HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:26:49 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul29.021834.28103@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> In article <8595.Jul2521.34.1892@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
Bernstein) writes: 
> > When you make something available by anonymous ftp you have set up a
> > means for people to make copies for themselves; that constitutes
> > explicit permission for people to do so. That's it.
> > 
> 
> Isn't that what putting something in the public domain is?  When to give
> to the public domain, you allow anyone anywhere to copy at anytime: when
> you put something in anonymous ftp allow anyone anywhere to copy at 
> anytime, so what is the difference?

No.  Public domain means no copyright.  Dan proposed a copyright, licensed 
with restrictions.  Let's look at what rights are embodied in copyright (this 
is more or less from section 106 and 106A):

1) the right to make copies; Dan's proposed license limits it to making 
copies for yourself.  I'd also add that I believe the implied license evinced 
by FTP status conveys, if not expressly denied, making copies for a limited 
distribution (see #2).

2) The right to distribute copies.  I believe that the implied license 
includes the right to distribute for a fee not to exceed the cost of media.

3) The right to prepare derivative works.  I don't see that the FTP status 
conveys anything in this area; mushy, though.  Certainly not to distribute 
the works so created.

4) Right to perform publicly (not applicable; well, maybe to a text of a play 
or something like that)

5) Right to display (applicable?  Maybe, for GIFs, etc.)

6) Right to claim authorship (not applicable!  Only applies to certain works 
of visual art!)

7) RIght to have your name not associated with a screwed up version of it 
(not applicable, only applies to certain works of visual art).

So you see, there's a lot more to copyright than the right to make copies, 
and a big difference betwen allowing copying and placing in public domain.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:488 news.admin:6376 comp.org.eff.talk:5009 misc.legal.computing:1621
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:20:50 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <Bs5qtt.3sG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> Although a lot of ignorant people use it as a synonym for "freely
> redistributable", "public domain" has a very specific legal meaning.
> It means that the author has renounced copyright.  The only thing you
> cannot do with such material is claim copyright on an unmodified copy.
> You are entirely free to redistribute it, substitute your own name
> for the author's, sell broken copies at $1000 each with the original
> author's name and address on them, etc.
> 
> In countries complying with the Berne convention, which includes the
> US as of a couple of years ago, something gets into the public domain
> in two ways:
> 
> 	1. Its copyright expires (50 years after author's death, normally).
> 
> 	2. The author or legitimate copyright owner explicitly says that
> 	he is renouncing copyright and/or placing it into the public domain.
> 
> Publication without a copyright notice may make a copyright-infringement
> case more difficult, but it does not constitute renouncing copyright.
> (In the US and only the US, it used to.  Not any more.)
> 
> Caution:  I am not a lawyer.  Consult experts before doing anything rash.

I have often wondered if someone spray paints an "original" slogan or phrase
or even a short story on a wall.......is it copyrighted?
 
I see USEnet as a wall and we are all spray-painting for the benefit of
passersby. We all know our postings are echoed around the world in minutes. We
post knowing that. People copy our posts and repeat them in an almost endless
echoing process.....

Aren't we counting angels on pinheads when we talk about postings on USEnet -
or any net? If you want to control distribution for the purpose of making a
profit, then you don't want to post anything on the net!
 
Steve
 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:14:45 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul25.093016.27543@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Scenario 2)  Copyrighted USENET article forbidding transmission by UUNET
>(because it charges money, say) in a copyright licence statement.
>
>	A) The prohibition is meaningless.  The author commanded uunet
>	to copy the article.  UUNET's owners and staff weren't in the
>	loop.  The author can't violate her own copyright.  So there is
>	no violation when uunet's machines copy the article on behalf of
>	the author.

What (he says, playing devil's advocate) if you've notified uunet
in writing beforehand that you do not want them to copy any articles
of yours they receive.  Or, more to the point in this discussion, you
send such a notice to the people writing the CD distribution?

G
(Actually I don't mind the CD distribution, but I'd be happier if
it came out daily so it would be useful as a usenet feed.  As it is,
it's only useful as an archive...)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:15:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.192057.28987@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.175227.20370@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>>>>So, in theory at least, if you specifically didn't want CD distribution, you
>>>!CD is not a complement of a distribution, it's a distribution itself.  
>>The quote referenced above says it is a distribution.
>
>The quoye says it's a "not" distribution.  

The quote I was referring to was the first one which says "CD
distribution", not "not-CD distribution".

>It isn't a "not" distribution; it's
>a plain distribution, which means so-and-so list of sites.  

It means any site which happens to ask for "!CD", or for any other
distribution specified. It has no "so-and-so list of sites" connotation,
since the poster is not in control of who can ask for what distribution,
and there is NO list of who gets what distribution.

>Sure the list
>happens not to include any CD sites, but then the distribution "nj" happens not
>to include any Australian sites, either.

You have no way of proving this, and there is nothing to stop an
Australian site which employs a person from NJ from getting a feed of
the nj distribution. In addition to that, there is nothing to stop
Australian sites from creating yet another nj distribution of their own
which could be passed back to New Jersey.

>>It looks like a duck, it acts like a duck, it smells like a duck, but
>>it isn't a duck. 
>
>The !CD looks like a negation, but the _software_ don't know this.  All they
>have to do is to ask "Does this machine get the !CD distribution?" the same way
>they ask "Does this machine get the na distribution?".

Unfortunately, for this idea to really do what it is intended to do, the
software would indeed have to know that !CD was a negation (which would
turn the normal OR into AND). Either that, or you explain to angry
posters why "world,!CD" doesn't mean "everyone in the world except CD".

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:459 news.admin:6182 comp.org.eff.talk:4835 misc.legal.computing:1489
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:34:18 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Jul23.230452.1669@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> Does this law mean that I cannot give something to someone without explicitly
> stating "in the public domain???"  NOT

If you have obtained a legal copy of a document then you can give that
physical object to another person, or even sell it, as permitted by the
first sale doctrine. You can even make copies of the content of the
document, to the extent permitted by the fair use doctrine. And of
course if you wrote something then you can make and distribute as many
copies as you want.

> Now are you trying to tell me that putting something in anonymous 
> ftp is *not* asking everyone to take copies as they please?

When you make something available by anonymous ftp you have set up a
means for people to make copies for themselves; that constitutes
explicit permission for people to do so. That's it.

---Dan
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:524 comp.org.eff.talk:5089 news.admin:6473 misc.legal.computing:1695
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:51:34 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> Usenet is not television.

Is this some kind of mantra?

I didn't think anyone was claiming that it is.

>                            When you post to usenet, you instruct your
> computer to transfer information onto the net where thousands of 
> computers will replicate the information.  
> 
> Since you know that netnews is going to CD AND you continue to post 
> AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the computers
> which copy files to CD-ROM to place your "work" along with all the
> others on CD-ROMs.

           When you broadcast to the airwaves, you instruct your
video machine to transfer information onto the airwaves where thousands of 
video recorders will replicate the information.  

Since you know that programmes are going onto video tape AND you continue to
broadcast AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the videos
which copy programmes to tape to place your "work" along with all the
others on tape.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:472 news.admin:6308 comp.org.eff.talk:4942 misc.legal.computing:1564
From: rlister@cti.com (Russell Lister)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: Comprehensive Technologies Int., Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:48:20 GMT

duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:

>Finally!  Here we have an analogy/metaphor/simile/whatever-you-want-
>to-call-it that seems to fit the Usenet situation perfectly.  I mentioned
>this shareware idea in passing; your post explains it exceptionally
>clearly.  I would bet a small sum of money that all of those
>in the ``public-domain or copyright-but-no-real-power'' camp
>believe that shareware is protected.  Yet you see them screaming
>their heads off about postings.  Why have I lost my effective
>copyrights by posting this?  What if this *were* a piece of shareware?
>Would you feel like it was okay to copy it and not pay me, just
>because it was on the net?  What if it was on Compuserve?  How
>about your local bulletin board? 

>-rick

   Shareware is a LICENSING methodology.  Authors are granting free or 
minimally restricted permission to distribute said software, but are retaining
full rights and privileges to its USE by the end user (how ever current 
copyright law works on this).  So its distribution by USENET, a commercial
service or free BBS does not affect the payment requirements for its use
(though this is untested in court, to the best of my knowledge).

    Read the three thousand words included in most microcomputer software 
(or pages of mainframe software) that make up its license and you discover 
that you've just blown a wad of money for the privilege of USING the copy 
of it under their term, you don't own it.  If you don't like the license
terms, you don't use it and/or you get your money back.

   News articles are a different, they are open speech submitted to a media
known to be public and generally unrestricted.  So at the very least, I would
expect that "fair use" provisions would apply.  Use by commercial services
gets tricky and will probably only be resolved in court.  The desire to avoid
that probably explains why the major commercial data services don't carry
USENET and their usage contracts stipulates that they own everything posted
to them (the recent laws on the protection of confidential electronic mail
withstanding).


   I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen one indicted in Washington DC recently.
   
   
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Lister  rlister@cti.com  -or-  {well connected systen}!uunet!cti1!rlister 
Comprehensive Technologies Int'l Inc., Arlington, VA
==============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:484 news.admin:6354 misc.legal.computing:1604
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Keywords: imminent death of net predicted : -)
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul26.213137.1403@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
 
> And you are demonstrating your ignorance of usenet!  When you
> give something to the public, it becomes public domain.  Posting
> to usenet is giving to the public. 

That is *probably* not true under current US copyright law.  It takes a lot 
before a judge will conclude that a copyright has been abandoned (and 
"putting in the public domain" is really"copyright abandonment"), and a mere 
posting on usenet almost certainly won't do (I never say never, because it 
hasn't come up, but I'd bet 3 to 1 this way).  If the poster put on a 
copyright notice, even if defective, that's pretty clear evidence of no 
intent to abandon (and so the judges have held).

> If you did not know
> this, then you should read the entire primer.

The primer is at best someone's guess at the law.  It has no legal precedent.

However, as I've said elsewhere, my studied opinion is that posting to usenet 
grants an implied license to copy that, while limited, allows almost any type 
of non-commercial publication, and possibly some commercial types.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:48:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.155222.14412@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>... I would bet a small sum of money that all of those
>in the ``public-domain or copyright-but-no-real-power'' camp
>believe that shareware is protected.  Yet you see them screaming
>their heads off about postings.  Why have I lost my effective
>copyrights by posting this?  What if this *were* a piece of shareware?
>Would you feel like it was okay to copy it and not pay me, just
>because it was on the net?  What if it was on Compuserve?  How
>about your local bulletin board? 

IMHO, our society has the concept of a "copyright" because we believe
that: 

(1) creative work is "possessed" by its creator, much as a person can
possess a herd of cattle or a stand of trees; that

(2) the creator can sell the benefits of their work, much as the
owner of a cow can sell milk from the cow (or the cow itself!); and
that

(3) without a financial reward, people will stop creating to the
detriment of the whole society.

Alternate views of creative work in general, and of software
creations in particular, abound.  The entire GNU project is a
standing example that (3) is not valid.  People create, think up
ideas, work on seeing their ideas through, for lots of reasons, and
the financial reward is only a small part of the picture.

So what if everything sent on Usenet does become public domain?
What's the big deal?  People who are unwilling to release all rights
to their material can put voluntary clauses on them.  Shareware, for
example, continues to function because people voluntarily *obey* the
clauses in it.  If shareware functioned only because it was legally
binding, rather than the common etiquette it is, writers would spend
most of their time fighting users in court, rather than improving
their code and sending out patches!

Legal restrictions don't seem necessary as long as the voluntary ones
are more effective and create more good will.

--
Ameet A. Raval                   Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
email: bongo@splash.princeton.edu                Princeton, N.J. 08542
   or: aar@gfdl.gov                                phone: 609-452-6563
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "I've got to run now and relax.  The doctor told me to relax.  The
  doctor told me to relax.  The doctor told me.  He was the one.  He
  said, 'Relax'."  -- George Bush 5/12/91
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.021834.28103@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Isn't that what putting something in the public domain is?  When to give
>to the public domain, you allow anyone anywhere to copy at anytime: when
>you put something in anonymous ftp allow anyone anywhere to copy at 
>anytime, so what is the difference?

No, as we've said, putting something into the public domain requires
you to say something to the effect of ``I hereby renounce copyright
on this work and give it to the public domain.''  Do you really
think that all the shareware posted to bulletin boards (where it
can be copied by anyone at anytime) is public domain?

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:470 news.admin:6291 comp.org.eff.talk:4925 misc.legal.computing:1552
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:08:27 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <Ns1koB10w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
:           When you broadcast to the airwaves, you instruct your
:video machine to transfer information onto the airwaves where thousands of 
:video recorders will replicate the information.  
:
:Since you know that programmes are going onto video tape AND you continue to
:broadcast AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the videos
:which copy programmes to tape to place your "work" along with all the
:others on tape.

Wrong as usual mathew - British law allows limited recording for the
purpose of 'time-shifting' your viewing.  There's an actual number
of days laid down in the legislation though I can't remember it offhand.

Making permanent video copies *is* an offense in this country and people
occassionally *do* get prosecuted for this, though usually only if they're
making a business out of it.  However failure to prosecute in all
cases - most of them minor and trivial - doesn't lose the broadcaster
the right to prosecute in significant cases.

I think the distinction Peter Deutsch pointed out in a recent article
between usenet feeds and permanent archives is the one you should
be thinking about.

G
PS How come these messgaes are still so widely crossposted?  Can't we
settle on one group to concentrate them?  comp.org.eff.talk seems
a good place and a lot of the articles in this thread on that group
are to that group alone.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:49:51 GMT

In article <Ns1koB10w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> > Usenet is not television.
> 
> Is this some kind of mantra?
> 
> I didn't think anyone was claiming that it is.
> 
> >                            When you post to usenet, you instruct your
> > computer to transfer information onto the net where thousands of 
> > computers will replicate the information.  
> > 
> > Since you know that netnews is going to CD AND you continue to post 
> > AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the computers
> > which copy files to CD-ROM to place your "work" along with all the
> > others on CD-ROMs.
> 
>            When you broadcast to the airwaves, you instruct your
> video machine to transfer information onto the airwaves where thousands of 
> video recorders will replicate the information.  
> 
> Since you know that programmes are going onto video tape AND you continue to
> broadcast AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the videos
> which copy programmes to tape to place your "work" along with all the
> others on tape.
> 
Cute, but the difference is that the people at the other end tell their
VCRs to record whereas the computers are waiting for you to tell them
to "record." (IE: there is no person who sits down and says, "Oh, here is
a post, I must copy and send along.")




-- 
"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