From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Jul24.075115.9397@clarinet.com>
	<1992Jul24.180926.694@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Jul24.160414.598@mala.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:13:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.160414.598@mala.bc.ca> dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:

   Does any unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work make one liable?
   What if someone posts an item, claims it is his original material , perhaps
   even to the extent of putting his own copyright notice on it, and
   explicitly ( or implicitly - whatever that may mean ) authorizes others
   to copy it freely?

But this is Brad's point.  There is no authorization for copying because
the poster commands the copying by automatic mechanisms throughout the
net.  In this model, the owner/operator of a system has no liability.

                       Now if it's an item that is clearly a copyright work (
   like the hitchhikers guide or Lotus 1-2-3 binaries ) then I can't see there
   being much defense for copying it ( a "reasonable man" should have known
   better ) , but what if the original poster has plagiarized some fairly
   obscure work ( ie one where there's little or no chance I could have
   seen or heard of it in another medium )? Would the copier be liable
   for actual and punitive damages?

Again, a `reasonable man' is not in the loop; it's automatic copying
performed by the poster.
                                     If I got a statement indemnifying me against 
   such a judgement from the poster does it prevent me from having to pay,
   or just allow me to recover my losses from him ( not much good if I've
   got deep pockets and he's broke )

(Unfortunately, of course, we'll never know whether this defense works,
unless a case is taken to court.  But I think it's the only one that
allows the net to work.)


   Please note I'm not suggesting it would work one way or another, I'm
   just curious how the courts balance the intellectual property rights of
   the author with the lack of criminal intent on the part of the copier.

In this model, the copier (poster) has criminal intent; the owner/operator
has no responsibility, until/unless it is brought to his attention.

   What would they expect a prudent person to do to verify the copyright?
   [ the way I'd like it to work is string up the perpetrator of the fraud
   and let his victims ( the copiers ) off for any copying they did before
   the fraud was brought to their attention ( assuming they destroy any
   copies they may still have ) - but I have no delusion that
   the universe works the way I think it should ]

Someone would issue a cancel (justified, IMO), and the article would
be removed from all systems (automatically, or by the newsadmin who
gets mail because he's disabled cancels).


   I'd like to hear about any actual cases where something like this has
   been litigated, I find all the "Usenet is TV, Usenet is Hyde Park"
   analogies sort of useless, because it's clearly unlike any of them
   and I rather doubt a court would be interested in hearing them.

I, for one, hope that it never comes to that, because it could
severely damage the net as we know it (film at 11 ;-) .
Unfortunately, it may be that some jerk will post copyrighted material
without permission, and it will go to court.

--
J Lee Jaap <jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23665-5225
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing