From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:40:22 GMT

In article <a_rubin.713648127@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.172912.18797@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>I really don't think that anyone beyond the original poster (of say
>>the Lotus 123 software) would be liable.  The effort to make the 
>>providers of copying technology liable for the misuse of that
>>technology has not been accepted by the courts (eg. the Sony
>>Betamax Case) and another case where a copyright holder tried to
>>have the developers/suppliers of a copy protection defeating
>>software program held liable for the copyright violations that
>>some users were doing.  The court held that as long as there was
>>even one legal use for the technology, then the technology
>>providers couldn't be held responsible for those instances when
>>a user did violate someones copyright.
>
>Ah, but the question becomes: who is the "user".  An individual making a
>copy of a legally acquired "Star Wars" tape is still in violation of
>copyright, and LucasFilms would (and has) gone after them.  So, in the
>hypothetical of Lotus 123, sites would be liable unless we go on to
>(Peter?'s) model of lent services:  the original poster is doing the
>copying using thousands of computers, so he/she could be sued for thousands
>of individual copyright violations(!?).

In my opinion, the "user" is specifically the poster.  If the poster
sends off a copy of Lotus 123, then I suppose that someone that
obtains a copy off the net could also be prosecuted/sued, for
having a bogus copy, BUT the important distinction (IMHO) is that
the network (nor the sys. admins, etc.) is ever the user.  The
site owners, operators, etc. are clearly operating legitimate
and legal computer systems and communication links, it is not their
responsibility to assure that illegal copying is going on using their
equipment/circuitry.  A very similar analogy to the phone system
seems reasonably approximate to site operation.  The phone company
has no responsibility for the content of any calls (eg. copyrighted
data, obsene messages, illegal transactions, etc.)  USENet is just
another huge interactive messaging medium and I still can't
see any liability placed on the network, the network operators
and/or the network providers.

As to the liability of someone (an "end user") with regard to
having obtained a bogus copy of Lotus 123 as a result of someone
else posting it, the real burden is on the copyright holder
to identify that individual(s).  Not a very likely thing to
happen.  This does NOT mean I consider the act/deed of obtaining
a bogus copy of Lotus 123 as being beyond detection, it just means the
reality of any such detection is slim at best.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general