HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Copyright and Derivative Works
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:13:19 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU


>You're being pretty vague.  I presume you're talking about transformations
>such as encryption.  Simply looking at the two texts will not make their
>similarity apparent.  However, the court may be able to force the defendant
>to decrypt the text (much as it can force him to open a safe, or reveal
>other pertinent information), and then the similarity should be apparent.
>
In general, encryption is not enough (for the reasons you point out).
Encrypted messages normally contain a lot of information (even if that
information is difficult to use).  To reduce the information content to
zero, the key must be at least as long as the message.  The simplest
way of achieving this is a simple XOR one-time pad.

For example, suppose you have three messages A, B and C.  Two of them
are random (NB I mean really random, not pseudo-random).  The third
is a derivative work of a text D, such that A xor B xor C == D.

Assume that it is not possible to trace the history of how these
messages were created (ie. all physical evidence has been destroyed
or is untraceable).

A, B and C can now be released into the public domain and distributed
(so long as no person copies more than one of the three: separate
distribution channels are needed).  So long as the history cannot be
traced, none of the messages can be shown to be a derivative work
with more than a 34% probability.  In theory at least, this is not
enough for a civil court to find against you (and certainly not a
criminal court).

(In practice, you would want to hide the random messages in something
that looked legitimate, to protect you from other legal risks, but
the principle is sound).

>If they can't base their judgement on direct comparison of the texts, then
>they will have to resort to other types of evidence.  There are many cases
>where direct evidence is not always available or reliable.  For instance,
>an eyewitness who sees the defendant run the transformation program, or
>hears him talk about it in the hallway, can be more useful than direct
>comparison.

Agreed: As I said above, it would be necessary to avoid leaving any
evidence.  I haven't though about it in detail, as I have no wish or
intention to try any of this out (the question is whether the law is
enforceable: the acts involved to evade it would still be highly
illegal and in my view immoral).  However, given the intangible
nature of information, I have little doubt that you could cover your
tracks if you tried (contrary views welcomed).

I hope this helps explain the problems that I am talking about, and
apologies for the lack of technical details in my original post.

Graham Shaw (dph3gds@tuda.ncl.ac.uk)
Deparetment of Physics, Durham University, England
Temporarily at: the William Herschel Telescope, La Palma
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:09:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>. . . . hp48sx@wupost.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes:

>> Now that Apple has lost its look and feel lawsuit it must be the time

>promised not to do it again?  Why are they better
>people to deal with because they lost?

I'm a little confused here.  Why do both of you say Apple "lost" this action?
From what I've read in the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, it ain't
over yet.  True, there's no way for Apple to shut MS-Windows down now, but
there are issues which are not yet disposed of.  Or did they settle this
week?

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
From: Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Copyright and Derivative Works
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:27:09 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

The ongoing discussions about Usenet and Copyright have made me wonder
about some of the fundamental assumptions that underly copyright law,
and whether copyright as a concept is even workable.

The problem I see lies in determining whether a text (or file or
whatever) is a derivative work.  There are two options:

A) By comparing the two texts.

   This is the method that the courts would normally use to determine
   whether there had been a copyright violation.

   It works well enough for verbatim copies, and (usually) for derivative 
   works created by people, because the types of transformation you are
   looking for are quite limited.  It does however break down completely
   in the general case.

   (Put formally, given a text A, you can create a (potentially useful)
   derivative work B which (given access only to the texts) cannot be
   proved to be a derivative work, even on the balance of probabilities).

B) By looking at the past history of the text.

   This is the method that is favoured by the law, at least in theory.

   While it is theoretically sound, it is totally unenforceable.
   Suppose I took to selling pirate software - imagine if the company
   had to actually prove, step by step, that the data originated from
   one of their disks.  Convictions (or their civil equivalents) would
   be almost impossible to obtain, as computer copying normally leaves
   little if any evidence of the past history of the data.

Can anyone see a way out of this paradox?  (Similar problems occur
in other legal areas, including the libel laws).

One final point to consider.  Given the impossibility of determining
whether something is a derivative work, for Usenet even putting a human
into the loop to censor each article would not be enough: publishing
the work of a third party would inevitibly carry a substantial risk, 
and in general there would be _NOTHING_ that you as the publisher could
do to eliminate or even reduce that risk.

(For the record: I do not object to copyrights on moral grounds -
indeed, I support them in principle.  What I would like to see is
a far more well-defined legal basis for defining copyright that
is both enforceable and consistent with reality.  I do not know
whether this is possible, but I do not believe it exists at the
moment).

Graham Shaw (dph3gds@tuda.ncl.ac.uk)
Department of Physics, Durham University, England.
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Copyright and Derivative Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:10:31 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


Oh, my goodness.  In a recent post, I repeatedly referred to
Graham Shaw as "Mr. Graham" rather than "Mr. Shaw."  My
humblest apologies.

Steve Barber
sbarber@panix.com

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
From: sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Copyright and Derivative Works
Summary: re: proof for copyright infringement
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:51:35 GMT
Organization: UNISYS - Eagan, MN

In article <16q33kINNmmj@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In the real world, people are found guilty of copyright infringement on
> much less ground than you're worrying about.  There have been a number of
> recent cases where movie and music creators have been found guilty based on
> the fact that they could have read or heard the original version and the
> purported copy bears a resemblance to it.

The proof needed to show infringment is usually stronger than "resemblance".
The commonly used test consists of two parts:  

1. plaintiff must prove defendent had access to the original work.   
This doesn't necessarily mean proving that defendent had the work in
his hands, but that the work was widely available.  If actual access
cannot be shown, availability will suffice.

2. plaintiff must show similarity between the original work and the
defendent's work.  If no actual access was shown in step 1, then the 
plaintiff must show "substantial similarity" between the works.

In the real world, it's usually difficult to prove actual access (at
least between unrelated parties).  But access to a widely distributed
work such as a pop song can easily be inferred.  What substantial
similarity is differs on the facts of each case.

Your mileage may vary.....


Steven Skabrat                        Class of '93, William Mitchell
Paramax Systems Corporation           College of Law, St. Paul, MN
Eagan, MN
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Copyright and Derivative Works
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:04:15 GMT

In <Bt91M8.43@newcastle.ac.uk> Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw) writes:


>For example, suppose you have three messages A, B and C.  Two of them
>are random (NB I mean really random, not pseudo-random).  The third
>is a derivative work of a text D, such that A xor B xor C == D.

>Assume that it is not possible to trace the history of how these
>messages were created (ie. all physical evidence has been destroyed
>or is untraceable).

I might suggest adding a 4th distribution; distribute A,B,C,D; with

A xor B xor C = copyrighted text E
A xor B xor D = copyrighted text F (which can be freely distributed or is yours)
A xor C xor D = copyrighted text G (which can be freely distributed or is yours)

Now, the derivative work of E is still A, B, or C (oops); but A, B, and C
are also parts of legal distributions.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Poisoned textbooks and net articles?
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:37:01 GMT
	<1992Aug12.041630@eklektix.com> <7172@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Followup-To: misc.int-property
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 12 Aug 92 15:15:55 GMT

In article <7172@skye.ed.ac.uk> (in comp.unix.bsd), jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>OK, (1) suppose someone posts some code to the net w/o a copyright notice.
>Can I use it, or is there an implicit copyright that says "no"?  If the
>latter, then I may be better off if I don't read net articles that contain
>code.

   It probably depends on whether the country where the message originated
has adopted the Berne Convention or not.  The United States adopted the
Berne Convention sometime in 1986.  Anything posted by someone in the USA
after that time is implicitly copyrighted unless there is a specific
disclaimer in the message.  This applies to all copyrightable works, not
just usenet posts.

   Check with a lawyer for more details.  I'm just a disgruntled American
citizen who thinks the Berne Convention is a bad idea.  If people can't be
bothered to put a simple copyright notice on something they publish, it
seems like it would be far more beneficial to leave the work in the public
domain, where it will be the most beneficial.  Especially in this country,
people seem to be forgetting why we have patents and copyrights in the
first place.
From: saroff@uf.msc.edu (Stephen Saroff)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,gnu.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: saroff@msc.edu
Organization: AHPCRC, Minnesota Supercomputer Center



I came in in the middle of this discussion.  could someone bring me
up to date on what happened?
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stephen Saroff <saroff@msc.edu>                 o o  The Bear who Swims      
Minnesota Supercomputer Center                  (_)_____o      
1200 Washington Ave. S                       ~~~~(______)~~~~~~~~~~
Minneapolis, MN 5514 <612/626-1854>              oo    oo
From: Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Copyright and Derivative Works
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:27:56 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

In article <16q33kINNmmj@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>
>G.D.Shaw pointed out that it's impossible to "prove" that something is a
>copy or derivative work when computers are involved, and asked how we are
>to reconcile copyright law with this.
>
>There's a simple answer: it's not a problem (at least in the USA).  Civil
>law doesn't require absolute proof, it just requires you to make a better
>case than your opponent so that you can convince a judge or jury.  It's not
>even as stringent as criminal law, which requires proof "beyond a
>reasonable doubt" in order to convict the defendant.
>
Two points:

1) I did not merely say that it was impossible to prove similarity
   'beyond reasonable doubt' - as you say, that is not necessary in a
   civil case.  My point is that there are cases where a text can
   (a) be derived from another, (b) be useful to the recipient but
   (c) which cannot be shown to be a derivative (or even be similar)
   to any standard of proof whatsoever.

2) I was not challenging the assumption that "text A is similar to
   text B" implies "text A is derived from text B".  It is not a valid
   statement of logic, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption
   (on the grounds that it is unlikely anyone would write a program
   exactly identical to Lotus 1-2-3 (tm) simply by chance).

   What I was challenging was that "text A is derived from text B"
   implies that "there will be discernable similarity between text
   A and text B".  While it is true for most types of transformation
   likely to be performed by humans, it is not true for many
   transformations that could be carried out by a computer.

The fundamental problem is this: the information content of a text
is a relative, not an absolute quality.  It is possible for a text
to be derived from an original without carrying any information
about the original.  It is also possible for subsequent text that
was not in any way derived from or contaminated by the original
to convey enough information to reconstruct the original in its
entirity.

Finally, perhaps I should make clear that I am not talking about
'practical' law here - I am talking about what the judges should
uphold, not what they would.  I am also aware that few (if any)
judges are in the least bit qualified to judge what is right or
wrong in this area.  (Nor, for that matter, are most of our
legislators.)

Graham Shaw (dph3gds@tuda.ncl.ac.uk)
Department of Physics, Durham University, England.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,sci.electronics
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: halogen lamps
Organization: Aston University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:51:56 GMT

ldstern@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Larry Stern) writes:
: On more or less the same subject, can someone tell me exactly why you
: shouldn't touch a halogen bulb?  

If you touch it you get finger prints on it. This results in localiased 
heating of the envelope. (due to the high temperatures these lamps run
at). Result the envelope will crack.

This is why these lamps come with a tear off wrapping, which you remove after
insertion.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Seeking Low Cost Health Insurance
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:13:29 GMT

What are the best deals out there for health insurance?  Cost is rather
important to me because I'm on a tight budget.  Previously I was covered
by student health insurance.  But now I am between degree programs and I
need a new policy to tide me over until next the fall of '93.  Thanks in
advance for any help (which would be greatly appreciated).

Phil Calvert
 
<Bitnet: pncsppc@ncsuvax / Internet: pncsppc@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu>
Xref: sparky misc.consumers:15451 misc.consumers.house:11168
From: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.consumers.house
Subject: Disposal gets the creeping crud
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC

My disposal tends to build up this awful coating of crud.  I guess 
particles of the food splash up on the insides above where the 
rotating thingy can reach them.  When I have to clean it off it is
truly disgusting.  Any ideas how to prevent this?
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: Health vitamin scam?
Originator: acheng@shalom.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:47:50 GMT


In article <9710042@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen) writes:
>My wife received in the mail today one of those "You have been selected to
>definitely receive one of these gifts"!
>
>     (1) Cadillac Coupe Deville (not to exceed $20,000)
>     (2) $7500 in cash
>     (3) Big Screen Stereo Tv ($2500 market value)
>     (4) Diamond Sapphire Tennis Bracelet ($1200 market value)
>     (5) $1000 in cash
>     (6) Hawaiian vacation (average room cost more than $500)

It says, "average"; it does not say they are giving you one
at least $500.  They can give you a motel room costing $80 while
their CEO vacations at the $922 deluxe suite in another exotic hotel.
Average = (922 + 80)/2 = $501.

Or they can claim they are providing information how expensive it can
be to stay in Hawaii, but they are giving you a way to vacation
in Hawaii free.  Again, it does not mean you are getting a $500 hotel
room.  And who knows, you may get a coupon that you can get free motel
rooms ONLY if you book your flight from a specific "tr-ripoff-avel agent".

>Basically, they want my wife to send them $598 for a 9 month supply of some
>new fangled health vitamins!  Her first award would be included with the
>first order.  Her second award would be determined 45 to 60 days later -
>guarranteed!

After they cash the check and if they don't send nothing, what are you
gonna do?  Fly all the way to Las Vegas and visit an "empty office room
with disconnected phone"?  Or go to a P.O. box to demand a refund?

If this outfit really wants to promote their "new and improved
miracle vitamin that revives your youth and your hair", they can send a
month-supply sample free to everyone.  It will be cheaper than handing
out real prize.

>Well, has anyone else out there seen this particular thing?  I may be wrong,
>but here is how I figure it:
>
>     - Everyone gets the second award.
>
>     - When you look at the list, you figure the worst prize is the vacation.
>       These are usually so worthless that one would never use it anyway.
>       The restrictions are ridiculous.
>
>     - But this is different!  You are guaranteed 2 of these prizes!  It looks
>       to me like the next prize would be the $1000 cash!  Of course, I don't
>       mind sending $598 since they will send me a prize that is at least
>       worth $1000!
>
>     - WRONG!  With the carefully worded statements, the second prize will
>       also be one of those worthless vacations!  After all, nowhere have
>       they guarranteed that the second prize has to be different than the
>       first one!
>
>     - Finally, I am convinced that if I were to send them the $598, I would
>       receive $35 worth of over-the-counter vitamins repackaged and renamed
>       with some Yuppie type labels!

I am glad you see the light!
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
From: cheng@Cadence.COM (Jen Chen)
Subject: Re: Credit Union Deposit (Share) Interest (Dividend) Calculations
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:11:36 GMT

In article <7724@public.BTR.COM> timlee@public.btr.com writes:
>Based on the credit union that I just became eligible to use,
>and some information from people using other credit unions, it
>seems that it is much more common among credit unions to use
>tricky or sleazy ways of calculating interest payments.  For
>example:
>
>	* lowest balance of the month or quarter
>	* deposits after the 10th of the month do not gain
>	  interest until the 1st of the next month
>	* deposits from the 1st to the 10th of the month
>	  gain interest from the 1st of the same month
>	* funds withdrawn before the interest is posted
>	  do not earn interest

     One more trick from AEA Credit Union saving account is
if you withdraw money by the end of each quarter, you will
lose the interest for the whole 3-month period.

     It offer lower interest rate than CD, but requirement is more
strict than CD.  No wonder credit union is more profitable than
banks.



Newsgroups: misc.consumers
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Movie Rental horror stories (was ...wa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:36:37 GMT


In article <Bszqrn.5Ft@news.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@atropa (Mike Berger) writes:
>lee@quark2.aero.org writes:
>>Moral: beware of those video return bins.  they may be convenient, but
>>without a receipt, you don't have any real proof that you returned a
>>video!
>*----
>What proof do you have when you return it to a person at the counter?
>I've never been given a receipt for returning a video tape.

Do you ever ask? ;-)

Seriously, I get receipts all the time. When I rent the movie, their
computer spits out a 3 part form. When I leave, I get the white copy.
When I return the movie, I get the pink copy and the clerk signs it
stating that yes, I did return it.

With the major hassles that can occur when returned movies are
"misplaced," the relatively minor hassle of getting the clerk to give
you a receipt is a small price to pay.
From: fritz@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz (tmp))
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: DAK's short-wave radio ??
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:14:10 GMT
Reply-To: Gary Fritz <fritz@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com>
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

The previous responses verify my General Theory of DAK:  no matter how cheap
it is, you get (at best) what you paid for.  DAK tends to carry low-grade goods
dressed up with Drew Kaplan's hyped-up ad copy.  (And, I wish someone would
throttle the guy until he learns not to start every sentence with "And,"
and "But,"!!! :-)

I have also heard rumors that DAK has gone, or is going, bankrupt.
Caveat Emptor.

Gary
From: cindy@berkp.uadv.uci.edu (Cindy Windham)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Request: trouble-free car recommendations
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:06:02 GMT
Organization: University Advancement, University of Calif., Irvine

I'm looking for a car that is large enough to seat two adults and two small 
children (and their carseats) comfortably, enough room to tote a stroller, 
and other sundry children's paraphernalia, peppy even in automatic, and 
amazingly trouble-free (having your car break down with two small kids in it 
is _not_ okay).  Any suggestions?
From: lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:27:45 GMT
Subject: Health vitamin scam?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA