From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:55:50 GMT

In article <23232@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj is getting tired of being lied about) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.204128.28013@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> 
> 
> >What you are trying to attempt would be like Jesse Jackson trying
> >to scream "Copyright JJ 1992" at the end of his nationally 
> >broadcast speech -- it's all well and good, but by standing in 
> >front of the cameras and speaking he has given consent to the
> >networks to broadcast.
[...] 
> Second, Ford clearly doesn't understand copyright law very
> well at all.  The words Jackson spoke (I assume, I didn't
> watch the circus) are still his, regardless of anything
> he did or didn't scream, unless it was something to the
> effect he was placing his speech in the public domain.
> 
> Surely he gave permission for the broadcast, just like
> we all "broadcast" on USENET.  None the less, if someone
> takes a tape of Jackson's speech (without it being
> placed in the publid domain) and sells it or reproduces
> it for other than private use (and that is somewhat in
> dispuse if ASCAP and BMI could get their way) that person
> is violating the copyright and is very much liable.

However, if ABC films Jesse Jackson (Oh now I get the crap about
the alice!jj != Jesse Jackson  -- that was purely coincidental,
HONEST!) then plays that film on 20/20 and then sells either 
transcripts of 20/20 or video copy of 20/20, they have not 
violated copyright.

What you seem to completely miss is that when you give a 
work to someone (as opposed to publishing) you *give* it to
him.  The phrase "in the public domain" is not necessary as
it is implied by your actions.

To cite a real life example: I have an uncle-in-law who lives
in Idaho.  He filmed, edited and produced a video tape of 
jet boat races on the river.  The tape had no copyright.
He then began distributing this tape.  One day it ended
up on TNN (The Nashville Network) without his permission
or knowledge.  He couldn't do anything because he did not
have a copyright on the video.


> In this case, violating the network compilation
> copyright as well, doing double damage at one shot.
> 
> No matter that it was publically broadcast.

You will note that the network does include a copyright notice
in their broadcast.  Now why would they bother when copyrights
are automatic?  because they want everyone to know that they are 
*not* giving away the broadcast, simply showing it.  

In any case, you are not the network: you posting to usenet is
more like Jesse Jackson screaming into the networks cameras:
if the network decides to sell copies of what Jesse gave them,
he has no grounds to complain.

-- 
"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: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing