From: peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Bunyip Information Systems (the archie people)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:28:55 GMT

In article <mwm.1azh@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>In <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
>> In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>> >.  .  .. Posting must include implicit permission for many
>> >kinds of copying; otherwise to many of the people providing services
>> >to the net are open to lawsuits.  Anything else leaves to many people
>> >to vulnerable to lawsuits.
>> 
>> Well, this does sound supiciously like "if we all break the
>> law, then we will be sued, so let's agree to ignore the
>> law", but it could just be me.
>
>You're right - but that's because we all are (potenially) breaking the
>law. For instance, everyone who copies this article is in breaking my
>copyright. Unless some interpretation similar to the above is used.

This brings to mind two responses. 1) If something can
only be done by breaking the law, then either get the law
changed or don't do it. I think is is specious to argue
that it is a bad law so we can or should ignore it.

This leads to 2). If we accept Brad Templeton's
interpretation (that the sender initiates the transfers)
then the problem disappears. This of course does not make
Brad's interpretation correct, but it doesn't appear to
make it appear the more sensible, since it doesn't require
us all to ignore the law or drop what we are doing. It
also  seems to take more notice of existing laws, but
that's an aside.

>> I think most people assume they are granting permission
>> for copying in the context of an automated, distributed
>> bulletin board service. The reason this debate wont die is
>> that there are two possible interpretations of what else
>> is allowed. Some are claiming that granting such
>> permission renounces all other rights, and some (count me
>> in this camp) are arguing that I can grant a limited right
>> in this context without renouncing my rights to a future
>> mini-series deal.
>
>Actually, I'm in neither camp, because I don't agree with either
>interpretation. I agree that you don't give up all rights by posting
>an article. However, "automated, distributed bulletin board services"
>doesn't begin to cover the real things that are being done with
>USENET. If you limited it to "automated" services, that might do it.
>What I'm pushing for is a way to tag articles that the authors don't
>want to be used by those automated services, without throwing out the
>baby.

The way I read this, you are firmly in the second camp,
but disagree with the preamble. And I will stand by my
handwaving definition of Usenet, since it is definitely
automated, definitely distributed and definitely a
bulletin board service.

Now, people may be pushing the edges by dumping it to
CD-ROM (which I don't actually have any problem with, BTW,
provided the people doing this make it quite clear that
they are charging for the processing, not the information)
or by charging for access to a system to read news, but I
think the point in such cases is that no one is charging
for _Peter Deutsch's_ or _Mike Meyer's_ postings, but
rather for access to the _service_ of Usenet. Once we
start charging for Mike Meyer's work, or take the posting
into another medium, we have clearly crossed some
boundary. I think the distinction, while subtle, is at the
heart of the matter.

Actually, I think the big brouhaha over how special Usenet
is vastly overrates the complexity of the issue. It is
clear in my mind that running a Usenet posting in any
commercial mag, lifting a posting to include in a book,
etc are clearly out of order, since they involve a change
in medium and it is clear to me that the poster retains the
copyright to his or her work, including the right to
control its use in other mediums. As I said in an earlier
posting, no one has been sued because there has not been
enough money involved yet, but sooner or later we will see
lawsuits, given the silly ideas some people seem to have
about the lack of control over intellectual property on
the Internet. We need to make it clear that the users of
Usenet are as responsible for obeying the law as the rest
of the citizenry. Once we agree on that, then it is merely
a question of getting a ruling on what the law says about
what we are doing. As Mike O'Dell once said (in another
context) "Sure it's rocket science, but aren't we all
rocket scientists?"

>> >That's why I'd like some reasonable mechanism in place so authors (and
>> >those service providers) can recognize articles that have
>> >restrictions, and deal with them appropriately.
>> 
>> We have exactly such a mechanism now. It's the
>> "Distibution:" field of the header, and people regularly
>> use it to control the automated copying software to limit
>> distribution of their work.
>
>No, people regularly *try* to use it to limit the distribution of
>their work. My feed is a gateway for an international company, and
>thus gets *all* distributions. They give me the same.

So your feed regularly violates the instructions of
posters in mishandling of their work, and you are
condoning their behaviour by not asking them to stop.

>I've replied to postings, and gotten the response "you should never
>have gotten that, the distribution was <blat>". That's strike one
>against using distributions: they don't work as intended.

Because people like you don't take the simple steps needed
to see that they do.

BTW, the fact that I issue instructions on what people can
do with my work, and some people ignore those instructions,
does not make their behaviour acceptable even if it is
done "enough" times. The fact that people "regularly try"
to limit distribution would argue that we have intent to
control copyright, and widespread copyright abuse. Seems
like we should be forcing sites to clean up their
collective act and obey the authors' instructions, since
it seems that in the long run such behaviour will prove
harmful to the entire institution of Usenet.What was that
about "innocent infringement"?

>> So how about? Can we all agree on some more words to stick
>> in there, like "no_cdrom", or "no_paper", or
>> "electronic_only", or even "no_EBCIDC"? Then, if I put
> them in and you ignore it, haven't you violated my clearly
>> stated wishes not to distribute my work without bound?
>
>Yes, but if you say "no_cdrom,na" then you get distributed to _all_ of
>na, even places that specify !no_cdrom. Strike two: they don't work
>the way you want them to.

Again, you are telling me that there is widespread
violation of the authors' instructions, so we should give
up. Sounds like we should be collectively tightening our
belts and forcing recalcitrant sites to behave in a civil
manner. 

As an aside, I lived through the early days of the PC
revolution, and remember when copyright violation in the
form of software copying was so wide-spread that it drove
some companies out of the field. Once there was enough
money involved (ie. software shops could target the
Fortune 500 companies with lawsuits) things suddenly
cleaned up pretty fast. Although software pirating still
happens, I think there is a pretty widely held believe now
that software _should_ be protected and even those who
still pirate couch their excuses in terms of "well, I
wouldn't have bought it anyways, since I'm a student" or
whatever.

I encounter few people today who argue that it is _okay_
to steal software (although there are still a few). Yet I
keep reading that even if I specifically put in copyright
notices in my Usenet postings I am _still_ giving up all my
residual rights under the copyright laws when I post. I
really think this broken and we need to adjust our mental
model of what is happening here.

>> Thus, I would argue that the
>> concept of "not for everyone, and not forever" is already
>> firmly established in the Usenet system. What's at debate
>> (it seems to me) is exactly what the default behaviour
>> should be when we don't specify instructions to the contrary.
>
>You haven't made any argument about "not forever". Since people have
>been publicly announcing permanent usenet archives since before the
>great renaming, I'd say that the concept of "forever" is already
>firmly established in the Usenet system. Distributions still apply to
>"anyone who wants them".

I didn't think I had to make the case for "forever", since
the concept of "expiry" of an article is probably more
firmly entrenched in new-comers' heads than "Usenet
archives", which seems like an associated service, not an
integral part of Usenet.

After all, only a fraction of the groups have archives,
they are (as far as I know) just about all run by
volunteers and just about none cover the entire history of
Usenet. Beside, I also keep hearing about how Usenet !=
Internet, and archives are more of an Internet phenomenon.

I would argue that with Usenet most people _expect_ there
work to fade away like smoke after a certain amount of
time. I certainly have tried a couple of times to get back
a posting that has expired at my local site, and not once
was I successful.

Out of curiosity, where _would_ I get back a set of
postings I did to alt.folklore.urban a couple of years
ago? I just don't believe that anyone really thinks that
the ability to do this is an integral part of Usenet.

I also believe that with a combination of the
"Distribution:"  and "Expire:" fields, with a few agreed
upon extensions, we can manage to control Usenet
distribution enough to keep it out of the hands of the
lawyers, provided site admins agreed to abide by a few
simple rules (like, set up your site to adher to clear
instructions already included in the headers).

The question is whether or not those zealots who insist
that the net should be "free" will allow this to happen.
Sadly, given the depth of feeling on both sides of this
issue, I think we're going to have to await the court
rulings and subsequent panic and shakeout. Pity we can't
just behave like adults in the first place.



				- peterd
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk