chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/20/86)
>In article <21@paladin.UUCP> bobg@paladin.UUCP (Bob Goldberg) writes: >> In todays world, almost anything worth discussing is >>copyrighted. If we were to gather in an informal group and discussed the >>matter, that would be no violation of copyright (right?). In article <2927@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >Right. ... presumably because this is not considered copying. It is clear that if I read a book and write something about it, even including a few paraphrases from it, that this is not a violation of copyright laws. I have often wondered, however, where the line is really drawn. In particular, must those with eidetic memories take special care? I quote here from a standard copyright notice (is this a violation of the copyright itself? I do not think so): No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any informatoin storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing .... However, when I read something, I am committing it to a chemical information storage and retrieval system. In some cases I may remember passages word for word. I appear to be in violation of the copyright! ---But this is of course silly: and I suppose the restriction on me is that I not reproduce any memorised sections. Yet I may do this entirely by accident. Indeed, I am virtually certain that much of the phrasing I use is lifted word for word from various published works I have read: not with intent to copy, but because I thought the wording effective, and thus remembered and repeated it. Now it is clear to me (though it may also be wrong) that this too is fair use. I do not worry about being arrested for remembering things, nor for repeating them. Yet still I wonder. When should I become concerned? -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
ark@alice.UUCP (07/21/86)
> Now it is clear to me (though it may also be wrong) that this too > is fair use. I do not worry about being arrested for remembering > things, nor for repeating them. Yet still I wonder. When should > I become concerned? Surely reading something -- even memorizing it -- is not copying it. Repeating it may be, though. For instance, a performance of a play or a piece of music is a copy, as is a paraphrase or a translation into another language. When should you be worried? I dunno. I would start getting worried when I wrote something that had a significant chance of being proved to be some kind of a copy of something else.
shor@sphinx.UUCP (07/21/86)
In article <2518@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > > No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted > in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, > including photocopying and recording, or by any informatoin > storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing .... > When we were taught about copyright law in library school, one of the first things that we were told is that saying it's so doesn't make it so. This claim by publishers doesn't have the force of law behind it, and can be ignored. Brief excerpts (with attribution) used for educational or illustrative purposes are perfectly legal, as long as they don't steal potential income from the publisher. In short, the above claim by publishers is both silly and unenforceable. -- Melinda Shore ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor University of Chicago Computation Center XASSHOR@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (07/22/86)
In article <2518@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > >However, when I read something, I am committing it to a chemical >information storage and retrieval system. ... I appear to be in >violation of the copyright! You're safe until they repeal the fifth ammendment. I'd quote it here, but I read it in a copyrighted book, so I can't. :-) Matt Crawford "Sooner or later, generals will own you."
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (07/22/86)
> It is clear that if I read a book and write something about it, > even including a few paraphrases from it, that this is not a even including a few *quotes* from it - this is what fair use if about > violation of copyright laws. I have often wondered, however, > where the line is really drawn. In particular, must those with > eidetic memories take special care? Yes - although people with such good memories probably will also remember that they read the text somewhere. 1/2 :-) > >... > ... Yet still I wonder. When should > I become concerned? > -- An attorney I heard speak on copyright gave a rule of thumb - you've quoted too much if your quote can substitute for purchase of the copyrighted item. > In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) --henry schaffer n c state univ ...mcnc!ecsvax!hes
coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) (07/22/86)
In article <1420@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >You're safe until they repeal the fifth ammendment. I'd quote it >here, but I read it in a copyrighted book, so I can't. :-) Actually you can. Under the 1978 US Copyright act the US Government cannot hold any copyrights. Thus anything put out by them or their agents (text of laws, opinions, etc.) is in the public domain. -- -Lee (coller@utah-cs.arpa, {ihnp4, seismo, hplabs, decvax}!utah-cs!coller) "They say the mark of a good team is that it wins when it plays poorly." -- Jim Fassel, Head Football Coach, University of Utah
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/23/86)
> When we were taught about copyright law in library school, one of the > first things that we were told is that saying it's so doesn't make it > so. This claim by publishers doesn't have the force of law behind it, > and can be ignored. Brief excerpts (with attribution) used for > educational or illustrative purposes are perfectly legal, as long as > they don't steal potential income from the publisher. In short, the > above claim by publishers is both silly and unenforceable. All you say is true (more or less) except the last. It is not both silly and unenforcable. If the copyright restriction was not there, then there would be no way they could enforce copyright. Even if the restrictions go too far (which they do) they give the publisher room to fight a violation in court if it comes to that. Since 'fair use' is such a grey area, the only real way to deal with it is to restrict all rights and let the court decide fair use on a case by case basis. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!plaid!chuq O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim Of Brahamana and recluse the honoured name! For, quarrelling, each to his view they claim, Such folk see only one side of a thing. -- Buddha -- The Elephant and the Blind Men
dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs) (07/23/86)
In article <3860@utah-cs.UUCP> coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) writes: >Actually you can. Under the 1978 US Copyright act the US Government >cannot hold any copyrights. Thus anything put out by them or their >agents (text of laws, opinions, etc.) is in the public domain. Hmmm. BSD was written by Berkeley under a DARPA grant, wasn't it? Does that make them an agent of the US govt? Dave Cohrs (608) 262-1204 ..!{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,topaz}!uwvax!dave dave@rsch.wisc.edu
jordan@nike.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) (07/23/86)
dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs) writes:
BSD was written by Berkeley under a DARPA grant, wasn't it?
Does that make them an agent of the US govt?
No, probably not ... in any case, the way that works out, the Regents
of the University of California hold the copyright ... for 4.3 we went
through a lot to get everything with a consistent copyright notice on
it, all the way down to the man pages.
/jordan