chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/01/86)
> > MAN OF STEEL, WOMAN OF KLEENEX > by Larry Niven (1969) > Please note that this posting is a blatant violation of copyright. "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" was published in the book "All the Myriad Ways" and is copyright 1971 by Larry Niven. This is an unapproved publication, and by leaving the copyright notices off you have possibly put the work into the public domain and infringed on Niven's rights to potential future earnings. This is a very serious matter. It not only affects a work by a professional author, it creates a number of legal liabilities. Niven can, among other things, sue the poster, the site/organization the posting came from, and the net itself (if you could ever figure out how to define the net) for the loss of copyright and future earnings on the work. I suggest that all SA's on the system track down the associated article and remove it from their systems and not propogate it further. I also suggest that the person involved contact Larry Niven with an apology, and see what can be done to minimize the damage. Everyone needs to THINK before posting about the implications -- copyright is NOT something to take lightly, folks. It is an authors livelihood. Disgusted, chuq -- :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 The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/05/86)
> In article <849@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > >This article is not in the puiblic domain. Mr. Crist has commiteed a crime > >by publishing it without permission. > >There is no excuse for stealing a writer's work. > From: Nick -- Editor Badger/Nexus reviews > Gimme break pal. > Let's keep USENET free from "outside intervention". > A simple flame will suffice. No need to black-mail the guy into an > apology. From someone who claims to be an 'editor' you show very little respect for the concept of a Copyright -- the very lifeblood of an editor and a writer. Writers don't live on words, Writers live on the rights to use those words, and when that right is taken away, you can't just ignore it. This is NOT a situation where we can afford to keep USENET free from 'outside intervention' as you so nicely put it. It is USENET who has intervened in the outside world, not the other way around. To simply try to shake this off puts USENET outside the law, which is wrong. Period. To keep the group notified about what is going on, I've sent a letter to Larry Niven explaining the situation. I've also talked with Ken, and he will also be contacting Larry. Any further action is completely up to Larry Niven, based upon what he feels must be done to protect his Copyright, and Ken, to do what he feels needs to be done to apologize to the net. Again, I recommend seriously that all System Administrators find the offending copy of this article and delete it from their systems. All people who made copies of the story should destroy them. > Why, the next thing you know, IBM will be suing the USENET community for > making fun of the PC. Or better yet, everyone and their brother will > sue DEC because of Ken Ardnt's statement, plus the fact that he doesn't > put a disclaimer in his postings. Or better yet, Madonna will sue > the USENET because someone faked her name in a posting to net.singles, > and it's clear that she no longers has armpit hair. > Yeah, and the Catholics in net.religion.catholic will sue the Jews in > net.religion.jewish for not believing in Jesus, thus causing them to > question the meaning of Christmas trees. > Well I'll show them.. These questions have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, except to try to avoid the problem and play on emotionalisms. Legally, we are protected from IBM and Madonna because they are public figures, as long as we don't get into libelous material (Libel has nothing to do with Copyright). Religious freedom is protected under the First amendment, which has nothing to do with Copyright. Dec and Ken Arndt are on their own -- they can play with the EOC all they want, although that STILL has nothing to do with Copyright. I'll put this very simply. A law was broken. What we need to do now is to try to minimize the damage. USENET doesn't stand outside the law, although sometimes it seems to try. We simply do NOT take the legalities involved in the situation into consideration often enough, unless it is to our favor. There have been a number of cases of Copyright infringement on the net, this being the latest. There have also been a number of cases where AT&T's Unix licenses. If you really want USENET to be free of "outside intervention" you have to play by the rules and not give them a reason to intervene. We haven't, and so far we've been lucky. I don't want to be around when that luck runs out. A few rules to live by: o If it is Copyrighted, don't post it unless you have specific permission. If you aren't sure, assume it is Copyrighted until you find out otherwise. If you arne't sure, get permission or don't post. o If you see something that has been posted that you know to be Copyrighted, contact the poster and let them know. If it has been posted without permission, the Copyright owner must be informed. If it has been posted without permission AND without the Copyright notice, it is CRITICAL that the Copyright owner be notified and all reasonable attempts be made to protect the Copyright -- if this isn't done, that piece is in jeopardy of falling into the public domain. o If someone is silly enough to post something under their own name without permission, Copyright, or the original authors name, that is plagiarism. You think I'm hyper about Copyright, try that and see what happens. You don't want to know. Trust me. Just to give you an idea of breaking Copyright could be worth to you, an author can sue you for royalties on the piece the he should have gotten had you really bought it from him, at market rates. If it is determined that the posting damages future royalties (if, for example, it puts it into the public domain and forfeits the Copyright) you can be liable for all future royalties that story WOULD have made, plus punative damages. On top of this, you'll be hit with court costs and legal fees from both your lawyer and HIS lawyer. Who's liable? Damn good question. Definitely the person who posted the Copyright violater. Probably the people who administer/own the site it was posted on, or the people who own that machine, for not policing it properly. Possibly the entire net, or the individual companies that support the net with resources (i.e. every site that had a copy of the offending article or transported it to another site) for conspiring to break the Copyright. I don't know HOW someone would sue the net, or whether it would stick, but I'd certainly prefer not to see someone try and find out. Would YOU like to explain to YOUR boss why you just got a subpoena? Let's be careful, folks. With 20,000 readers (by Brian Reids estimates) we aren't small time anymore, and with size comes responsibility. Let's show some. chuq -- :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
jkr@gitpyr.UUCP (J. Kenneth Riviere) (06/08/86)
I agree that copyright infringement is an important legal issue, but I hope
that we will not see a major flaming match here in net.comics as a result of
this short sighted posting. It seems to me that there are better forums for
this discussion, but I guess there are people reading this newsgroup that
need to see it.
As long as I'm posting about copyright I'd like to point people to a new
government publication concerning this issue. It is called _Intellectual_
_Property_Rights_in_an_age_of_Electronics_and_Information_ and was prepared
by the Office of Technology Assessment. It is a fascinating (to me at least)
study of the history and intent of the intellectual property legislation
including copyright, patent, trade secret, and the new legislation recently
passed to help protect semiconductor designs. It tries to access the impact
of new technologies such as photocopying (not xeroxing, Xerox is a trademark
of Xerox Corp.), audio and video recording, and computing. It analyzes the
various types of intellectual properties, the goals of the government in
regulating ownership rights for said properties, and the goals and interests
of affected parties. It is a 300 page report available for $15 from your
local Government Printing Office outlet (mine told me that the stock number
I needed to order it was 052-003-01036-4, I don't know if that is a general
number or is specific to my local outlet) or your local government document
depository library (of which Georgia Tech's library is one). I hope someone
more familiar with news and the net than I am will redirect this discussion
to a more appropriate newsgroup.
--
J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR)
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkr
"I'd rather be conservative than bigoted,
but I'd rather be *dead* than conservative!"
-Kate from _Kate_and_Allie_