From: hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:59:00 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan26.173707.21844@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>As far as I know Eric would have been willing to sign for the
>information and pay for copying costs.

Yes, I certainly would.  And if I felt like it, I would also pay the
scanning and ocr and uploading costs.

>>This discussion prompted me to examine the UK Schedule of Classes
>>more carefully.  Guess what I found on page 3?
>
>>	(C) 1992, University of Kentucky
>
>The Supreme Court recently affirmed that noncreative collections of
>facts (e.g. the white pages of the phone book) are not copyrightable.
>I don't believe that a class schedule qualifies for copyright.

Just to clarify this copyright issue:  I did not break copyright.  I have
strong beliefs about copyright laws, but they are not relevant to this
issue.  I have inspected the printed version, and found no copyrights on
it.  I asked the Office of the Registrar.  They told me it is not
copyrighted.  The Supreme Court says that this type of material is not
copyrightable.  Copyright is a completely separate issue, and issue which is
not involved in this.

I was charged _only_ with the crime of having misused an RS232 port.  I have
a hard time accepting what I did as misuse, given that the port on my
computer is RS232 compliant, as is the port on their computer, and I am
qualified to work with this type of port (according to the University, I am
a "Programmer/Analyst").

>If class schedules qualified for copyright protection, if Berkeley and
>State of California policy allowed copyrights to be claimed on things
>like class schedules, if Berkeley actually claimed a copyright on the
>class schedule, and if Eric's request had been denied on copyright
>grounds, then yes, indeed, that would be a very different situation.

Yes, it would be a different situation, but that's not the case.

>>Give us a break, Carl.  What good would it do to throw online
>>copies to whomever wanted them (or throw one up for anonymous
>>FTP), if those copies will be obsolete within a day?
>[...]
>
>This is not for a unit of government to decide. The government *does*
>sometimes have grounds to restrict information (e.g. privacy, national
>security). None of those grounds apply here.

Of course what I put on line was obsolete hours after it was put there.  But
it was more up to date than the paper things floating around.  I don't think
any user sophisticated enough to use ftp and do searches would also be so
naive as to think that an ftp'ed file somehow, magically updates itself.
Information on hard disk has many of the same properties as information on
paper:  if you don't change it, it tends to stay the same.  Most people know
this.

I have a blowtorch in my house.  A blowtorch is a powerful and dangerous
tool.  It would be a serious mistake for someone who didn't know how to use
a blowtorch to attempt to use one.  It is everyones responsibility to either
know how to use a blowtorch, or know not to use one.

In the same way, a computer is a powerful tool.  It is everyone's
responsibility to be sure that they know what they are doing before they
rely on information given to them by a computer.  I am not saying that
everyone who doesn't already magically know how to use a computer should not
use one.  I am saying, though, that if you don't have some good general
knowledge about using a computer, you probably shouldn't rely on using one
to plan your schedule.  You should rely on paper, which you probably do have
a good general knowledge of.

>[...]
>>Do you acknowledge that: 
>
>>	- The Schedule of Classes is an important document for students?
>yes
>>	- The accuracy of such a document is essential to its proper and
>>	  efficient use?
>yes
>>	- The Registrar's Office is obliged to ensure its accuracy?
>
>NO, the government has no authority to restrict otherwise public
>information on these grounds. If it did, it would be able to restrict
>*all* government information.

How could the Office of the Registrar possibly ensure the accuracy of the
document I put up for ftp?  They couldn't, and they had no need to, because
that document was not published by them.  It was published by me.  They had
no hand in it.  Therefore they have no responsibility.

>[...]
>>I don't know why hh is only confronted with charges of "hardware misuse";
>>perhaps he should be <somewhat> grateful that he doesn't face charges such 
>>as disregarding instructions of University staff in performance of their 
>>duties <he asked permission and was refused, for the very reasons I've 
>>stated.> 
>[...]
>
>I don't believe he was instructed not to download the data himself.

In fact, I was specificly not instructed not to download the data myself.
When I was denied access to a copy of it, I pointed out to them that I could
walk up to any Infocal terminal and download it.  They conceded that I could
do that.  They did not tell me, "No, don't do that."  In other words, they
left me with ambiguous information:  it was not clear to me that I was not
authorized to do that.

Also, the rule against "misuse of computer equipment" was also ambiguous to
me.  It seemed to imply that, for instance, attempting to connect a
University owned RS232 port with my SCSI port would be misuse.  Therefore, I
did not connected it to my SCSI port, but connected it to my RS232 in the
proper manner, thinking that this was not misuse.

Because I received an "informal warning", the official status of unplugging
an RS232 port remains to be tested in a Student Conduct Hearing.

e
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk