chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/04/86)
> I agree, we should police ourSELVES. That is why I have to agree with the > original poster about tattling. I followed all the postings in reference to > this issue. It seems to me that the original poster of Niven's work took > enough abuse from the net.police without the need to drag outside parties > into it. I agree completely. We SHOULD police ourselves. However, you are forgetting one major thing. This is a case where the policing FAILED. Usenet, through one of its users, BROKE THE LAW. In this case, we could only have compounded it by not informing Niven. It is NOT enough to slap someone's hands, but it was also neccessary for the victim to be aware of the problem so that HE has the option to deal with it. Why? Good question. Here is a scenario. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex is posted to the network, sans copyright. Someone out there grabs it and considering it to be in the public domain, decides to publish it in an anthology of works. I mean, it's free, it's well written, and it has a name author attached. Said anthology sells 1 million copies paperback and 25,000 hardback plus a Science Fiction Book Club alternate. Anthology makes a mint. Niven makes nothing. Guess who is at fault? Most likely, Ken and USENET. The anthologist had no reason to believe it wasn't public domain and used it in good faith. A story from a name author in the above situation could be worth about $25,000, more or less. Since we are guilty of the breach, we're liable to repay Niven for that lost revenue. We're also liable for court costs to recover the above, our court costs, possibly punative damages, and possibly a figure for lost future revenue. Total cost? Good question. Say $100,000. Now, here is the other scenario. Same as above, except someone notified Niven of the violation and he chose not to pursue it. We aren't liable. Cost? to the net, nothing. To me, $.22 for a stamp and a bunch of flames. The above is full of round numbers and some oversimplifications, but the situation is realistic. Policing ourselves is wonderful, as long as we don't break the rules. We are NOT an entity unto ourselves. You have to remember that in any situation like there there are not only our interests, but THEIR interests, since there is a transgressor and a transgressee. I think the answer is real simple. Don't break the rules. But when you DO break the rules, you shouldn't be surprised to be held accountable. -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table. -- The Anarchist Cookbook
tmca@utastro.UUCP (Tim Abbott) (07/06/86)
'scuse me, but I've been reading net.news for the first time, and I notice a great deal of fuss over policing ourselves. Now the word "police" usually implies some sort of (hopefully) incorruptible, paternalistic force to rap one hard over the nuckles when one commits a no-no. One would also expect that the rapping of the nuckles should hurt; badly enough that one doesn't do it again. Now, what does all this ticking ourselves off really achieve ? Hmmm? What is needed is a satisfactory form of curbing copywrite infringence before it can spread through the net. Unfortunately, what I have learned of the net in the short(ish) time that I have been using it, seems to show a fairly anarchistic state of affairs, with absolutely no form of central control. The only possible method that I can see would be someone, well versed in copywrite law, on each node reading each and every letter as it leaves his node, censoring as he sees fit. Censorship ? Ugh ! Any other policing would seem to take the form of self control by every user of the net. Unlikely to succeed, I think. A pretty problem, nicht wahr ? Tim Abbott P.S. I'd be quite curious to hear exactly how far one can safely go over the net without breaking the law. Can anyone let me know? "Clean as a Q-Tip, Quiet as nylon."
asente@cascade.UUCP (07/08/86)
In article <4784@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Good question. Here is a scenario. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex is posted >to the network, sans copyright. Someone out there grabs it and considering >it to be in the public domain, decides to publish it in an anthology of >works. I mean, it's free, it's well written, and it has a name author >attached. Said anthology sells 1 million copies paperback and 25,000 >hardback plus a Science Fiction Book Club alternate. Anthology makes a >mint. Niven makes nothing. > >Guess who is at fault? Most likely, Ken and USENET. The anthologist had >no reason to believe it wasn't public domain and used it in good faith. A >story from a name author in the above situation could be worth about >$25,000, more or less. Since we are guilty of the breach, we're liable to >repay Niven for that lost revenue. We're also liable for court costs to >recover the above, our court costs, possibly punative damages, and possibly >a figure for lost future revenue. Total cost? Good question. Say $100,000. This seems extremely far-fetched. Publishing something copyrited without the copyright does NOT put it into the public domain. Perhaps Chuq was thinking of trade secrets. The hypothetical anthologist is on pretty shaky ground if he sees this story and assumes it's in the public domain. The original poster has infringed upon the copyright; there's little doubt of that. But he (and Usenet) shouldn't be liable to the extent Chuq imagines. Consider an analagous situation. I make a photocopy of the story for use in a public speaking class. Someone walks by my desk, sees the copy, and notices that there's no copyright attached. He therefore assumes it's public domain and includes it in an anthology. Or imagine I've typed the story into the computer to do a word analysis for some reason or other. I print it out and neglect to pick it up; someone else does. I don't fault Chuq for notifying Niven; that was a considerate of him and certainly guaranteed that there would be no further problems. But I think it was unnecessary. -paul asente asente@cascade.stanford.edu decwrl!glacier!cascade!asente
ka@hropus.UUCP (07/17/86)
Summary: Chuq says that if someone had pulled Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex off the network and published it, Ken and USENET would most likely be responsible. Paul Asente disagrees: > Consider an analagous situation. I make a photocopy of the story for > use in a public speaking class. Someone walks by my desk, sees the copy, > and notices that there's no copyright attached. He therefore assumes it's > public domain and includes it in an anthology. Or imagine I've typed the > story into the computer to do a word analysis for some reason or other. > I print it out and neglect to pick it up; someone else does. Consider some situations which are unambiguous under U. S. copyright law. I see a published story without a copyright notice on it. I am entitled to act on the assumption that the story is not copyrighted until I am informed otherwise. My assumption is reasonable because if the work were not in the public domain it should have been published without a copyright notice. More important from a legal point of view, it is reasonable because Congress said it was reasonable when it wrote the copyright law. If I act on this assumption and the result injures the owner of the copyright on the material, I am not legally responsible for the injury. Instead, the person who published the story without copyrighting it is. Now consider an alternative scenario: I break into an authors house and steal a just completed manuscript from the author's desk. Even if this manuscript does not contain a copyright notice, I am not entitled to act on the assumption that the work is not copyrighted. For me to claim that I was acting in good faith in such a situation would be frankly ludicrous. More specificly, works are born copyrighted--i. e. any work written by the author is copyrighted by him without any action on his part. A copyright notice needs to be added to the work only when it is published. Basicly for this reason, the Congress did not say that an *unpublished* work with- out a copyright notice can be assumed to be in the public domain. It seems to me that the scenarios given by Paul should be evaluated similarly to my latter scenario, although I suppose one could argue about this. The case where a story is posted to the net, on the other hand, is as far as I can see identical to to my first scenario. The only question is whether posting an article to USENET qualifies as publishing it. Given the size of the net, it is hard to see how anyone could claim that there is a difference between posting an article to the net and publishing it. > I don't fault Chuq for notifying Niven; that was a considerate of him > and certainly guaranteed that there would be no further problems. But > I think it was unnecessary. The major issue with respect to the last sentence is whether USENET could be held responsible. USENET per se could not be held responsible because it is not a legal entity, but the corporations that own the machines that make up USENET might be. This falls into a grey legal area. I expect that if anyone actually filed suit against all the companies participating in USENET, most of USENET would be dismantled long before the suit was resolved in court. So the survival of USENET depends less on how the courts might resolve the vageries of legal liability than on whether we make someone mad enough to file suit. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ka (official name) ihnp4!opus!ka (shorter path)