From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:22:02 GMT
Reply-To: news@wolves.durham.nc.us
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: c32eed820e98e9a475ae3b8c50efdca0

In article <1992Jul28.044339.16816@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>
>Read "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community" in
>news.announce.newusers and news.answers for the fine print
>of your agreement in using usenet.

Andrew:
	Will you please stop trying to imply that Chuq's commentary
about his opinions is somehow a binding contract on the network and its
users.

	There is no explicit contract.

	There is nothing except OPINION here.

	You should note that the "Primer" was written originally prior
to the 1987 US implementation of the Berne Convention rules.  It also
states it in terms of "*probably*", hardly something to inspire
confidence in the certitude of the opinion.

	The US Law, and the Berne Convention definitions, are quite
clear that a copyright exists from the moment of fixing the expression
in a "tangible" medium.  There is no getting around this.  The copyright
is created along with the expression.

	It is not required that a copyright notice be placed on the work
for the rights of copyright to exist.  In some cases, it may be required
in order for the author to successfully recover "damages" for
infringement of those rights.

	It is also quite clear that there is only one way to place a
work fully in the "public domain".   The owner of the copyright has to
explicitly disclaim the copyright.

	There are no explicit disclaimers of copyright attached to most
of the articles posted to the net.....  therefore most of the articles
on the net remain the copyrighted work of their authors.

	Now, there is an implied situation on the net... that the system
owners/admins have placed access to some resources on their machines at
the disposal of the net users for purposes of publishing their material.
(It may not be technically "publishing", but it describes what is being
done adequately.)

	This model, most recently championed by Brad Templeton and
Mathew@mantis is a very convenient one.  The sites retain local control
of what appears on their machines, and yet, the poster remains the party
responsible for the placing of copies of the articles all over the
world.

	The most that can be said of the "Primer" is that it expresses
an outmoded opinion on a situation that has changed dramatically since
it was written.

	I, and I suspect most other posters, place articles on the net
with an desire for other persons to read and consider the words and
statements of that article.  I want folks to read the article.  I use
the resources lent to be by the machines' owners to place and give
copies of the article to the other readers of the net.  I do NOT give
them an assignment of copyright rights.  I would have to expressly do so
if that was my intent.

	They do, however, come into the possession of a copy of the
article that I have placed into their data stream.  They have certain
privledges in regards to that copy that was given to them, but they are
also restricted in certain way in their use of that copy.

	They can quote from that article in making resonses to the
statements made therein.  They can make an archival copy of that article
for their personal use.  They can give their copy (in toto!) to someone
else (not retaining a copy for themselves.)  They can place the copy in
their possession on the wall of their office or workspace for persons
passing by to look at.  They can use the *ideas* in the article in some
fashion, as long as they don't infringe on my particular expression of
the ideas.

	They *may* also have other privledges.  They *may* have a
privledge to compile a program contained in the article on their
computer for their own use.

	They can NOT claim the article or its contents as their own
work.  They can not "republish" the article without permission.  They
can not create a "derivative" work based wholely on the article.  They
can not claim that the article is in the "public domain".
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing