merlyn@sequent.UUCP (03/23/84)
<- This is where the chomper line should go Alright guys, you asked for it... REPEAT IT (sung to "Beat it") You always go and post anything to the net No copyright can stop you, I even bet You'd post any source code, that you now could get So repeat it Just repeat it... You're typing in the words that belong to the stars You're playing with their rights This ain't how "Weird Al" starts There's attorneys in line Just to state the charge But repeat it (and you'll be hearing from them)... Repeat it (repeat it) Repeat it (repeat it) Doesn't matter if they (C)-ed it Show your big brother Show Uncle Tim It doesn't matter If it's copied again... Repeat it (repeat it) Repeat it (repeat it) If you get caught, just beat it! Take it from records Take it from books It doesn't matter if they call you crooks just read it, type it, post it [pant pant!!] [guitar interlude] Repeat it (repeat it) Repeat it (repeat it) If it says (C), delete it! Send it all over Distribute, away Even take lyrics From young Michael J. ... Repeat it (repeat it) Repeat it (repeat it) If they catch you, just eat it! Don't pay no 'tention to copyright laws they were all written for your ol' gran-pa's Just read it, type it, post it... Repeat it (repeat it) Repeat it (repeat it) Don't think you've been defeated When someone starts yelling "you've broken the law" Point out the net isn't publishing at all and feed it, feed it, feed it... [repeat ad naseum...] Randal L. Schwartz, esq. (does anyone remember "Let's get Visicalc (TM)"?) Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. UUCP: ...!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!merlyn (official legendary sorcerer of the 1984 Summer Olympics) BELL: (503)626-5700 Original Material (C) 1984 by Randal L. Schwartz [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED]
dmt@hocsl.UUCP (03/24/84)
Three cheers for Randal Schwartz, whose contribution was right on and totally in the spirit of the debate. Randal, may I have your permission to show your lyrics to my pre-teen kids, who are fans of Michael J. and Wierd Al. They'll love it. Please send reply to my lawyer at . . . :-)
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/26/84)
<> > Alright guys, you asked for it... Satire "Repeat it" follows in cited news article, followed by the author's signature and then... > Original Material (C) 1984 by Randal L. Schwartz [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED] OK, if we're going to play the copyright game on the net, I want to know the rules. I may be jumping to conclusions - but I'll jump anyhow. How does Mr. Schwartz simultaneously place his satirical "Repeat it" in the public domain and reserve ALL rights to it??? Does this make even 14 g. of sense? The net is clearly distribution into the public domain since there is no provision in its operation for restricting distribution based on the presence of a copyright notice within the news item. Could we PLEASE be serious about honoring existing copyrights without getting obnoxious and arrogant, putting a copyright on everything that gets posted? -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/27/84)
[] Mr Schwartz has every right in the US to post and claim copyright. This method is recognized by the courts. If you ever write something you wish to be published, put a copyright notice on the material, make a copy, then mail the copy (making sure you get a post office date stamp on it) to yourself or anyone else you wan to hold it. Then send the other copy to the publisher. According to copyright law, this is sufficient to protect your rights. It is done all the time by authors to protect themselves from unscrupulous publishers. You can then apply for an official copyright from the government. Copyrights are good for 54 years and are renewable for 17 year periods thereafter. Very few authors take advantage of the renewing process. But, beware of trying to republish anything Mark Twain did, the family has been renewing his copyrights right along. There is very little of Twain's that is not still protected under copyright. T. C. Wheeler
merlyn@sequent.UUCP (03/28/84)
<- Eat it, line gobbler (where's the beef?)
~~...!nbires!opus!rcd in opus.275 sez:
....How
does Mr. Schwartz simultaneously place his satirical "Repeat it" in the
public domain and reserve ALL rights to it???...The net is clearly
distribution into the public domain since there is no provision
in its operation for restricting distribution based on the
presence of a copyright notice within the news item....
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
~~ end quote
First off, I wanna know why opus!rcd always sez that his return address
is "nbires!rcd". Is this a deliberate attempt to hide? (:<})
Second (actually first)... "Publishing" my "song" on the net DOES NOT
place it into the PUBLIC DOMAIN any more than publishing the C spec in
K&R's White C book. If you'll look after the front cover, you'll see
that it says "Copyright (C) 1978 by [BTL]." and later says "All rights
reserved.". What "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" means is that ANY copying is
done WITHOUT my PERMISSION, but my permission is needed to do it
LEGALLY. I alone, reserve that right fully. This also mean that IF
you copy MY song, THEN I have the RIGHT to have you NOT DO THAT. Of
course, anything you could do to my song, you could do to the White C
book. And it would be just as illegal either way. Truely, I am not a
traffic cop. I will not come looking on every system to see that you
haven't done that. Actually, I implicitly gave permission for
distribution throughout the net by the news programs by posting it on
the net. BUT, ANY OTHER COPYING THAT I WANT TO STOP, I HAVE THE RIGHT
TO STOP IT! The song is not automatically in public domain. In fact,
the Copyright Notice I gave at the end of the song, DEFINES it as NOT
being PUBLIC DOMAIN, by mere declaration.
By the way, if anyone chooses to republish the song in hardcopy form
for redistribution, I will grant republishing rights, provided I AM
NOTIFIED AND AGREE TO IT FIRST. (Royalties will not be collected, and
I usually ask for a personal copy.)
Not afraid to name that tune,
Randal L. Schwartz, esq. (merlyn@sequent.UUCP)
(Official legendary sorcerer of the 1984 Summer Olympics)
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
UUCP: ...!XXX!sequent!merlyn where XXX is one of:
allegra!{decwrl,ogcvax,pur-ee,vax135} ariel!vax135 cdi
cornell!{ogcvax,vax135} decvax!decwrl decwrl dual!unisoft eagle!pur-ee
floyd!vax135 fortune!nsc harpo!pur-ee heurikon!unisoft
ihnp4!{pur-ee,shell} intelca!pur-ee inteloa!ogcvax lab135!vax135
masscomp!pur-ee nsc ogcvax philabs!vax135 pur-ee purdue!{decwrl,pur-ee}
rocks34 rocksvax!rocks34 shell tektronix!ogcvax
ucbvax!{decwrl,nsc,unisoft} ukc!vax135 unisoft ut-sally!shell
utah-gr!vax135 vax135 verdix
ANALOG: (503)626-5700
Original Material (C) 1984 by Randal L. Schwartz [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED]
(Does anyone want to see "Let's get Visicalc(TM)?")richard@sequent.UUCP (03/29/84)
>> From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP >> ... If you ever write something >> you wish to be published, put a copyright notice on the material, make >> a copy, then mail the copy (making sure you get a post office date stamp >> on it) to yourself or anyone else you want to hold it.... Sorry, but this method won't hold up. Nothing prevents people from sending unsealed letters through the mail. So someone could send a letter to himself today, then in three years copy a best-seller, seal it in the envelope, and then what? The method I heard is to send the letter via *registered mail* - the nice person at the post office will make sure it's sealed, and when you sign for it at home, simply don't open it. With the seal unbroken, it's good enough for the courts. The prefered method, of course, is to have it notarized. ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard
jeff@alberta.UUCP (Jeff Sampson) (03/30/84)
I think that it would be much easier just to apply for a copyright. Last time I checked it was only ~$10-$15, and it will stand up in court a *lot* better than a sealed envelope. -- Curt Sampson alberta!jeff "Watch out Mr. T--From Edmonton, Alberta, it's the *** eh? team ***"
els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (03/31/84)
Does this mean that all I have to do to protect something that
I distribute is put the copyright thingie and appropriate words
on a line at the end???? If so, if someone does this and I
"steal" something and make a fortune, how is the "victim" going to
prove the material is his (especially with the anomalous dating on
the net!)?? After all, I could remove the old copyright line and
substitute mine. If copyrights work this way, then they are pretty
worthless. In that case,
Hoist the Jolly Roger, me buccos,
it's time to get down to some
serious pirating....
(`') (`')
\\ _____ // Writing cause I got work, hanging by
\\ / \ // my bruised ,bleeding and mangled thumbs
\/ O O \/ at the off-the-wall teddy bear keyboard of
| o |
\_____/ ERIC STROBEL
/|+++|\
//-----\\ decvax!pur-ee!Physics:els
// \\
(_^_) (_^_)
rcd@opus.UUCP (04/01/84)
<> For constructive comments on copyright on the net, skip down to <<flame off>>. <<flame on>> Well, let's get one flame out of the way, just to set the mood... > First off, I wanna know why opus!rcd always sez that his return address > is "nbires!rcd". Is this a deliberate attempt to hide? (:<}) No, I'm not hiding, nor even trying. If Mr. Schwartz wants to send mail to me, he can do so at nbires!rcd. See, folks, we have four machines but we funnel all our traffic thru one (nbires) onto the net. Mr. Schwartz seems to type a little faster than he thinks (mind you, I'm not accusing him of being a fast typist :-) or he'd realize that this situation, and its analogs, are quite common. I just don't happen to make my home on the machine which is our gateway to the net. Let me also assure Mr. Schwartz, and anyone else who cares, that although we give our mailing address as P.O. Box 9001, we do not conduct business from within the P.O. box, but rather several miles away, at 3450 Mitchell Lane. I assure you that NBI is not trying to hide, either. It's really quite a simple idea...and I'll even be magnanimous enough to assume that Mr. Schwartz is not hiding behind a login name of merlyn. > "Publishing" my "song" on the net DOES NOT > place it into the PUBLIC DOMAIN any more than publishing the C spec in > K&R's White C book... Please go back and read what I wrote before flaming any more. The net is in no way equivalent to a publishing house. The differences are enough to confuse a flock of lawyers - but chief among them are (1) the completely decentralized nature of the net, which makes it exceedingly difficult to assign any responsibility and (2) the fact that material presented to the net software is automatically copied, without control and without restriction. The latter fact is the one which I think is significant; I don't think that a legal opinion which ignores that fact is worth beans. It's a unique characteristic of the net and it deserves some study. I assume that everyone is aware that in arranging to have a book published, the author transfers some rights (not all, of course) to the publisher, in exchange for compensation (royalties) - but still, all of the rights are reserved to either the publisher or the author and no one else. Mr. Schwartz has presented material to the net's distribution mechanism. I guess public domain is an overstatement; pardon my error there. Yet I think that it must be assumed that he has transferred SOME rights to copy the material - that this must be implicit in giving control of it to distribution software of the sort we have. Any competent legal opinion would be appreciated here. I have some other, serious reservations about Mr. Schwartz' postings: > ...LEGALLY. I alone, reserve that right fully. This also mean that IF > you copy MY song, THEN I have the RIGHT to have you NOT DO THAT. Of I begin to assume that one of three things is happening: (1) The "caps lock" key on his keyboard sticks, (2) Somewhere, a site is turning 1's to 0's in transmission, turning lower case to upper, or (3) Schwartz is really looking to be argumentative and shouting, terminal-style, a lot. I think I have to guess #3. Then there's his propensity to slap a copyright notice on anything, regardless of whether it needs it or merits it. Finally, there's the 14-line or so signature block which we're expected not only to endure but to transmit for him to the ends of the earth, at our expense. I find it hard to feel camaraderie with that sort of person - it feels more like he's sitting there waiting to say, "Gotcha! I told you so!" Is this what the net is for? Hardly. <<flame off>> I'll even try to end on a positive note - which certainly isn't going to offset all of my negativity; sorry about that. Here's a suggestion for a REASONABLE copyright notice - if you post something which really needs one: "Copyright (C) 1984 by <your name and identification>. Copying without fee is permitted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage and credit to the source is given. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise requires a fee and/or specific permission; for information contact <your name and address>" The above is derived from the copyright notice which appears in Communications of the ACM. [I am giving them credit in order to follow their policy as I reproduce their policy.] I have modified the wording slightly; the above is only a suggestion and has not been properly reviewed for its legal ramifications. However, I will go one step further and suggest that the above, or something like it, become the policy generally agreed upon for posting to the net. I think that it protects the authors without making the readers and commentators feel paranoid. -- Relax - don't worry - have a homebrew. {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd