From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <787@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
> Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
> Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
> Date: 30 Jul 92 01:19:18 GMT
> Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
> 
> In article <4ej.02fP1bxv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> |In article <1992Jul23.230452.1669@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford 
> @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> |
> |Your confusing what you're giving.  You're giving me a copy of a work.
> |That copy is  mine.  I can sell it, give it away, and do almost anything
> |I could do with any other object  (not rent it out, if it's software,
> |though).  But the _copyright_ to the work remains with  you.  Don't
> |confuse a copy of the work with a copyright to the work.
> 
> In particular, the person to whom you give the work may *not* make and
> sell *additional* copies of the work without your permission.

Right.  Yegads, I hope I didn't appear to imply otherwise.
> 
> Really copyright is so bloody simple.  I wrote this article, so I have
> the copyright in it.  I posted it, so I arranged for all of the machines
> in the usenet distribution to make copies, and I have made those copies
> available to all of the usenet readers.  I have *not* released my copyright
> in this work.
> 
> All copying by humans , other than 'fair use' is illegal unless I give
> permission to do so.

Well, 

1) there's more to copyright than the right to copy; there's also the rights 
to: distribute; prepare derivative works; display; publicly perform; claim 
authorship; atristic integrity.  Some of these can't be applied to all works 
(e.g., display of a novel)

2) There are a number of exceptions to the 106 and 106A copyright rights 
besides fair use.  The exceptions occupy sections 107 (fair use) through 120 
(which I think covers secondary transmissions by superstations and network 
affiliates).  Fair use is just the one you hear about the most.

> Now, given the nature of usenet, any quoting in a reply is fair use,
> regardless of any copyright notice.  It is almost certain that making
> a single personal copy of any article for personal use is fair use
> (given the general nature of article poste on usenet).

Probably is fair use.  Depends on the circumstances and facts.  If someone 
posted a fictional story, and you quoted the entire thing into another 
newsgroup, that might not be fair use (fiction, quoting all of it, and the 
non-educational environment work against fair use; but the fact that the re-
posting didn't affect the market for the work is in favor of fair use).  BUT: 
I think you wouldn't need fair use because of an implied license to do 
exactly that.

> I suspect that even making an archive copy would be considered fair
> use, since I already know such activity is common.  (Also, at least in
> the U.S.A., copyright law provides specifically for various categories
> of carriers to make archive copies, so the principle is well established).

There's an express provision for archival if it's open to the public, in 
section 108 or 109.  108, I guess; 109 is the first sale doctrine (right to 
resell your own copy).
  
> |Two points:
> |
> |1 - asking everyone to take copies is not identical to putting into the
> |public domain;
> 
> A very critical point, one that is often overlooked.
> 
> |> The law does not protect you from your own stupidity: if you give 
> |> it away, you cannot sue for copyright infringement.
> |
> |If you grant a license, and it is used within the terms of the license (or
> |in ways within the  law, such as fair use, first sale, etc.), you cannot
> |sue for copyright infringement.  The real  bugger here is determining what
> |the terms of the license are, if its an implied one.
> 
> And, of course, fair use covers alot of ground.

Fair use is a good deal more than people suspect.  And a good deal less.  
It's unfortunately named; it implies "a use which is fair", when in fact it 
is an pretty specific (although muddy) set of tests that are applied.

> 
> |But in response to your original point: No, no, no: it is not true that
> |anything without a  notice is public domain.  Take a browse of Title 17,
> |especially sections 102 and 401 -  406.  Placing something in the public
> |domain requires an overt unambiguous act by the  copyright holder.
> 
> Absolutely.  There is no possibility of ambiguity here.  The law is
> *quite* explicit, and, for a change, it is written in plain, clear English.

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't call it plain clear English.  I'll have to look 
up section 301, and post it: It's the statute that pretty much says "federal 
copyright preempts any state copyright", but I recall it as being 
particularly difficult to parse.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6143 comp.org.eff.talk:4799 misc.legal.computing:1462