEnie links to -- and who flew off the handle without bothering to check any facts. I personally believe the base note was among the worst I have ever read in my network experience since 1976. To me the power and responsibility must balance; to have the power to post notes across the world should carry responsibility to at least bother to check facts, to not accuse wildly, and when the facts *do* become known, to apologize with at LEAST as much fervor as the original damaging note. I dial into WELL and PORTAL, pay them what they ask, and am pleased to be able to. I have no problem with them charging for access to the net. I would also have no problem with GEnie charging for 2-way access to the net, no copyright hassles, and email, same as WELL/PORTAL -- and folks, that is what's wanted. Look, if anything, blame me for presenting it wrong. But for people on PORTAL signons to flame GEnie is ludicrous, in my opinion. However, in their defense, they didn't get a fair rendition of the facts. In summary, I have strong reason to believe (e.g., I've talked to them) that GEnie wants and has always wanted a 2-way link, done in a responsible way as not to stress the net, email, and no copyright hassles. I hope to post an "official" note from GEnie saying so soon, but it's a fact of life, like breathing, that corporate lawyers have to okay such stuff. I understand, now, that USENET has had problems with other systems. Okay. But don't arbitrarily dump GEnie in with them. Give them at least some sort of fair hearing; at least listen to their side before discussing how to sue them. You have *not* been given even slightly fair facts about what GEnie thinks, what the plans were, or what happened -- just a literally alt.flame note about an experiment that really touched some raw nerves. Enough, please! Even Noriega gets a trial! -- Dave Small / Gadgets by Small
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/09/90)
In article <9001070301.AA10109@sorinc.UUCP> pacbell.PacBell.COM!sorinc!magik writes: >To begin with, as of last year, much of this is moot, since the U.S.A. is >now a member of the Berne convention, so all works now carry a copyright >regardless of this is stated or not. Not necessarily, remember the US only adopted part of the Berne Convention rules, not the entire package. To be safe, writers et al need to continue copyrighting everything they produce. >held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the >public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully >making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the >world. The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. >out there. A judge would likely suggest that if you do not want users of >for-profit sites to have access to your message, that you should not submit >it to the network at all. Indeed. And if you're at all concerned about keeping the rights to something in particular that you have written, then don't post it.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/11/90)
Followups to misc.legal and news.MISC, not ADMIN. In article <7686@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Most of what Barry says is at least technically correct, but some of it >is a bit misleading. Everyone should know the informal legal principles >of Covering Your Ass and Making It Clear To The Other Guy. > >If you use Copr. or a circled c instead of Copyright, then your notice >will still be valid here; but there are countries where neither Copr nor >a circled c is sufficient. So always use Copyright. If you remembered this, your memory is faulty. If a lawyer told you this, get a new lawyer. You got it backwards. The ``circle with a c in it'' is internationally recognized. The english word ``Copyright'' is not recognized in all countries, as is ``Copr.'' And stop crashing phoenix. In article <10907@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <9001070301.AA10109@sorinc.UUCP> pacbell.PacBell.COM!sorinc!magik writes: > >>held in court) that your act of submitting the article places it in the >>public domain at least as far as distribution goes, as you are purposefully >>making the article available for unrestricted public access all over the >>world. > >The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what >puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. I was rather shocked when I read this, so I called Trish. Yes, she did talk to a lawyer specializing in computer law, and yes, anything you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to maintain a copyright, don't post it. You have to make a reasonable effort as controlling the distribution of your copyrighted material. Letting 30,000 machines all over the world copy and forward your copyrighted material can hardly be construed as a good faith effort at controlling distribution. Ther ramifications of this on things like OtherRealms are left as an exercise for the reader. Somebody might want to point this out to Chuq. It was the opinion of this (computer) lawyer that the following things were invalid: 1) The compilatin copyright on Brads Jokebook. 2) Compuserves compilation copyright. 3) GEnie's compilaiton copyright. Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner (usually taken to be 30%)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/11/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: [...] >It was the opinion of this (computer) lawyer that the following >things were invalid: > >1) The compilatin copyright on Brads Jokebook. >2) Compuserves compilation copyright. >3) GEnie's compilaiton copyright. > >Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. >You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner >(usually taken to be 30%) The last sentence is FALSE. Compilations don't involver "additions" or "changes" of any proportion, but "methods and logic of organization": "DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DATABASES and OTHER COMPILATIONS A database is a collection of preexisting information arranged in a particular way. [...] Computer databases qualify as an original work of authorship for copyright purposes when the METHOD and LOGIC used to organize them is original. The particular compilation need not be sophisticated to be copyrightable. An alphabetical list of all professional skiers under the age of 35 would qualify." Attorney M.J. Salone -- How to Copyright Software, Nolo Press If the lawyer himself told you that "You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner (usually taken to be 30%)" to a compilation to make it to qualify for copyright, he doesn't know his business at all. Better look for another lawyer :-) -- Marco P.S.: It is widely known that Compuserve successfully won a case against a BBS that reproduced its entire file database (in structure and logic). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Saligrama Subbarao) (01/11/90)
Wait a minute -- WHERE does phoenix come in to this???
-Kartik
--
subbarao@{phoenix,bogey or gauguin}.princeton.edu
"A penny saved is a penny earned -- so a dollar saved is a dollar earned.
But what's the use of earning a dollar? 25 cents goes to the IRS!
I say SPEND IT!" -originalrichard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/12/90)
[there really ought to be a something.copyrights, huh ?] In article <22225@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> >>Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright. >>You need to add to it or change it in a not insignificant manner >>(usually taken to be 30%) > >The last sentence is FALSE. Compilations don't involver "additions" or >"changes" of any proportion, but "methods and logic of organization": It's hard to make any true appraisel of what I recalled from talking to trish; what she recalled talking to the lawyer etc. One could correlate my statement: ``Merely collecting material does not give you a compilation copyright'' with Marco's statement about ``methods of logic or organization''. At any rate, it's just one lawyers opinion, and of course no precendent exists. No of course there is no right answer. This is why I liked math. When you got an answer you could actually *check it*, wheras with any other classes it were all shades of grey. >It is widely known that Compuserve successfully won a case against a >BBS that reproduced its entire file database (in structure and logic). I though that never actually went to trial and was settled out of court. ??
gbc@cahaba.med.unc.edu (Geoff Crooks) (01/12/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >...anything you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT >NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to >maintain a copyright, don't post it. Hmmm... does this mean that the software posted to comp.binaries is placed automatically in the public domaine? I don't think so. If you post an article to the net, you *are* controlling distribution... to all those computers which are on the net. If you copyright an article, you are in effect saying "this is mine" - read it, but DON'T go publishing it elsewhere NOT on the net (ie a newspaper or print magazine). Disclaimer: no, I'm not a lawyer. In fact, since what I said is logical, it probably has nothing to do with the law at all. Geoff. gbc@med.unc.edu
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/12/90)
In article <24551@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <10907@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > >The act of posting an article to a public network or BBS is what > >puts it the public domain, not the distribution of the article. > > I was rather shocked when I read this, so I called Trish. Yes, she > did talk to a lawyer specializing in computer law, and yes, anything > you post to a BBS or to USENET, IRREGARDLESS OF ANY COPYRIGHT > NOTICES YOU HAVE, is now in the public domain. If you want to > maintain a copyright, don't post it. This is definitely something that is good to know. When something goes into the "public domain," does that mean that *all* of the author's rights with regard to the publication lapse? S/He know longer controls the item in *any* way? This seems extreme. An example: Joe Blow writes a story that he sells to OutThere Magazine for first NA serial rights. It gets published in Analog, and after that Joe gets a request to have the article posted to the net. Joe says, "Go ahead." The article is posted. Later, Monumental wants to buy the movie rights. Some sharp researcher at Monumental finds out that the story has been posted to Usenet, is therefore in "the public domain," and doesn't buy the rights, just runs with it. From your information above, Monumental would be within their rights, and ol' Joe would be out of luck. Right? -- Doug Moran | I have often felt like a resident of Pompeii pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | who has been asked for some humorous comments dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | on lava.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/13/90)
>This is definitely something that is good to know. When something goes >into the "public domain," does that mean that *all* of the author's >rights with regard to the publication lapse? S/He know longer controls >the item in *any* way? This seems extreme. An example: Yes, that is the definition of public domain. I think what everyone is really struggling with is whether or not it is really PD. But if it is PD there's basically no restrictions on its use (the only hedge there might be some possibility of it being used in a way which you can argue was libelous or damaging to your reputation etc., that's independent of all this and is probably always open if you can still be identified with the work etc.) >Joe Blow writes a story that he sells to OutThere Magazine for first NA >serial rights. It gets published in Analog, and after that Joe gets a >request to have the article posted to the net. Joe says, "Go ahead." >The article is posted. Later, Monumental wants to buy the movie rights. >Some sharp researcher at Monumental finds out that the story has been posted >to Usenet, is therefore in "the public domain," and doesn't buy the rights, >just runs with it. From your information above, Monumental would be within >their rights, and ol' Joe would be out of luck. Right? That's a rather complicated example. But then again I'm not as certain that putting something on USENET automatically protects everyone as you describe it did the movie maker. Look, this is law, not mathematics. It can be reinvented by a court almost every morning by just deciding some new case. At best you have "strong grounds" and "good arguments" and "worthwhile cases", not proofs that you're right or wrong. My gut feeling on your question is that if it was pretty clearly your work and someone else made a bunch of money on it under some fairly fuzzy pretense that since it had appeared on a network it was no longer yours that most any Judge and Jury would side with you. The matter is quite clear, you did the work, they made money off it, common practice says you deserve something. In fact, any lawyer worth 2c would be able to settle a case like that for something, probably less than you hoped, but more than nothing, out of court. But that's not the answer you were looking for. There's a fine and confusing line between business and law. Any movie maker who tried to defend based on your example would probably be deemed irresponsible to their shareholders to even invest the $15-$20K it takes to begin a defense when you'd probably settle for about that. You do understand that litigation is an investment for a corporation, just like anything else, and a return on investment argument has to be constructed based on various scenarios? I do understand the inner longing for a law which is abstract and rational, but it doesn't exist in this world. It's not even obvious that it should. "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." -Clarence Darrow -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs