HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumption!
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:46:43 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Widener University Computer Science Dept, Chester PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: betty.cs.widener.edu

someone, doesn't matter who, wrote:
>I hadn't realized the US Supreme Court now has world-wide juristiction(sp?)

Just to harp on something, if more people took the 20-second effort to
look in a dictionary, thus learning the proper spelling of words, the
Net would be a better place for it.

We now return you to the cascade.
-- 
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager                      brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University                                                 Chester, PA
 "But Billy! A *small* allowance prepares you for a lifetime of small salaries
  and for your Social Security payments."                     -- Family Circus
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:487 news.admin:6368 comp.org.eff.talk:5004 misc.legal.computing:1617
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:24:19 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>which apply to your use of the net.

Heh.  Exactly who do you imagine to be party to this unsigned
"contract" you declare to exist?  Good luck getting a judge to
enforce a "contract" that was never agreed to, and whose terms
have been explicitly rejected.

Under U.S. copyright law, I own the rights to my works.  Despite
what you might prefer, I choose not to release those rights with
respect to my Usenet postings.  When you own Usenet, then you can
require me to release my rights as a condition of posting.  Until
then, I choose to retain those rights.

Cheers,
Dave
-- 
          Magic is the art of assuming a role strongly enough
          that the Universe falls into the complementary role.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:461 comp.org.eff.talk:4855 misc.legal.computing:1506 misc.int-property:792 news.admin:6222
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:52:28 GMT
	<4945@airs.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> 
> >o) Under current law, any original creative work is copyrighted the moment
> >it is expressed.  This article is an example of something that is
> >copyrighted.  The copyright exists whether you claim it or not.  It only
> >fails to exist if I explicitly say "I abandon the copyright/place this
> >work in the public domain."   (Or of course if it's not original or
> >creative.)
> 
> In general I agree with the above as regards Usenet articles.  But are
> there really no exceptions? 

Well, there's a fair use exception.  There may be other limited
exceptions.

> If a newspaper publishes a leaked
> document, can it be sued for copyright infringement?  

Absolutely.  Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises;  The Nation published
excerpts from Gerald Ford's (then unpublished) book.  The excerpts
were certainly newsworthy.  Harper & Row sued them and won.  Note that
if the Nation had simply paraphrased the book, and communicated the
INFORMATION in it, rather than copying the EXPRESSION, it probably
could not have been successfully sued.

> Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
> ``It takes a man months and months to reconcile himself to a new hat.  And
>   just when you're preparing to send it to the jumble sale, he says, `That's
>   rather a nice hat you've got on, where did you get it?' ''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger		       ||  ARPA:     peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student	       ||            Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law ||  UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will _croak_ you little clown, when you mess with President Brown!
 California Uber Alles! California Uber Alles! Uber Alles, California!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:53:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul27.152323.20119@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>#Please. It is not the case that what is published to Usenet becomes
>#public domain. Copyrighted material posted to the Net remains copyrighted...
>
>Is there a legal definition of what it does mean by placing something
>in the public domain? And what actions are necessary for such to
>occur? 

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.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:18:34 GMT

In article <8595.Jul2521.34.1892@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> 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.
> 

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?


-- 
"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,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.155222.14412@cc.gatech.edu> 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.  

Closely. If it was a perfect match, it would be called USENET instead
of shareware.

>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.  

You lose.

>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?  

Absolutely. It is perfectly legal to copy sharware and give it to
anyone you want to. You can make 45 copies and give them out to anyone
you want. Many shareware licenses say you can even charge reasonable
amounts for costs of copying (if they didn't, then the shareware
distribution companies wouldn't be able to operate).

>What if it was on Compuserve?  How about your local bulletin board? 

It doesn't make any difference. Shareware is shareware.

Or don't you understand the concept of shareware?

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:46:14 GMT

In <1992Jul30.155222.14412@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:

>In article <EeRzv7i00awJQ8UvA4@andrew.cmu.edu> pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger) writes:
>>A question for all of you out there who are (very cavalierly, I think)
>>claiming that any post on the net which follows "normal usenet
>>distribution patterns" is in the public domain:
>>
>>Are all of the "shareware" programs that are on the net now "public
>>domain?"  If so, than "shareware" really is "free".  Now, last I
>>understood, using a shareware program without paying the author the
>>requested fee within a reasonable amount of time was a violation of
>>copyright.  If, however, by distributing such programs on Usenet (say,
>>through comp.mac.binaries or somesuch group), these programs are
>>converted to public domain, than the authors have no legal recourse,
>>and have sacrificed their copyright.  Probably completely
>>unintentionally.

>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? 

Actually, yes, I *would* feel it was ok to copy it onto a disk, etc.
Ever hear of all those big shareware collections that are on CD-ROM?
You think the authors of that shareware are paid for that?  Not
hardly.  Their money comes from people licensing the stuff to use it.
If you want to license your article for prolonged use (like if someone
wants to read it over and over and over again or something silly like
that) and establish a 'licensing charge' for people doing that, then
you might (but only might) have a comparable situation.  

If you post your article, shareware, etc., to the net, everyone has
the right to COPY it.  They may not have the right to run your
shareware or plagiarize your article without your permission, but
that's something else again.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:511 comp.org.eff.talk:5061 misc.legal.computing:1665 news.admin:6432
From: ijp@oak10.doc.ic.ac.uk (Ian Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:01:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
: 
: Again, without a court case there's only opinion.  I personally
: doubt that a court would consider my using a shareware program 
: without paying a fee to the author as a violation.  The author 
: distributes shareware with the "hope" that some folks will pay for
: it if they like it.  Shareware isn't any diferent than if an author
: freely distributes 100s of copies of a book and includes a statement
: that if you read the book please send $x to me.  Do you think
: the author would have a case against someone that read the book
: without paying?  Not likely, the author gave away the books, the
: act of reading (as is the act of using the software) is not what
: copyright protects.  My understanding is that copyright protects
: against unauthorized copying and the shareware program was freely
: given away.  If I have a shareware program, whether I use it or
: not, I'm not in any copyright violation since the author intended
: me (and everyone else) to get the copy for free.   So my guess
: is that a court would not find a copyright violation by an individual
: that used shareware without paying the author his requested fee.
: 

Yes you are right that copyright only covers unauthorized copying, but
you forget that it (in most countries) has associated moral rights.
These moral rights protect against unauthorised use, alterations, etc.
etc. etc. Thus although you could freely copy the program,
unauthorised use of the program is covered by a seperate part of the
law. 

Ian

--
                            E-mail : ijp@doc.ic.ac.uk
 ___           __       Snail mail : Department of Computing, Huxley Building,
  /  _   _    /_/ _   / _ _   _  _   Imperial College, 180 Queens Gate,
_/_ (_|_| )  /   (_|_(_| ) )_|/_)    London. SW7 2BZ. England.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:04:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024520.28473@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>By using usenet, you are entering into an agreement with all the owners
>of the computers which propagate netnews.  The articles in n.a.n are 
>put there to inform you of the conditions of the contract.

I own one, help run another, and manage news on about 30-40 more. I hereby
repudiate this particular term as part of any implied contract, and deny
that any individual or article is authoritative as to the terms of any
such implied contract.

Usenet is a functioning anarchy, and depends on the good will and cooperation
of individuals. Absent that good will, no implied contract can keep it alive.
I'll stick with an implied handshake with people I trust before I'll hand it
over to the lawyers.

I make my machine, phone lines, and time available to the net on the basis
that I believe others with like interests will do the same for me. I give
up some of my resources in exchange for getting a share of theirs. But there
is no contract saying I must do so... I do it because I want to support
something I believe to be worth supporting.

>Denying what those posts say does not change the weight they will carry
>in a court.

Will this?

The only contracts involved are individual ones between users and system
operators and administrators, between system operators and common carriers,
and whatever agreements system operators make with their feed.

>you will also have a tough
>time convincing him that posting does not form a contract.

I suspect that you will have a tough time convincing him it does, when
the status of a much more secure "implied contract"... shrinkwrap licenses...
is still in doubt.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:471 news.admin:6301 comp.org.eff.talk:4932 misc.legal.computing:1559
From: kopackm@lonex.rl.af.mil (Michael A. Kopack)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: RL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:15:44 GMT

Hey, Rick!!! Why don't you just have a Coke and a Smile and shut the hell
up!!! Or, do I have to start telling people how you got the living Sh!t beat
out of you at that wrestling match. 

Remember me? The real pain in the @ss from spring Qtr........ Yeah, the one
who helped Amy.

Nice to hear from you again.
--Mike

-- 
Mike Kopack                         | Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll and my Amiga,
Internet : gt6758b@prism.gatech.edu | what more could anyone want?
           kopack@bugs.rl.af.mil    \              -- Me 
           kopackm@lonex.rl.af.mil   -------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:486 news.admin:6363 misc.legal.computing:1613
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 06:32:45 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul29.024520.28473@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
> which apply to your use of the net.  You would do well to read those
> documents in news.announce.newuser.  They are put there so that
> new users have an opportunity to understand what they are doing
> when they post to usenet.  
> 
> By using usenet, you are entering into an agreement with all the owners
> of the computers which propagate netnews.  The articles in n.a.n are 
> put there to inform you of the conditions of the contract.
> 
> Denying what those posts say does not change the weight they will carry
> in a court.  And I think you will have a very tough time convincing the
> judge that just because you did not believe what is in those posts that
> they do not consitute part of the contract: you will also have a tough
> time convincing him that posting does not form a contract.

Andrew, I don't think that you can infer that, but you're not far off.

Reading n.a.n is not a condition to posting on usenet.  It's a description of 
customs.  If it were a condition, it would not be valid, because it would be 
a case of an attempt to modify the terms of a contract after the contract has 
commenced.

That being said, I think that when you post, you have a responsibility to 
find out where you're posting, and where you should reasonably expect that 
post to be able to turn up.  If you post when you have or should have that 
knowledge, I say that you are granting an implied license for the copyrighted 
work to be copied and used in a manner consistent with the system's 
procedures.  Defining exactly what those expectations are or should be is the 
challenge.

But I think they clearly extend to freely redistributing them to computers 
around the net, to personal use by the net's readers, and perhaps to 
permanent archivals like the CD-ROM vendors.

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:521 news.admin:6461 comp.org.eff.talk:5082 misc.legal.computing:1686
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:08:24 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: cc3aa86481263aa6a64b0c0382f852ff

bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>>The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>>>which apply to your use of the net.
>>
>>Heh.  Exactly who do you imagine to be party to this unsigned
>>"contract" you declare to exist?  Good luck getting a judge to
>>enforce a "contract" that was never agreed to, and whose terms
>>have been explicitly rejected.
>
>	Does this mean that I have a theat of services suit against you for
                                     ^^^^^  I presume this is "theft"
>use of "my" machine to distribute your article?  (Or likewise, you have the
>same against me for this article.)
>
>	Bottom Line: What implicit copying rights (if any) does a poster
>give me (as administrator of a news site) in return for use of my machine?
>If the answer is none, then I can conceivably sue every site on the net for
>forwarding this message.

	The understanding I have is that I have given each potential
reader a copy of this article.  The account running the news software is
a "reader" and it may dispose of its copy in whatever manner it usually
does.

	As for "theft" of services:  you conneced your machine to the
usenet/netnews network, arranging to receive and send articles, and
agreeing to an exchange of services - I'll handle articles from you if
you'll handle articles from me.  This seems to me to be a grant of
limited authority for me to use your machine to make copies of my
articles and for you to use my machine to make copies of your articles
for the potential readers on each machine.

	And the question comes around again.  If you don't want me to
see the article, why post?
-- 
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: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing