wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/18/86)
(Reposted due to local system problems; original never got out to net.) A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro Extra" special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably would be of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as it seems to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I am posting this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News by Tim O'Reilly. It is oriented toward "readnews", and, as such, might make a handy introductory handout to people at your site if you use that news-reading software. Also, I'm curious -- the author used "live" USENET traffic (from net.space) as examples in his article. Are there any of you out there who saw this article and whose names appeared in the examples? If so, how do you feel about this -- flattered, annoyed, indifferent? I know I eagerly scanned the examples to see if my name showed up (it didn't). Names shown include Ethan Vishniac, Paul Dietz, Kenall Auel, Ed Turner, Bruce Lowerre, Rob Kenyon, & Dave Platt -- Did Mr. O'Reilly contact any of you in advance to let you know your names would appear in a national publication or to ask permission? I doubt that any of us would say that he should do that; I just wondered if he did... (Seems like the kind of thing the magazine's lawyers would bring up.) Regards, Will
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/19/86)
In article <1463@brl-smoke.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > (Reposted due to local system problems; original never got out to net.) > > A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro Extra" > special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably would be > of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as it seems > to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I am posting > this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News by Tim O'Reilly. > > Also, I'm curious -- the author used "live" USENET traffic (from > net.space) as examples in his article. Are there any of you out there > who saw this article and whose names appeared in the examples? If so, > how do you feel about this -- flattered, annoyed, indifferent? I know > I eagerly scanned the examples to see if my name showed up (it didn't). > Names shown include Ethan Vishniac, Paul Dietz, Kenall Auel, Ed Turner, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Bruce Lowerre, Rob Kenyon, & Dave Platt -- Did Mr. O'Reilly contact > any of you in advance to let you know your names would appear in a > national publication or to ask permission? I doubt that any of us would > say that he should do that; I just wondered if he did... (Seems like the > kind of thing the magazine's lawyers would bring up.) I was not contacted in advance (or afterwards). I do not feel that such contact would have been necessary or appropriate. From a legal point of view it seems likely that submitting an article to usenet is like making a public speech, or writing an article without a copyright. I do admit to being slightly flattered, (I hope that it wasn't a stupid article ... although of course I *never* write those ... almost never...:-) ). -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) (06/21/86)
> A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro Extra" > special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably would be > of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as it seems > to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I am posting > this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News by Tim O'Reilly. > > It is oriented toward "readnews", and, as such, might make a handy > introductory handout to people at your site if you use that news-reading > software. > > Also, I'm curious -- the author used "live" USENET traffic (from > net.space) as examples in his article. Are there any of you out there > who saw this article and whose names appeared in the examples? If so, > how do you feel about this -- flattered, annoyed, indifferent? I know > I eagerly scanned the examples to see if my name showed up (it didn't). > Names shown include Ethan Vishniac, Paul Dietz, Kenall Auel, Ed Turner, > Bruce Lowerre, Rob Kenyon, & Dave Platt -- Did Mr. O'Reilly contact > any of you in advance to let you know your names would appear in a > national publication or to ask permission? I doubt that any of us would > say that he should do that; I just wondered if he did... I am the author of the article in question; I made the assumption that material posted to Usenet was effectively published information, and therefore subject to the fair use rule in reprinting material in reviews et al. More to the point, it never occurred to me that anyone might be offended. If anyone was, I apologize. In particular, I chose the group net.space because I know that most space-exploration and development boosters (like me and many of the readers of net.space) are eager to see space activities mentioned in print at any opportunity. Again, if anyone was offended, I apologize. (Incidentally, the article (though not the example of live traffic) was adapted from two short handbooks published by my company, Using UUCP and Usenet, and Managing UUCP and Usenet. These handbooks obviously provide a more complete introduction to USENET, readnews, vnews and rn than the article in question.) Tim O'Reilly O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. 171 Jackson Street Newton, MA 02159 (617) 527-4210 decvax\!harvard\!adelie\!ora\!tim
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (06/23/86)
In article <109@ora.UUCP> tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) writes: > [Discussion of use of real netnews articles in DEC publication...] > . . . > I am the author of the article in question; I made the assumption that > material posted to Usenet was effectively published information, and > therefore subject to the fair use rule in reprinting material in > reviews et al. Right conclusion, wrong legal reasoning. Tim is correct that the permission of the authors was not necessary. [Whether he should have done so as a matter of courtesy is orthagonal to the legal question.] The question is not whether the articles are "published" (they are) but whether they are in the public domain. Material that is published without copyright notice, and without evidence that the copyright notice was inadvertantly omitted, is in the the public domain. [Yes, there are some trivial exceptions to this, and yes, there are cases where distribution does not comprise publication, but they're not involved here.] Reprinting the articles in question does not fall under the "fair use" doctrine, which applies only to copyrighted material. Tim (or any of us) is perfectly free to make any use of public domain Usenet articles, including republishing them for profit. About the only thing you CAN'T do is assert intellectual property rights in them and try to copyright them yourself. [Or use the information therein in an unlawful manner, etc.] Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/25/86)
> The question is not whether the articles are "published" (they are) > but whether they are in the public domain. Right so far. > Material that is published > without copyright notice, and without evidence that the copyright > notice was inadvertantly omitted, is in the the public domain. Please check with a copyright lawyer before doing anything rash. This is NOT TRUE in some countries, and I believe the US joined the club a few years ago. In those countries, copyright is implicitly present even in the absence of the notice. Copyright notices are still usually used, partly to be more emphatic and partly because not all countries recognize this rule. But leaving off the notice no longer puts material into the public domain. I know this is true in Canada; I believe the recent changes in US copyright law make it true in the US as well. -- Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (06/27/86)
In article <6852@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > The question is not whether the articles are "published" (they are) > > but whether they are in the public domain. > > Right so far. > > > Material that is published > > without copyright notice, and without evidence that the copyright > > notice was inadvertantly omitted, is in the the public domain. > > Please check with a copyright lawyer before doing anything rash. This is > NOT TRUE in some countries, and I believe the US joined the club a few > years ago. > [...] [L]eaving off the notice no longer puts material into the > public domain. I know this is true in Canada; I believe the recent > changes in US copyright law make it true in the US as well. My apologies; I often forget that this is an international forum, and should have stated that my remarks were limited to US law. In any case, I'm about three years behind in copyright law developments, which is when I left law practice, and I departed from my usual refusal to shoot from the hip in giving free legal advice on Usenet. Anyway, I'm proceeding from the language of 17 USC 405, part of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took effect in 1978. The upshot of section 405 is that the only exceptions that prevent you from losing copyright protection in a work if it is published without a copyright notice are: (paraphrased) 1. You've omitted the notice from relatively few distributed copies of the work; 2. You register the work within five years of publication, and make a resonable attempt to add notices to all copies after the omission is discovered; or 3. Somebody else distributes copies without the notice, in violation of an agreement not to do so. Section 405(b) holds "innocent infringers" who rely on the lack of a copyright notice in making copies generally free of liability, with some exceptions. Section 405(c) says that you don't lose your copyright if somebody removes or obliterates your copyright notice. The confusion Henry brought up may have arisen because copyright doctrine holds that copyright exists when the work is first "born", rather than needing to be conferred by registration, publication with notice, etc. Nevertheless, you LOSE your rights when you then publish the work without notice. The bottom line for Usenetters is that unless section 405 is no longer good law (repealed, amended, or limited by court interpretation, which is entirely possible, since I no longer have a law library to check this out in) people can safely assume that Usenet articles published without notice of copyright are likely to be in the public domain, UNDER US LAW. I've cross-posted this to net.legal, and directed followups there. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb