weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (10/18/88)
[I'm directing followups to news.misc. I don't know if it's the best
choice, but it'll do. This isn't a flame against anyone on USENET.]
Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}. I thought it
was a rather nice article, answering (perhaps) someone's questions about
what Stephen Hawking was saying about black holes and quantum mechanics
and God in some news article.
Recently, a friend on Usenet informed me that this very article was pub-
lished in THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY JOURNAL #2 (Feb-Apr 88), and he mailed
me a photocopy of this issue. I got it this afternoon, and I was totally
flabbergasted.
This journal is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a
group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another
about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in-
telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general
United States population."
AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work-
ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say). And there I am,
with a Macintosh picture of Einstein and a giant quotation to help the
reader along, sandwiched between Cincinnatus Society Pinhead #1 babbling
about IQ and intelligence and Cincinnatus Society Pinhead #2, babbling
about IQ and women, with *ABSOLUTELY* *NO* *INDICATION* that this article
and its author have *ABSOLUTELY* *NO* *CONNECTION* with their Pinhead
Society of Mutual Admiration, other than someone downloaded the article
to their BBS. (The number is (818) 985-4123, "courtesy of Mr Richard
A Weatherwax" in case someone wants to check these high-IQ morons out.)
So my questions are: what can or might I do? The very idea that I would
be associated with one of these societies, especially one whose members
"choose to communicate amicably", is so goddam fucking repulsive that I
cannot find any words to truly express my disgust. Nor do I have any
idea of what control I might hold over my articles once I've posted them.
For all I know, Pinheads #1,2's articles might also have been stolen; I
notice though that I was the only contributor without a street address.
It did mention "Berkeley CA": this is precisely what they could figure
out from my signature.
To give an example of how pinheaded this society is, let me quote a
few excerpts from the "Society News" column:
When we have a somewhat more conventional organization,
we can think about higher things, such as, for example,
the unification of the various High-IQ groups...
In any event, the Cincinnatus Society will have a key
leadership role in reforming the various Hi-IQ Societies'
Constitutions and in demonstrating a higher standard of
editing and appearance in their publications. To that
end, I've donated a letter-quality daisy wheel printer
to Mr Patrick Hill, Editor of Prometheus, ...
BARF! And guess what book was reviewed this issue (in the space of
two short paragraphs)? THE NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF WORLD MASTERPIECES.
Pretty goddam intellectual, aren't they? And they've got a list of
*vocabulary* words--56 this issue out of nearly a thousand that they
threaten to cover. Gol-lee. Obscure stuff like "farcical, laity,
sloe-eyed, vitiate, debauch, aggregate, digress, libretto, twit,
disconcert". We're talking pinhead-profound.
All quotations are Copyright (C) 1987 by the Cincinnatus Society, and
are reprinted without any permission. Up their collective arses.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THESE PINHEADS REALLY EXIST, AND REALLY PUBLISHED
MY ARTICLE WITH NO INDICATION THAT THEY JUST PICKED IT SOMEWHERE OUT
OF THE AETHER, AND I AM READY TO VOMIT.
ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (10/19/88)
Pinheads 1, Weemba 0 .... (-: Look, ma, someone "decooled" Weemba .... ((-: -- --------------------> PREFERED-RETURN-ADDRESS-FOLLOWS <--------------------- (ARPA) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet: 128.83.144.1) (INTERNET) werner%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@cs.utexas.edu (UUCP) ..!utastro!werner or ..!uunet!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (10/20/88)
In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}... > [gruesome little tale of sicko IQ snobs ripping off said article, > reprinting it without attribution in their pathetic newsletter] >...AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work- >ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say)... >So my questions are: what can or might I do?... Much as Matt hates to be told he's right :-), I must agree with him on this one. Nothing betrays pseudo-intellectualism like the sick obsession with standardized test scores these IQ societies evince. What these poor "gifted" victim-brats don't realize is that the inclination to brag about your IQ reveals a character flaw whose damaging impact in your life is sure to outweigh the boost of "intelligence" over the long haul. As an undergraduate flirtation it is something to be outgrown; past that it's sociopathic. Unfortunately I believe anything you post here is in the public domain unless you take the trouble to (C) Copyright your remarks every time. That doesn't mean you can't harass and jawbone these Stanford-Benet Cubscouts into publishing a disclaimer next time. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Ranjit Bhatnagar) (10/20/88)
In article <5665@netnews.upenn.edu> ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP writes: >I would like to propose the formation of the newsgroup talk.elite, Apologies for posting this in news.misc. I meant it to appear in alt.flame when I followed up to weemba's article. Drat. -r.
todd@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Todd/Dr. Nethack) (10/20/88)
In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}. I thought it >was a rather nice article, answering (perhaps) someone's questions about >what Stephen Hawking was saying about black holes and quantum mechanics >and God in some news article. I still have an original hard copy in my files complete with mailer times, dates, etc.. >This journal is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a >group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another >about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in- >telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general >United States population." In the fine art of plagarism! >AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work- >ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say). The "up" is in reference to where their heads go! ;-) >with a Macintosh picture of Einstein and a giant quotation to help the >reader along, You must admit Matthew, that is kinda funny.. the weemba placed into such a "Popluar Mechanics" frame of reference. >So my questions are: what can or might I do? SUE THE BASTARDS!! 1) The Geekazoid that made off with the article 2) The Publisher 3) The Society (maybe you can put them out of buisness) --we can only hope. > When we have a somewhat more conventional organization, > we can think about higher things, such as, for example, > the unification of the various High-IQ groups... And the stealing of articles too brilliant to be their own. Go get 'em weemba!! You need any help? :-) --nethack -- todd@jupiter.nmt.edu / nmtsun!todd Dr. Nethack: Box 3693 c/s Socorro, Nm. 87801
cs78404@thor.UUCP (Student of Dr. Sanders) (10/20/88)
From article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student): > > THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THESE PINHEADS REALLY EXIST, AND REALLY PUBLISHED > MY ARTICLE WITH NO INDICATION THAT THEY JUST PICKED IT SOMEWHERE OUT > OF THE AETHER, AND I AM READY TO VOMIT. > > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Sue 'em! It's the American way... DEMON --Driver of the fabled TURBO
Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) (10/20/88)
In article <1120.3.1248.1 The Cincinnatus Society of Pinheads> <10/18/88 00:52 weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)> Matthew P Wiener warns us about: THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? In any case, Matthew writes: > THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY JOURNAL > ... is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a > group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another > about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in- ^^^^^^^^ > telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general > United States population." Seems the stats are not completely in on this one yet, but the general con- sensus seems to be that a high I.Q. is not something that someone can *achieve* -- in the sense that they have worked at it -- but can only be said to *attain*, i.e., yes they have gotten there, but, rather than by dint of effort, they have done so by the random throw of the dice of heridity and genetics. In other words, it's a quality one is born with, like one's height or hair color. But I digress... Matthew further quotes this publication: > When we have a somewhat more conventional organization, > we can think about higher things, such as, for example, > the unification of the various High-IQ groups... > > In any event, the Cincinnatus Society will have a key > leadership role in reforming the various Hi-IQ Societies' > Constitutions ... Yikes! Sounds like these folks are interested in more than "communicating amicably": sounds like they are looking to TAKE OVER! And RULE! ~~~~Shudder~~~~! Shades of the Forbin Project! But! The quote continues: > ... and in demonstrating a higher standard of > editing and appearance in their publications. To that > end, I've donated a letter-quality daisy wheel printer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to Mr Patrick Hill, Editor of Prometheus, ... Whew! Sounds like they are still a long ways away from building Collossus! But if these people are harmless, it isn't by intention... > All quotations are Copyright (C) 1987 by the Cincinnatus Society, and > are reprinted without any permission. Up their collective arses. > > ..... > > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I have no intention of paying long-distance charges to amuse myself with the drivel on their BBS. I was thinking about asking where a member of the laity could get hold of this farcical publication -- I can always use a good laugh -- but the seriousness of their pretentiousness would probably vitiate their funniness... Perhaps I might spend some time concocting a scheme to disconcert this aggregation of twits, but I'd rather debauch myself with some sloe-eyed damsel. Or some sloe gin, for that matter... Oops! I left out "libretto"! David ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ === Mister Systems === | Imray Klaatu Na'Arawak: David L Paktor | Macro provaal barada, l'upden sol impiclit. | Ya vo taray axel Paktor@cup.Portal.com | b'gletio barengi degas... | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hwt@leibniz.UUCP (Henry Troup) (10/20/88)
Clearly, these people think that being 'smart' relieves them of the obligation to be honest. I sympathize with you - imitation may be the sincerest form of flatter, but plagiarism ... ? -- Henry Troup Bell Northern Research - not their opinions, however utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!leibniz!hwt
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (10/20/88)
From article <356@thor.wright.EDU>, by cs78404@thor.UUCP (Student of Dr. Sanders): " Sue 'em! It's the American way... Not practical. The source of the problem is these excessively brilliant postings, which should be toned down a bit. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/20/88)
In article <7068@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >...AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work- > >ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say)... > > >So my questions are: what can or might I do?... > > Much as Matt hates to be told he's right :-), I must agree with him on > this one. Nothing betrays pseudo-intellectualism like the sick > obsession with standardized test scores these IQ societies evince. > What these poor "gifted" victim-brats don't realize is that the > inclination to brag about your IQ reveals a character flaw whose > damaging impact in your life is sure to outweigh the boost of > "intelligence" over the long haul. As an undergraduate flirtation > it is something to be outgrown; past that it's sociopathic. > > Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff I was a member of Mensa for a year (trying to meet young women -- THAT was a waste), and overall, the members weren't "obsessed" with IQ scores -- most of them had joined Mensa for the same reason I had. In the Los Angeles area, where I was living at the time, the members were disproportionately computer programmers and engineers (showing what a brilliant occupation we have :-)). There were a few semi- weird (and one TRULY weird) person in Mensa that fits Mr. Neff's description, but they were exceptional. (These crazies were also the ones truly COMMITTED to Mensa). I have no experience with the even higher pretension societies. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (10/21/88)
I think Copyright law should be included in the "things to learn before you're allowed access to Usenet" file.... In article <7068@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}... > > [gruesome little tale of sicko IQ snobs ripping off said article, > > reprinting it without attribution in their pathetic newsletter] > > Unfortunately I believe anything you post here is in the public domain > unless you take the trouble to (C) Copyright your remarks every time. Bzzt. Under the most recent Copyright laws, anything you produce is protected the instant you create it. You can retro-copyright works, however, you aren't as protected by the laws as you would be if you had Copyrighted it to begin with. Thus, I could write a review, post it to Usenet w/o a Copyright notice, and if somebody reprinted it without my permission, sue them. My chances of winning more than the barest minimum of damages are low, though, since I didn't copyright it to begin with. I can still win damages, it's just a hell of a lot harder. Rule: If you really care about it, Copyright it. All it takes is putting "Copyright <date> <your name here>" in the work, on the work, or as a part of the work. (On the back of a painting is legal, for instance.) If you don't care about it that much, don't bother. It's still protected, but you can't win as much. (Thx. to my Media Law, Media Ethics, and Communications Law professors for beating this into my head. :-) -- "Imitation is the sincerest form of Television." - Mighty Mouse (and R. Bakshi) J. Eric Townsend smail: 511 Parker #2, Houston, Tx, 77007 Inet: COSC3AF@george.uh.edu UUCP: uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict Bitnet: COSC3AF@UHVAX1.BITNET ..!bellcore!tness1!/
nj@eris.berkeley.edu (gypsy's darling fascist bully boy) (10/21/88)
In article <391@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >Rule: If you really care about it, Copyright it. All it takes is putting >"Copyright <date> <your name here>" in the work, on the work, or as a part >of the work. (On the back of a painting is legal, for instance.) If you >don't care about it that much, don't bother. It's still protected, but >you can't win as much. will they be likely to nitpick on capitalization of the "C" (i noticed your making a point of that)? i'd assume it would also be safest to use your real name, but how about easily identifiable pseudonyms? nj
ockerbloom-john@CS.YALE.EDU (John A. Ockerbloom) (10/21/88)
In article <391@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >In article <7068@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >> Unfortunately I believe anything you post here is in the public domain >> unless you take the trouble to (C) Copyright your remarks every time. > >Rule: If you really care about it, Copyright it. All it takes is putting >"Copyright <date> <your name here>" in the work, on the work, or as a part >of the work. (On the back of a painting is legal, for instance.) If you >don't care about it that much, don't bother. It's still protected, but >you can't win as much. Also, from what I remember, you can indicate a copyright notice by the word "Copyright", the abbreviation "Copr." or the C-within-a-circle symbol (not available in ASCII). The C within parentheses "(C)", however, does NOT cut it. Or at least so claimed a Library of Congress publication I got a few years back. If the law has changed since then, someone should correct me. John Ockerbloom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ockerbloom@cs.yale.EDU ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.BITNET Box 5323 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
mcb@eris.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/88)
In article <391@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > I think Copyright law should be included in the "things to learn before > you're allowed access to Usenet" file.... Agreed, and I would suggest that Mr. Townsend be among the first to go back to school on the subject. I do not generally bother to criticize people who are not lawyers when they make incorrect assertions about legal matters, for the same reason that my own babblings about (say) medicine or chemistry must elicit sadly amused grins from physicians and chemists. But considering the above, here we go again... > [Tom Neff:] > > Unfortunately I believe anything you post here is in the public domain > > unless you take the trouble to (C) Copyright your remarks every time. > > Bzzt. Under the most recent Copyright laws, anything you produce is > protected the instant you create it. You can retro-copyright works, > however, you aren't as protected by the laws as you would be if you > had Copyrighted it to begin with. Bzzt bzzt. Mr. Neff is quite correct, with the trivial exception of the present legal bogosity over the use of "(C)" vs. a real live copyright symbol. There is no such thing, under U.S. copyright law, as "retro-copyrighting" anything. There is a code section (Sec. 401) that mandates the inclusion of notice of copyright on "...all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." What this means, people, is that if you publish (in the legal sense, which in this case would include the colloquial sense) without a copyright notice, you have -- subject to the discussion below -- lost your copyright protection. But what about Section 405, which excuses omission in some cases? Section 405 excuses omission in three cases, the only interesting one for the purposes of this discussion being Sec. 405(a)(2), which says that the omission does not invalidate the copyright in a work if "registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered..." There are two important points here. First of all, the practicability of adding -- or attempting to add -- notice to all copies of a Usenet article is seriously suspect. And "adding notice" means exactly that (there are some cases on this); it does NOT mean sending letters to people saying, "Oh, by the way, that book I shipped you a while back was copyrighted". It means getting one's hands on the copies (literally or figuratively) and adding a copyright notice in the appropriate manner (printed, electronic, etc.). Much more importantly, the section refers to acts "after the omission has been discovered." This means, most emphatically, that only inadvertant omissions are excused, not omissions due to ignorance of the requirement of notice. There is at least one leading case on this, dealing with, if I remember correctly, photographs transferred onto T-shirts. So posting a Usenet article without copyright notice, and then deciding later that it might be nice to "retro-copyright" it, does not wash. Jordan Breslow, who is an attorney, recently explored the issue of omitted notice (in the context of copyrighted software) in a Usenet article posted to misc.legal and news.software.b. The message-ID was <1930@vaxwaller.UUCP> and it is about 10 days old, so may still be available on your system. Read it. (If it's expired, I think you might be able to get a copy from vaxwaller!lisa.) Michael C. Berch Member of the California Bar mcb@eris.berkeley.edu / mcb@tis.llnl.gov / ucbvax!eris!mcb
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (10/21/88)
In article <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mcb@eris (Michael C. Berch) writes: >There are two important points here. First of all, the practicability >of adding -- or attempting to add -- notice to all copies of a Usenet >article is seriously suspect. And "adding notice" means exactly that >(there are some cases on this); it does NOT mean sending letters to >people saying, "Oh, by the way, that book I shipped you a while back >was copyrighted". It means getting one's hands on the copies >(literally or figuratively) and adding a copyright notice in the >appropriate manner (printed, electronic, etc.). Hmmmmmm.... So what happens if I were to repost my article with a Supersedes: header and a copyright notice? The theory is that this hunts out for all exist- ing copies on USENET and replaces them. Not that I think any are left. This ignores, for the sake of argument, the "inadvertant omissions" clause. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (10/21/88)
In article <15800@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
(
(So what happens if I were to repost my article with a Supersedes: header
(and a copyright notice? The theory is that this hunts out for all exist-
(ing copies on USENET and replaces them. Not that I think any are left.
Mr. Berch's article stated that notification to holders of copies was
insufficient, that notice had to be imprinted on each copy. I think
'supersedes' falls more under the former category, especially as it
would have no effect on legally printed copies of the article, or
archived or backup copies. Sorry.
/JBL
UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463
INTERNET: levin@bbn.comharper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) (10/21/88)
In article <10206@cup.portal.com>, Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) writes: > Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't > Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of > elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? This is not a flame: Mr. Paktor has stated that his recollection is vague, and I respect that. I merely wish to defend the good name of Cincinnatus. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519? - ?439 BC) was a Roman citizen-soldier "famed for the simplicity and austerity of his ways" (trans. from Nouveau Petit Larousse, 1972). The Senate twice took the extraordinary step of making him dictator, risking the Republic to save Rome from dire military threats. Both times, he resigned the office after discharging his duty, returning to his farm (The American Peoples Encyclopedia, 1962). Legend has it that he was offered the kingship and, a true republican, declined it. George Washington is said to have taken inspiration from Cincinnatus in arguing that the United States should become a republic, not a kingdom. Perhaps Mr. Paktor is thinking of Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a ruthless general of the late Republic, killed in a mutiny of his own men in 84 BC. Had he lived a year longer, he would have been the father-in-law of Julius Caesar. Disclaimers: I am speaking only for myself, and take full responsibility for the views I have expressed. The translation from the French is mine, as is any of defect of it. -- Doug Harper Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu ARPA 301A Harris B. Dates Drive | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper UUCP Ithaca, NY 14850-3051 | (607) 277-2020 extension 276
bamst3@cisunx.UUCP (Brian A. Mermon) (10/21/88)
In article <1307@nmtsun.nmt.edu>, todd@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Todd/Dr. Nethack) writes: > In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}. I thought it > >was a rather nice article, answering (perhaps) someone's questions about > >what Stephen Hawking was saying about black holes and quantum mechanics > >and God in some news article. > SUE THE BASTARDS!! > Go get 'em weemba!! You need any help? :-) Yea, go get 'em! I'll bet that you could get the same lawyer that Mark Ethan Smith uses. Nail the bastards to the wall! BAM!
mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) (10/22/88)
In article <10206@cup.portal.com> Paktor@cup.portal.com (David L Paktor) writes: > >Now, my knowledge of history is *real* vague on this one, but, wasn't > Cincinnatus some sort of heavy-handed autocrat with delusions of > elitism and superiority, sometime in ancient Rome? > Cincinnattus was a model of Roman virtue and humility. In the republic, the excutive was split between two consuls. However, in time of war, a single executive with !temporary! extraordinary powers could be appointed, called the dictator (unlike current holders of the term, they were historically virtuous men). Cincinnatus was appointed dictator. After winning his war, the people were so pleased with his rule that they insisted he remain. Instead, the humble Cincinnatus asked only a small boon from the people, as much land to farm as he could plow around in a single day. Far from an elitist, I would say. Dan Mercer NCR Comten
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (10/22/88)
Two things: First off, I confused *registering* a copyright with "including copyright notice". My apologies for the pointer-to-noun faults in my brain. However, (this is point 2). In article <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mcb@eris.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) writes: > Section 405 excuses omission in three cases, the only interesting one > for the purposes of this discussion being Sec. 405(a)(2), which says > that the omission does not invalidate the copyright in a work if > "registration for the work has been made before or is made > within five years after the publication without notice, and a > reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or > phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United > States after the omission has been discovered..." 1. In the first place, how can Usenet posting be considered publishing? 2. It would be rather easy to post a duplicate of the original message, with a copyright, that would replace all existing copies of the message (if any still exist). It would seem that weemba, the originator of the articles in question, could cancle the original article, and repost the article, with a copyright, and be protected under the law. (This is where I get the term "retro-copyright". Maybe it's the wrong word to use.) > There are two important points here. First of all, the practicability > of adding -- or attempting to add -- notice to all copies of a Usenet > article is seriously suspect. Destroying all the originals you can, and replacing them with copyrighted versions wouldn't count under the law? [...] > So posting a Usenet article without copyright notice, and > then deciding later that it might be nice to "retro-copyright" it, does > not wash. Again, this assumes that posting on Usenet falls under the legal definition of "publishing", does it not? Since "mail" is copyrighted, couldn't we just consider these messages "mass-mailings"? Or, should we all add a C-notice in our .sig, leaving the rights to duplicate w/in the domain of Usenet open to all? Oh well, sorry if I mislead anybody by confusing registering with including copyright notices. [Hits self in head with large metal object, causing great pain and humor to those around him.] -- "Imitation is the sincerest form of Television." - Mighty Mouse (and R. Bakshi) J. Eric Townsend smail: 511 Parker #2, Houston, Tx, 77007 Inet: COSC3AF@george.uh.edu UUCP: uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict Bitnet: COSC3AF@UHVAX1.BITNET ..!bellcore!tness1!/
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (10/22/88)
In article <31186@bbn.COM>, levin@bbn (Joel B Levin) writes: >Mr. Berch's article stated that notification to holders of copies was >insufficient, that notice had to be imprinted on each copy. I think >'supersedes' falls more under the former category, especially as it >would have no effect on legally printed copies of the article, or >archived or backup copies. Sorry. Am I to post presuming that people are going to be archiving and backing up all my articles? Hell, if I believed that, I *would* be a gung-ho rah-rah member of the Cincinnatus Society! The existence of legally printed copies (that I cannot get at) from versions with missing copyrights is irrelevant in the hypothetical situation that I'm considering. Or at least, that's the thrust I get from Jordan Breslow's <1930@vaxwaller.UUCP>, which Michael Berch referred us all to. Consider: I can legally photocopy for private use an article out of a magazine that had an omitted copyright notice, and which the publisher then makes a quick attempt to rectify. USENET is different, yes. What I'm asking: just how different? I know, I know, nobody knows. But I think this sort of stuff is worth thinking about--and can we push for legislation that defined the legal gray zone we live in? Ugh... ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (10/23/88)
In article <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: | Last January, I posted an article to sci.{astro,physics}. I thought it | was a rather nice article, answering (perhaps) someone's questions about | what Stephen Hawking was saying about black holes and quantum mechanics | and God in some news article. | | Recently, a friend on Usenet informed me that this very article was pub- | lished in THE CINCINNATUS SOCIETY JOURNAL #2 (Feb-Apr 88), and he mailed | me a photocopy of this issue. I got it this afternoon, and I was totally | flabbergasted. | | This journal is the official rantzine for the Cincinnatus Society, "a | group of individuals choosing to communicate amicably with one another | about topics of interest to persons who have achieved the level of in- | telligence of at least the top one-tenth of one percent of the general | United States population." | | AAARGH! I *HATE* these Hi-IQ societies, starting with MENSA and work- | ing your way down (or "up", as the members would say). [...] | | THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THESE PINHEADS REALLY EXIST, AND REALLY PUBLISHED | MY ARTICLE WITH NO INDICATION THAT THEY JUST PICKED IT SOMEWHERE OUT | OF THE AETHER, AND I AM READY TO VOMIT. | | ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 The first protection that comes to mind is to copyright EVERYTHING you post. This is pretty simple, really, just put a copyright notice on it. For instance, make your .signature look something like this: Copyright 1988 Wesley R. Peters. Permission is granted to distribute this work in its entirety as long as it is not modified in any way, and this copyright remains intact. No rights other than those expressed here are granted. As a matter of fact, I have just edited my .sig to include this very paragraph. I have had a couple of bad experiences with being quoted out of context on the net, but never anything like what happened to Mr. Wiener. Do we have any lawyers around here? I would like to think there is some legal action MPW can take against these pinheads for publishing his writing without his consent.
mcb@eris.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) (10/26/88)
In article <31186@bbn.COM> levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin) writes: > In article <15800@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: > > So what happens if I were to repost my article with a Supersedes: header > > and a copyright notice? The theory is that this hunts out for all exist- > > ing copies on USENET and replaces them. Not that I think any are left. > > Mr. Berch's article stated that notification to holders of copies was > insufficient, that notice had to be imprinted on each copy. I think > 'supersedes' falls more under the former category, especially as it > would have no effect on legally printed copies of the article, or > archived or backup copies. Sorry. Not so fast, there, gentlemen. I think a good argument could be made for both sides of the issue here. The "Supersedes:" control message is the nearest thing to hunting down and affixing notice, and it might jst do the trick. On the other hand, it might not. No one can speak authoritatively about this; it is an open question of law. A judge might look at the "Supersedes:" mechanism and say "Gee, looks good to me -- it's the appropriate method of adding notice to a machine-readable copy of somthing in a text database", or might say, "No -- the code section means what it says, and a program or person would have to actually modify each instantiation of the article in each text database." Who knows? The points Mr. Levin raises (withe respect to legally-made copies prior to the notice being "added" (if "superseded" is "added"), though, I think can be answered by reference to the remainder of Section 405 of the Code (effect of omission of notice on subsequent infringement), and is discussed very nicely in Jordan Breslow's article. Michael C. Berch mcb@eris.berkeley.edu / mcb@tis.llnl.gov / ucbvax!eris!mcb
mcb@eris.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) (10/26/88)
In article <396@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > In article <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mcb@eris.berkeley.edu > (Michael C. Berch) writes: > > Section 405 excuses omission in three cases, the only interesting one > > for the purposes of this discussion being Sec. 405(a)(2), which says > > that the omission does not invalidate the copyright in a work if > > "registration for the work has been made before or is made > > within five years after the publication without notice, and a > > reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or > > phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United > > States after the omission has been discovered..." > > 1. In the first place, how can Usenet posting be considered publishing? [See discussion below...] > 2. It would be rather easy to post a duplicate of the original message, > with a copyright, that would replace all existing copies of the message > (if any still exist). It would seem that weemba, the originator of > the articles in question, could cancle the original article, and repost > the article, with a copyright, and be protected under the law. (This is > where I get the term "retro-copyright". Maybe it's the wrong word to use.) This is an open question as to whether it would be sufficient to meet the test of Section 405. Personally, I don't think so, but there are really no experts as to this. But, in any event, it would not subject the copiers of the version that was previously posted without notice to any penalty for infringement (see the remainder of Section 405 for this), and more importantly, if they never received actual notice of the new version, presumably thery could continue to recopy the original without penalty. But this is still the weaker leg of the two. > > So posting a Usenet article without copyright notice, and > > then deciding later that it might be nice to "retro-copyright" it, does > > not wash. > > Again, this assumes that posting on Usenet falls under the legal definition > of "publishing", does it not? Since "mail" is copyrighted, couldn't we > just consider these messages "mass-mailings"? Or, should we all add > a C-notice in our .sig, leaving the rights to duplicate w/in the domain > of Usenet open to all? There should be little if any question as to whether posting something to Usenet, except possibly to an in-house local newsgroup, constitutes "publishing" for the purpose of copyright law (or defamation law, for that matter, either). Since no court has, to my knowledge, ruled on *any* matter involving Usenet per se, it remains a technically open question, but not a particularly debatable one. And, by the way, "mass-mailings" are publication as well; the statement "mail is copyrighted" is inaccurate; the only reason mail is protected even without copyright notice is because it is unpublished, and it is considered unpublished *only* where it is intended to be a private communication (that is, the sender knows who the recipients are, it is sent under cover (physical or electronic envelope) and is not intended for public inspection). A "mass"-mailing is no different than any other form of public distribution of copies, even if the list of recipients is a smaller set than the general public. "Publication" is defined in Section 101 as "the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies ... to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. ..." There is some jusrisprudence to indicate that electronic publication, though it may not involve the physical transfer of media embodying the work, is a form of publication rather than public performance (which in itself does NOT constitute publication). So I do not consider the matter seriously in doubt. Michael C. Berch mcb@eris.berkeley.edu / mcb@tis.llnl.gov / ucbvax!eris!mcb