From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:54:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.225924.1497@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:
>
>>Tiny Tim's performance of presumably copyright material, a matter governed 
>>by existing law, is quite different than Tiny Tim pontificating on the
>>virtues of Ms. Vickie. At issue in this thread is whether original
>>speech, offered to a public forum, is fair game for reproduction.
>

 
>The utterances spoken is irrelevant. They could be a new song, or calling
>Ms. Vickie a bitch in a unique way. If Tiny Tim's words are unique, then
>he owns the redistribution rights to them.
 
Mike's example further illustrates the complexity of the gray areas
in these issues. The assumption is that Tiny Tim performed his song
and, in a separate spiel, called Ms. Vickie a bitch in a public forum.
Just a few possible permutations:
 
1) I could videotape the entire performance and air it on my
   new tv network as an edited half-hour special opposite the Simpsons
2) I could video tape the performance and show it to my friends
3) I could video tape the peformance and edit 1 minute for showing on
   the 9 o'clock news
4) I could perform the song as a street busker
5) I could record the song on my album, and the song makes a million bucks
6) I could report, in print medium, the description of Miss Vickie in
   CuD or the New York Times
7) I could transcribe the entire performance into ascii and send it to
   friends
8) I could do 7, and reproduce it in the NYT or CuD
9) I could paraphase as much of the performance as I could remember, some
   perhaps verbatim, some not
10)I could receive a tape/transcript/whatever and edit or reproduce in
   any of the above forums
  
The assumption here is that it's all attributed and there is no attempt to
plagiarize.  
 
Some of the above are explicitly acceptable (eg, 3, 4, 6, 9). Some are not.
Some fall within a gray area.
 
The question for Usenet posts, it seems, is which possible permutations
are acceptable? We can't seem to agree on whether Usenet is public, whether
posters qualify as "limited public figures," and what the status of
posts should be in this ambiguous forum. Those of us arguing that Usenet is
a public forum and that posters qualify as limited public figures adopt
a "Hyde Park" metaphor because of the openness, accessibility, and 
extensiveness of the spread of posts. This does not mean that a recipient
of a post is free from *any* limits whatsover on posts. It simply means 
that the posts fall within the law guiding all other public speech or
performances in non-electronic forums.               
 
I haven't seen a cogent rationale yet to challenge the claim that
Usenet *is not* a public forum (like Hyde Park). Passionate assertions
do not count as a rationale.
 
It would also be helpful if perhaps Mike Godwin, Lance Rose, and other
attorneys reading these threads could comment on the extent to which
Usenet posters might (or might not) fall within the category of
"public figures."
 
jt

Xref: sparky news.admin:6267 comp.org.eff.talk:4907 misc.legal.computing:1536