bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (03/15/84)
The following is personal correspondence posted, with permission, to the
net.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another net participant has committed the crime of illegal reproduction of
copyrighted material, in this case a set of lyrics to a satirical popular
song. By doing so, he made himself and his site liable to severe penalties,
both criminal and civil, and showed a complete lack of respect for the
owner of the copyright.
We have been over this many times before, but these thieves continue to
operate. They are seemingly unaware that copyrighted material is property,
and that the owner of the copyright makes his or her living from restricted
reproduction of the copyrighted material. Thus, the real irony of the
situation: although one would expect that the offending poster would have
respect for the person owning the work that the offender decided to "share"
(one assumes that the offender liked the work), he is stealing from the
owner. It is as if one liked a painting hanging in a museum so much that he
removed it without permission and showed it to all and sundry while praising
the museum.
It is perfectly legal to reproduce short extracts of a copyrighted work for
critical purposes, but reproduction in whole is strictly and explicitly
forbidden. Otherwise, there would be no way for the artist to make money,
and there would thus be less motive for people to go to the trouble of
making their art available at all. The crime of theft is as serious in this
context as any other, even though you may not have to pick locks, mask your
face, or conceal merchandise.
I suggest that this warning be placed in the USENET etiquette article.
Tim Maroney, The Censored Hacker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As one who is in the business of writing potentially saleable software
I concur completely with Tim and perhaps feel more strongly about it
than he. I dare say that if I found software I had written for profit
being distributed for free to the world at large, I would have the
offending parties in court in a heartbeat.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (03/16/84)
Oh fuck off, Tim.
Copyright infringement means explicit reproduction of
the materiel for SALE by an unauthorized owner, not
simply listening to the lyrics of a song, writing them
down, and sending copies to your friends.
If you actually had any real legal knowledge, instead of
the fake legalities you purport to be an expert in, you
might already know this.
Steven Maurer
p.s. Sorry to all the rest of you for this flame, I just am
getting sick and tired of all the assholes making themselves
out to be junior-PRAVDA editors, by trying to tell everyone
what is proper "etiqute" for every newsgroup submission --
Especially people who lie to back up their opinions.reza@ihuxb.UUCP (H. Reza Taheri) (03/16/84)
{}
Tim Maroney, in an article posted for him by Byron Howes (unc!bch)
criticizes the posting of the lyrics to the song "eat it". Now, I have
no problem with Tim's article on the merits of his argument as they relate
to the copyright laws. BUT, the following is part of his article:
> Otherwise, there would be no way for the artist to make money,
> and there would thus be less motive for people to go to the trouble of
> making their art available at all.
I have a hard time imagining an "artist" with a name such as
Weird Al Yankavich, and a piece of "art" called Eat It!! :-) :-)
Be careful out there.
H. Reza Taheri
...!(most major machines on the net)!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza
(312)-979-1040spoo@utcsrgv.UUCP (Suk Lee) (03/17/84)
I've been wondering about this. Does
what we do on the network constitute
"copying" in a strict legal sense??
This is not a publishing medium, and
yet it carries out many of those
functions.
Has this ever been tested in the
courts??
--
From the pooped paws of:
Suk Lee
..!{decvax,linus,allegra,ihnp4}!utcsrgv!spoolaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/18/84)
Steve, 4 years ago, I wrote some fiction and kept it on-line on an MVT system in Ottawa. Somebody decided to print off some copies and distribute it. I sued them. They settled out of court, since they believed that I would have won hands down. I don't know whenter the fact that they had made lpr copies made them more likely to be responsible, or whether it is very different in the US than in Canada, but I can tell you this -- If anybody decides to distribute any of my fiction without paying me I will sue them in an instant. What do you think that electronic magazines are all about? -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (03/19/84)
Amen brother.
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (03/19/84)
I guess we should all stop humming songs as well. And make sure that
the bedtime stories you tell your kids at night are public domain!
I'll never listen to a radio again with anyone but my lawyer present.
Seriously - after the Supreme Court ruling on the Betamax case it seems
unlikely that posting the words of a song to the net will get anyone in
trouble.
Jimsteven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (03/20/84)
Lance, you pompous left wing reactionary (?!?!??????).
Whenever someone broadcasts something on the airwaves, everyone
has a right to recieve and use it. Period. This is why beer
& pizza joints can advertise the Super Bowl. If it were illegal,
they couldn't. (Of course you can be sued if you copy various
Decoders, for unscrambling certain broadcasts, even though you
have every right to record the scrambled version).
This is even the case of such things as Radar Detectors which
search for the microwave emmission of cop's radar guns.
Some states outlawed radar detectors (notably Texas), but the
laws were struck down in federal court for precicely the above reason.
Steven (absolutely positive in his opinions) Maurer
p.s. look up the definition of 'positive' in the fortune file.gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (03/21/84)
Society's aim in setting up laws is to make people behave "reasonably" towards each other (simplification of course). The tack that the U.S. seems to take is to write the laws so that just about everything is illegal, relying on the hassle, cost, and time of pushing a case thru the clogged courts to prevent this from being a serious problem. (It IS serious in that the illegality of everything is used to TARGET certain people and groups, but it's too unwieldy to use on everyone.) So while it's true that ASCAP could sue every bar in North America, they won't, because it's a losing proposition. Somehow I doubt that a recording artist could lose money from having the words to their song posted to Usenet, but if they want to pay lawyers to stop the practice, well, that's the kind of client lawyers like best. On the other hand, having your unpublished (or published!) novel reproduced in toto for a national audience would be a reasonable thing to sue about, since you can show and recover for actual financial damage. --> I'm not a lawyer, but I live under these laws, so I'm required (by --> law) to understand them. Right? So it must be true...or Catch-22.
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (03/23/84)
Talking about things that travel over the "free" air waves, perhaps you have heard of photography. It is the science of recording certain correlated waves which travel through the "free" air. However photographers carry around something called consent forms which they find very useful in staying out of jails and courtrooms. The trick to their plight lies in the fact that they are trying to become a little wealthier because of the stuff they are gathering from the "free" air, and we all know that you can't make something from nothing. Now if you want to take something out of the "free" air that I created, and you want to make money with it, then I should make money with it too. And if I don't I am going to get you, and the courts and jails will be on my side.
norskog@fortune.UUCP (Lance Norskog) (03/25/84)
Steve, you ignorant slut.
Tim's right, copyright law in this country has nothing to do with
money changing hands. If you run a bar, and you have a radio,
and you play it when the public is there, an ASCAP lawyer may
walk in, listen, and later testify in court that you were disseminating
the work of others AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY ROYALTIES!
Lance C. Norskog
Fortune Systems, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA
{cbosgd,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,amd70,decvax!ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!norskog
Sorry, Steve, I couldn't resist the bug-defying first line.
Sorry, everyone else, I know the guy.julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (03/27/84)
Just a reminder that UUCP extends outside the Us of A, and that copyright laws vary between countries. For all I know, which I don't, they might be state-dependent in the USA too.