HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:48:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23275
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <e22202Am1a0g01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>Whether you are charging for the articles is irrelavant to whether the
>copyright has been infringed.

Oh, goody, now somebody who KNOWS the Berne convention but hasn't
read the license in question speaks up.  Yes, in the lack of any
permission, charging is utterly irrelevant.  That isn't the case
here.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1542 news.admin:6274
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD -
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:29:11 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <4brK02ZF1bRI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
|
|One last thing I forgot in my other post: if both the copyright owner and the 
|alleged infringer are US nationals, Berne doesn't apply.  Only US law does.
|
Technically true, but of little practical significance - the U.S.
copyright law is largely based on the Berne Convention, so the differences
are minimal.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1479 news.admin:6170
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD -
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:52:21 GMT

Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Amdahl Corporation
Keywords: 

In article <23275@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, 
curmudgeon) writes:
> In article <e22202Am1a0g01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >Whether you are charging for the articles is irrelavant to whether the
> >copyright has been infringed.
> 
> Oh, goody, now somebody who KNOWS the Berne convention but hasn't
> read the license in question speaks up.  Yes, in the lack of any
> permission, charging is utterly irrelevant.  That isn't the case
> here.
> -- 
>  Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
>    vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
>  Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
>  Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

Whoops, sorry, the post I was replying to was quit short and didn't include 
your license.

That does change things here a little bit, because I think that we aren't 
talking copyright law.  Now we're determining the validity of and the terms 
of the license against the facts.  I'm fairly certain (hedging here, for 
those who don't know me) that this would not be a matter of copyright law, 
but of contract law.  

If that's correct, this is an important distinction, because copyright law is 
a federal iquestion and is, at least in theory, consistent across the US (and 
to a great extent, much of the world, owing to Berne).  Contract law is a 
state matter, so long as the contract law does not add or derogate any of the 
copyright rights (in which case it's preempted by the copyright act in 
accordance w/section 301).

This means that little subtleties are bound to be inconsistent from state to 
state.  And things like what constitutes an implied license, and what are its 
terms are definitely in the realm of such subtleties (and probably aren't 
even decided in most states).

All bets are off here, gang.

For the sake of completeness, let me add one more point: This is not a 
copyright question, because everyone agrees that the work is copyrighted, and 
clearly has not been dedicated to the public domain (I hope we agree on 
that).  However, the case would still be tried in a federal court.  Why?  
Because while the question to be decided is the terms and compliance with the 
license, once that is decided, the remedy to be awarded would be for the 
copyright infringement.  The federal court would apply state law in 
determining the contract issue, and based on that decision, apply federal law 
to provide a remedy, if appropriate.

 -tc

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: whs70@dancer.uucp's message of 28 Jul 92 14:15:57 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul28.141557.10231@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:56:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.141557.10231@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

> Public speeches by individuals are often reprinted in total and I
> fail to see any copyright violation associated with such a 
> complete reprint as the speech itself is (IMHO) a news event
> in its entirety.

> Likewise, such speeches have been taped, filmed, etc. and rebroadcast.
> I don't see any copyright problem there also.  Yes, they are still the
> speakers words, but the entire speech is the news event.

It is unlikely that these would be done without the consent, or
at least the acquiescence of the author of the speech.  It is the
purpose of political speech, after all, to be heard.  The selling
of tapes and films, or transcripts thereof, after the event
ceases to be current news, particularly in a collected form,
would likely see some sort of litigation, I would think.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:44:10 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 759e6369b9b21e884d8e934b99e460a0

In article <23275@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon) writes:
>-- 
> Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
>   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
> Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
> Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

Actually, it occurs to me that the portion "alice!jj" *may* not be a
legally sufficient identification of the authorship of the work.  What
effect might that have on the ability to recover damages?
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"
From: leary@progress.COM (James Leary)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Copyright of Posted Messages
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:17:13 GMT
Organization: Progress Software Corp.


Would it be naive to say that if an individual wishes to retain rights 
to a message or posting, then they should not post it to a network or
environment that, by design, duplicates and broadcasts that message all
over creation?

It seems that all of us participating via this network are aware of what
the result is of posting to world.  I'm sure however that if an 
individual's posting or excerpt of a posting somehow made it's way
into another individual's publication or speech or whatever, then there
would be definate infringement issues involved, but that does not appear
to be the issue here - or, am I not reading all this correctly?

I am not a legal scholar (as you all can probably guess) in any sense of
the term, but I am wise enough to understand the reality of the medium we
all use here to communicate with one another.  Frankly, I find copyrights
at the end of postings a silly exercise and not worth the bandwidth it was
transmitted on. I understand the intent, but not the point.

For those who have taken the time to read this post, thank you.

PS - I find no need to copyright this (who would use it, anyway?)

Jim Leary
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: copyright, precedent (was: Facts about USENET distribution)
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:15:27 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <14510.Jul2819.31.5692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
Bernstein) writes:
> This used to be
> a murky legal area, but the Compuserve case sets a strong precedent in
> favor of common sense.

The CompuServe opinion was well-written, which makes it probable that it will 
be used as a guide by other judges, but it is not precedential in the legal 
sense of the word.  It came from a district court, not an appellate court.  
Its decsion is not binding on any court, because there are no other courts 
below it.

This is, IMHO, a Good Thing, not for this particular case, but because when a 
murky area like this is first explored in the courts, early missteps are not 
uncommon.  For example, as I understand it, a recent 2nd circuit court of 
appeals case declined to follow the opinion of the (9th?) circuit in the 
Whelan case that allowed a copyright claim on the mere structure, sequence 
and organization (SSO) of a program.  I believe that Whelan was wrongly 
decided, and am glad that it is not national precedent (and unhappy that it 
is precedent in that circuit, because copyright plaintiffs will now attempt 
to bring their suits in that circuit).

As a disclaimer, I must concede that I have only read about the 2nd circuit 
case (Altai v. Computer Associates), I have not read it firsthand, so any 
observations I have on it should be read with that qualification in mind.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1418 news.admin:6031
From: rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:57:52 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Will someone explain exactly how copyright is applied to the Internet?

Are there currently laws for this form of electronic media?

How do the ideas of artistic works apply here?

I had thought the idea was
copyright protects artistic works,
patents protects scientific works,
trademarks protects brandnames.

Jason Pouflis
From: fred@polaris.async.vt.edu (Fred Homan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Questions about flames from Internet Users
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:09:53 GMT
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

In article <e6Iu020y1akX01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.112115.1344@lub001.lamar.edu>, lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu 
>writes:
>
>> untrue and without basis.  I told him if he kept it up, I would post his
>> original E-Mail to me and reply publically, which I did.  Now he clms that
>> I have violated the "Berne Convention" and his copyright on the E-Mail 
>Message
>> keeps me from posting it.
>
>If both of you are US nationals, Berne does not apply; instead US Code Title 
>17 does.
>
>In any case, assuming his email is considered an "unpublished work", the most 
>he can get from you (per 17 USC 412) is actual damages, that is, the amount 
>of dollar damage you caused by your infringement.  Because there's not much 
>of a market for flame mail, that should be nil.

	Assuming that electronic mail is legally the same as normal, postal
mail (which may be a big assumption), I seem to recall that Title 17 and
case law based on it say that a recipient of a letter may do with it as
s/he wishes.  Now the problem is that with a normal letter you can only do
this with the original (as I recall) since the writer does stil hold the
copyright to it.  (This last part may be way off base.  It's been about a
year or so since I read Title 17.)  And, with an electronic mail piece you
can do nothing with it other than keep it in your box if one is restricted
to only using the original since re-posting it does constitute copying the
mail.  Kinda sticky if my assumptions are correct.  But, as you say, taking
it to court in the US would be ludicrous.  If I were a federal judge I'd
toss it after reading the complaint.

>Needless to say, of course, the above opinion is not legal advice.  It is, at 
>best, a statement of the law as I understand it to be.  While I sincerely 
>believe that I am correctly interpreting it, any application of the law 
>should be made only after consulting a licensed practitioner intimately 
>familiar with the specific facts of your circumstance.  I am not a licensed 
>practitioner, and am additionaly insufficiently familiar with your 
>circumstances to dispense legal advice, even if I were.

	Ditto!

	Heaven forbid any of us should get slapped with a case of practicing
law without a license.  Law is my hobby not my job.


******************************************************************************
* Fred Op                             * "Believe me, an eternity alone       *
* Fred Homan                          *  with Satan and all his hellish      *
* PO Box 232                          *  instruments of death would be a     *
* Blacksburg, Virginia 24063-0232     *  picnic compared to five minutes     *
* (703) 951-3282                      *  alone with me and this pencil."     *
* fred@polaris.async.vt.edu           *           - Edmund Blackadder, Esq.  *
******************************************************************************
From: root@death.star.ma-bell.com (The Emperor)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: The Latest from AT&T
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:35:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers,misc.legal.computing,comp.unix.bsd

Attention Computer Programmer!

You have been identified as someone who has been using the C(tm) programming
language, which is based on intellectual property of AT&T.  As we do not
have you on record as having a license from us to do so, this means you are
violating the law.  

You have three choices:
	1. Submit to us your life savings in return for a license.
	2. Quit using C(tm) immediately and destroy all programs written in
		said language.
	3. Face the fury of our fully-operational legal-battle-station 
		(which is currently obliterating BSDI as an example to the
		 galaxy that we mean business).

Oh, and thank you for using A T & T . . . 
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1514 news.admin:6232
From: mcb@borges.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:59:17 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

In the referenced article, news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
> > Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
> >   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
> > Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
> > Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
> 
> Actually, it occurs to me that the portion "alice!jj" *may* not be a
> legally sufficient identification of the authorship of the work.  What
> effect might that have on the ability to recover damages?

Not a problem [under US law].  17 USC 401(b)(3) requires as one of the
elements of notice of copyright "the name of the owner of copyright in
the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a
generally-known alternative designation of the owner".  For that
purpose, "alice!jj" is, I'm sure, more than sufficient.  

Having said that, I'd point out that "all rights reserved, except..."
might not create a license of the form the author planned.  "All
rights reserved" does not really mean what it sounds like, it's
basically an incantation that lives in copyright notices to satisfy
some international compact of some years ago, possibly the
Pan-American Copyright Congress.  It should not be modified, but
rather some form like "Copyright <year> <name>.  All rights reserved.
Permission granted for ..."  For examples merely take a look at the
copyright page of various journals, etc., that are fully copyrighted
but allow certain noncommercial reproduction.

--
Michael C. Berch  
Member of the California Bar
mcb@postmodern.com
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Netnews and Copyright
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:49:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corp.
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

In article <1992Jul19.123930.6810@athena.mit.edu> S. Tucker,
sst@athena.mit.edu writes:
>So what happens if Davis Publishing (not a basement operation) finds
>the stories for sale along with the rest of the month's netnews on
>CD-ROM?  Will they have a winning case, no case, or something that's
>a complete toss-up until it's actually tried in court?

Toss-up.  Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Netnews and Copyright
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 22 Jul 92 17:51:10 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:30:08 GMT

In article <fcuq02T51ao201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

> The real truth of the matter here, of this whole discussion, really, is
> that trying to decide what is and what is not an infringement by copying
> usenet, is a matter of prediction, not one of identifying independent
> truth.  It's like trying to call a ball or a strike when the pitch has
> barely left the pitcher's hand.  There's no dispute as to what the facts
> are, but until the ball reaches the plate, and until a case like this
> reaches the courts, we have no way of knowing what the result will be. 
> It might be fun guessing, but that's all it is: guessing.

Even after the ball is in the catcher's glove, the analogy 
holds.  You can argue all you want about the rules and where
the ball was in the zone, but just like with the law, it's not
a ball or a strike until the umpires says so.  And regardless
of facts and beliefs, it is whatever the umpire says it is.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:1609 news.admin:6359
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD -
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:35:48 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <770@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> |
> |One last thing I forgot in my other post: if both the copyright owner and 
the 
> |alleged infringer are US nationals, Berne doesn't apply.  Only US law does.
> |
> Technically true, but of little practical significance - the U.S.
> copyright law is largely based on the Berne Convention, so the differences
> are minimal.

I respectfully disagree.  If US law applies, the copyright owner is limited 
to actual damages unless he registered the work prior to infringement 
(oversimplification of the law, but that's more or less it); applying Berne 
to the US law, a plaintiff may elect to collect statutory damages ($500 to 
$20,000 per infringement) without registration.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: lemke@MITL.COM (Kennedy Lemke)
Subject: Advice needed on copyright notice
Originator: lemke@narnia.MITL.COM
Organization: Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory, Princeton, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:11:53 GMT

[Originally I posted this to comp.unix.programmer; perhaps
 this is a more appropriate forum].

Question:

Programmers at our company occasionally make useful
modifications to shareware/freeware.  We would like
to give back to the internet community by sharing these
modifications.  According to our company policy, we are
allowed to share such software modifications freely as
long a a standard copyright notice is included in the code.

If we write a piece of code from scratch, including the
copyright notice is easy; but what is the best or standard
way to ask that a copyright notice be included when the code
is modifications to someone else's programs (for example, this
might just be a few additions/changes to a few lines of code
in each of several files)?  Is it typical to include a copyright
as part of a patch file, for example?  Or do folks typically
just include the copyright notice in a README with a description
of the contributions?  Any ideas/standard ways of doing this
would be appreciated.

Please email me as I don't read this group regularly.

				Kennedy Lemke
				Network and UNIX Systems Administrator
				Postmaster
				Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory
				182 Nassau Street, Third Floor
				Princeton, New Jersey  08542
Work Phone: (609) 497-4600
Fax Phone:  (609) 497-4013	Email: lemke@MITL.COM