From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug6.171443.995@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
> [* Look, this is _not_ my fault. I said I wouldn't post again unless I was
>    provoked, but dang-nabbit I've been provoked! :-) *]
> 
> 
> In article <1992Aug6.002204.18891@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> .  .  .
> >Sorry, but those who claim that automatic copying of news falls within
> >"command of the poster" must say otherwise. There is no substantial
> >difference between applying patterns to just four* lines of a header or
> >to all lines. And, if the "I expect whatever copyright limitations I
> >specify will be obeyed by all sites" people get USENET reworked, every
> >site will have to look at every line in the message for certain
> >patterns.
> 
> Yes, and in the world as it _is_ (not as we want it to be) we _should_
> look at every posting. The trick is to make that painless and inexpensive
> to do, so people will do it. To me, that means automating the process.
> 
> Look, let's see if we can agree, once and for all, on a
> couple of points:
> 
> 	1) Current copyright law derived from the Berne convention (ie
> 	   copyright law in most of Europe, the U.S, Canada, etc) assigns
> 	   copyright of a piece to the creator, without further action on
> 	   the part of the author. That is, you get it without asking for
> 	   it.
> 
> 	2) The holder of a copyright must specifically disclaim
> 	   that copyright (for example, with a statement to the 
> 	   effect "this document is now in the public domain". Unless
> 	   this is done, copyright does not lapse.
> 
> 	3) Even if copyright is lost on one piece, it remains on all
> 	   other pieces by the same author, and will remain on all
> 	   future works by that author, unless and until it is disclaimed
> 	   in turn.
> 
> 	4) In addition to controlling the "right to copy", the owner of a
> 	   copyright also controls the right to prepare derived works
> 	   or express a work in "another medium" (and this does not mean
> 	   mag tape instead of hard disk, it means video instead of
> 	   written word, etc).
> 
> Now, do we all agree that this is the law? (note, I didn't ask that you
> agree that this is _good_ law, only that it is the _current_ law)?

Yes, that's the law.  However, another part of the law that many people
never seem to grasp is that you can contract away your rights without 
even knowing it.  Also, contracts do not need to be written and signed:
indeed, actions have been known to create contracts or even alter written
contracts.

[...]
> Now, yes, if someone posts to Usenet, and is the one commanding that
> copies be made and distributed, there is an open question about whether
> the operator of a site needs worry about copyright violation (I just don't
> see this as a problem, BTW, but some people seem concerned that the
> existance of copyright would prevent posting, which to me is clearly not
> true).

Here's is where you miss something.  When a person uses netnews, he is 
entering into a contract: and agreement to exchange his rights to his
work for mass distribution of his work.

No?

Stop and think about it.  When you post, you get the use of thousands
of computers.  The owners of those computers get copies of your "work."  
(It does not really matter who or what copied or how as it is part of
a transaction, and exchange of goods and services).  You freely 
choose to send your post and the owners of the computers freely agree
to distribute it for you.  We have here a contract in which you surrender
at least some of your copyright in exchange for distribution.

Further, there are several periodic posting in news.announce.newusers
which are designed to inform the new user of the rules (terms and 
conditions) of using netnews.  One of those (Primer to the Usenet
Community -- or something like that) explicity states that you should
assume that anything you don't mark with a copyright notice is in
the public domain.  [One might refer to these posting as the "fine
print" on a contract -- the info is presented for you to digest but
is it your problem if you don't understand it because you have agreed
to it anyway.]

This would have to be understood by an reasonable man who is familiar 
with what happens when you post.  The fact that you may not like some 
of what happens (ie: selling of CD-ROMS) does not change the reality
that it does happen and a resonable man who chooses to post anyway, 
knowing that the software cannot "see" his copyright and will do the
same with his message as with all the rest, must assume that in spite 
of any notice he is contracting to have such unpleasant distribution 
made along with all the other distribution.

Or do you maybe think a resonable man would believe that he is 
entitled to use all the computers in the world at absolutely no
cost to himself?

> What should be clear to all is that _derived works_, such as magazine
> articles, plays and, yes archiving, is probably a violation of current
> copyright law uless you get a release from the copyright owner.

Read the "fine print" of netnews: I have read about guys here who have
found their posts in a magazine without attribution or permission, but 
I haven't heard any of them say the won a lawsuit.  Though I have heard
that such use ends when a copyright notice is enclosed.

> Oops, I let a contentious bit slip in. Why archives? Because I believe that
> permanently archiving Usenet newsgroups, although common, is _not_ an
> integral part of Usenet. My evidence? Not all groups are archived, and
> those that are get archived mostly by volunteers who offer no guarantees to
> continue to do so in the future. In addition, of course, archives contain
> many things which did _not_ go through Usenet. I think archives are
> clearly a "derived work, derived, in fact from Usenet but not a part of it.\

Not all groups are carried all over (though most are commonly carried).

Nobody offers any guarantee of continuing to provied usenet feeds, either
(we just lost our feed a few months back without notice).

Newsgroups are a derived work: they are a collation of individual posts.

De Facto, archives (and pay for read services) are part of usenet.  This
is not based on any definition, but on simple observation.

[...]
> I'm afraid that we all have to recognize that there is a world outside of
> our terminal rooms and offices that can get in our way if we don't take the
> most basic precautions. Setting up a simple extension to the current
> system seems prudent, now we're getting big enough to warrant the
> attention of lawyers. This need not eliminate the free flow of ideas, and it
> recognizes that our societies (whereever you are reading this) recognize
> intellectual property rights and that we have some obligation to prevent
> abuse of the law. So I say, "why not?"
> 
Well, you've got a point, but I would propose this:

1)  By default, each new user will have a line in the .newsrc with the 
words "Copyright: Full" which will be included in the header of each
article the user sends.

2)  By default, the posting software will not pass on any aritcle with 
a header containing "Copyright: Full."  The software will bounce the 
article back stating that it cannot be distributed with full copyrights,
the user must select, at minimum, a usenet-wide copying license (see below).

3)  The values for the Copyright: header field will be:
        Full    -   User retains all copyrights (and nothing gets posted)
        Usenet  -   User grants permission for distribution thorughout any
                        electronic medium (mag tape, disks, CD's, etc) where
                        everything in the newsgroup is copied (no selectivity
                        except for moderation) AND grants permission for all
                        individuals to make one copy for personal use.
        Free    -   User grants permission to copy as in Usenet above and for
                        any individual to use freely provided that no profits 
                        are made.
        Public  -   User puts the info the public domain.

4)  The Copyright header field would be extracted from the .newsrc but 
    editable at the time of posting.

IMHO, this would prevent potential legal problems and preserve the spirit of 
netnews.

And no, I don't think there should be a "no CD-ROM" type of entry.  IMHO,
the spirit of netnews is sharing information and if someone happnes to 
make a billion dollars in enlarging the net and increasing the amount
of information sharing, so what?  I'm here to give and receive info and
I know d*mn well that people are making profits in the process (phone 
companies, many of the sites on the net do charge for traffic, and even
some that don't make a profit anyway [I think ASU got a modem from us 
in exchange for a limited feed -- and we are not the only ones using 
the modem, it is theirs], but I am getting what I want, so who cares 
how much money is being made?  For that matter, those who charge for
access (and make profit) are a large part of the growth of netnews and 
will continue to contribute to its growth.  Prifitable distribution 
of netnews contributes to the purpose of netnews.

If the idea of someone making money by distributing information offends
you then disconnect your telephone, turn off the tv, turn off the radio,
turn off the computer and stick to conversations and US Mail for a while.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property