karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/08/89)
In article <2732@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
+>Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation
+>copyright. Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new,
+>compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next
+>monthly posting.
.........
+> Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection
+>
+> Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton
+>
+>You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or
+>in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it
+>or pretend that you are the one who put it together.
+>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+>
+>Now (almost) nobody can complain about this sort of declaration, since it
+>is a well established, years-old net precedent that controls the
+>very program many people are using to read this message! I could always
+>use the "inews" copyright which forbids things like renting, "marketing"
+>and insists a prominent copyright notice to be put in by any distributor.
+>(I'll deal with the almost nobodies down below.) 8-)
I've no problem with this as long as you reword it slightly to express that
what you're trying to prevent is someone selling your group for profit
alone; it's already established that many hundreds of people and companies
"sell" access to Usenet in one form or another (barter and other exchanges
of things that are valuable are "selling"; it doesn't have to be a cash
exchange).
+>I would also very much like to add the following:
+>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+> This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider
+> offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some
+> minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that
+> nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and
+> all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are
+> necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors.
+>and
+> No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords
+> or rotation schemes.
Sure; that I can live with as well under "disclaimer" or something similar.
+>Now back to the first clause. I will provide more information on that
+>later, because there are some philosophical and net administration issues
+>to discuss.
+>
+>C) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not
+> to you because you didn't announce these rules when the group was
+> created (as OtherRealms and Gourmand did.)
+>
+> If you check the copyright Acts of the main nations on USENET,
+> you will find that the concept of copyright does not have to
+> be declared. It exists from the moment of creation unless
+> explicitly renounced. To describe the always-existing right
+> is not a midlife change. To renounce the compilation copyright,
+> as Rich Salz did, is a mid-stream change, not that anybody seems
+> to mind.
The default and historic action on Usenet, though, _for moderators_, seems
to be to either (1) disclaim, or (2) never desire to enforce those Copyrights.
You can't enforce what you _deliberately ignore_ for long lengths of time;
Copyright is like that. You can lose your protection by intentionally
ignoring the requirements of the law.
I still submit that the default assumption when a person posts to the net is
that their posting is effectively PD. For this reason people sometimes do
put copyrights (and copylefts) on net postings, to "un-PD" their posted
material.
+> a) I will change the licence statement to one that everybody should
+> be able to handle, and I'll even make it looser if necessary,
+> adding the various promises I have made in this debate.
Good. That removes the reason for the ruckus and the vote.
+> b) I am asking if people object to the inclusion of a clause that
+> puts responsibility where control is, asking site admins to
+> worry about who reads what on their own site.
That sounds reasonable as well (although some others may have a problem with
it; I'll let them speak for themselves). I can't see where someone would
have much of a valid objection; universities would be the only potential
problem (I'd think).
+> d) Once again, I'm ready to give whatever assurances people need
+> that I don't intend to be some sort of net dictator here --
+> randomly shutting off sites or demanding fees from honest,
+> hardworking sites that charge to cover costs.
Ok....
I'll call off the vote; barring further changes the vote call is considered
cancelled. If someone out there still wishes to continue this measure, have
at it, but it won't be with my support.
The net wins this time; the doomsayers on both sides were wrong.
To Mr. Townson and others who want to establish a "formal" Usenet Organization:
Our current near-anarchy system seems to work; please don't advocate messing
with it. The desired outcome for everyone appears to have been achieved.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl)
Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"