Re: archiving on inet
So if I sell (at a profit) a netnews feed to subscribers via modem, it is not copyright infringement, but if I sell the same data on a CDROM, you cliam copyright infringement. Yep. When you're providing a netnews feed, you're acting as a node in a store-and-forward network. A CD-ROM is not a part of a store-and-forward network; it is a permanently fixed repository of information. You can't hold up a netnews feed in a courtroom and point at it saying "there it is"; you *can* do so with a CD-ROM. So I suppose you want to give some kind of list of what types of media are acceptable for transmitting netnews feeds, and which are not? A CD-ROM isn't a medium for transmitting netnews feeds; it's a permanently fixed copy of the contents of such a feed. Static versus dynamic; permanent, ephemeral. Is this hard to understand? The plain and simple fact is: When you post a message to usenet, you do so with the expectation that others will receive it. You can have no way of knowing or limiting who may get it; that is given by the nature of the network. Usenet news is, and is intended to be, publicly accessable information. If there is something you don't want distributed, then DON'T POST IT! Learn a little about law; while you're at it, learn a little about usenet. When you post a message to usenet, you have tossed it into a flood-routed store-and-forward network. You implicitly give permission for copying appropriate to the propagation of messages in that network. You neither grant permission nor withhold permission for Fair Use. Everything else, though, is not granted unless explicitly granted. If I post a message, under the terms of the Berne Convention and current US copyright law, a recipient was not granted the right to print a copy and publish it in a book. What makes you think I granted them permission to publish a copy in a CD-ROM? The only permission I granted was that they could (a) read it and (b) forward it via usenet protocols. Jason
Dear Jason, I don't think you are neccissarily correct about making an archive of the usenet. You may be correct, but I don't believe this point has been litigated yet. Furthermore, just because something is forwarded and something is archived I don't believe is expressly covered in copyright law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but am not a copyright/trademark specialist. Also, as was posted earlier someone is already making an archive of the usenet. See earlier postings. Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:
So if I sell (at a profit) a netnews feed to subscribers via modem, it is not copyright infringement, but if I sell the same data on a CDROM, you cliam copyright infringement.
Yep. When you're providing a netnews feed, you're acting as a node in a store-and-forward network. A CD-ROM is not a part of a store-and-forward network; it is a permanently fixed repository of information. You can't hold up a netnews feed in a courtroom and point at it saying "there it is"; you *can* do so with a CD-ROM.
So I suppose you want to give some kind of list of what types of media are acceptable for transmitting netnews feeds, and which are not?
A CD-ROM isn't a medium for transmitting netnews feeds; it's a permanently fixed copy of the contents of such a feed. Static versus dynamic; permanent, ephemeral. Is this hard to understand?
The plain and simple fact is: When you post a message to usenet, you do so with the expectation that others will receive it. You can have no way of knowing or limiting who may get it; that is given by the nature of the network. Usenet news is, and is intended to be, publicly accessable information. If there is something you don't want distributed, then DON'T POST IT!
Learn a little about law; while you're at it, learn a little about usenet. When you post a message to usenet, you have tossed it into a flood-routed store-and-forward network. You implicitly give permission for copying appropriate to the propagation of messages in that network. You neither grant permission nor withhold permission for Fair Use. Everything else, though, is not granted unless explicitly granted.
If I post a message, under the terms of the Berne Convention and current US copyright law, a recipient was not granted the right to print a copy and publish it in a book. What makes you think I granted them permission to publish a copy in a CD-ROM? The only permission I granted was that they could (a) read it and (b) forward it via usenet protocols.
Jason
Furthermore, just because something is forwarded and something is archived I don't believe is expressly covered in copyright law.
It's not the forwarding or the archiving that makes anything covered by copyright law; it is the setting down, in concrete form, the expression of an idea.
Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable.
Not successfully in court, I should think. How is a posting any different than the production of a radio program which is distributed by store-and-forward satellite distribution and then played through the radio station and received at your home radio? The mechanisms are close to identical in their attributes; tapes at the stations have some lifetime, timeshifting can occur, special equipment is needed to perceive the work, etc.
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.
If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. got it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for the use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an infringement. Jason
Usenet copyrightable? I still doubt it. Of course, the only way to find out is to file a very expensive lawsuit. Most posters would not find their postings worth the expense to sue on copyright. Only a very rich dilletante, or someone less rich who is a fanatic on the subject is likely to do so. Also, you would have a hard time answering the difference between charging for a usenet feed and charging for a cd-rom, again I see little difference except that one is more prompt in time than the other. But, again, my newsfeed from a BBS which might be 24 hrs delayed, and my netcom account which is much faster and a cd-rom differs only as to time removed from the original posting. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:
Furthermore, just because something is forwarded and something is archived I don't believe is expressly covered in copyright law.
It's not the forwarding or the archiving that makes anything covered by copyright law; it is the setting down, in concrete form, the expression of an idea.
Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable.
Not successfully in court, I should think. How is a posting any different than the production of a radio program which is distributed by store-and-forward satellite distribution and then played through the radio station and received at your home radio? The mechanisms are close to identical in their attributes; tapes at the stations have some lifetime, timeshifting can occur, special equipment is needed to perceive the work, etc.
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.
If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. got it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for the use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an infringement.
Jason
Jason Zions <jazz@hal.com> writes:
Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable.
Not successfully in court, I should think. How is a posting any different than the production of a radio program which is distributed by store-and-forward satellite distribution and then played through the radio station and received at your home radio? [...]
It is the difference between "broadcast" and "interactive communication." Tell me, if I call in to the talk show you are distribute as part of your radio program, do _I_ now own the copyright to a portion of your show?
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on [any particular storage media]
If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. got it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for the use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an infringement.
Buzzz. According to your logic all that one needs to do is to change the label on the order from from "Usenet articles on CD-ROM" to "Quarterly Usenet Feed distributed on CD-ROM" and I am in the clear. I am not selling a collectoin containing your articles, I am providing a low-bandwidth newsfeed to those who do not have the same level of connectivity you have or that want the excitement of seeing thier newsfeed delivered over the "original information superhighway" (aka postal services.) It is still store-and-forward, it is just store-forever-and-forward-not-so-often. But under all the smoke and mirrors nothing changes the fact that I am selling archives of the Usenet. No amount of puffed up indignation is going to change the fact that your Usenet posting or message to a mailing list is of no real value to you and is honestly as free as a bird once it hits the wire. jim
It is the difference between "broadcast" and "interactive communication." Tell me, if I call in to the talk show you are distribute as part of your radio program, do _I_ now own the copyright to a portion of your show?
This is an interesting point of discussion. The question becomes one of determining what the protected work is. Given that it is a call-in show, the entire show would be a protected work and its copyright would belong to the show's creator. I do not know if you retain copyright in the small part of the work which represents your own intellectual property (i.e. what you say), but I suspect it could be argued that you gave your permission to broadcast your work when you called in to begin with. It gets murkier to me with respect to compensation from the sale of transcripts or recordings. Mike, is there case law here?
But under all the smoke and mirrors nothing changes the fact that I am selling archives of the Usenet. No amount of puffed up indignation is going to change the fact that your Usenet posting or message to a mailing list is of no real value to you and is honestly as free as a bird once it hits the wire.
We differ on the use of the word "honestly". In practice, enforcement is well-nigh impossible; nonetheless, according to the letter of the law, my words are my property to do with as I see fit. If I state that they may not be recorded on optical media, the law requires you to honor that. Jason Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. Copying for the purpose of propagation of the Cypherpunks mailing list in email or usenet news form is permitted, except no copy shall be made in permanent optical storage media without the express permission of the author. All other rights reserved.
Jim writes:
I do not know if you retain copyright in the small part of the work which represents your own intellectual property (i.e. what you say), but I suspect it could be argued that you gave your permission to broadcast your work when you called in to begin with. It gets murkier to me with respect to compensation from the sale of transcripts or recordings. Mike, is there case law here?
Not to my knowledge. But there's no disputing among lawyers that copyright law applies. --Mike
Well said, Jim. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim McCoy wrote:
Jason Zions <jazz@hal.com> writes:
Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable.
Not successfully in court, I should think. How is a posting any different than the production of a radio program which is distributed by store-and-forward satellite distribution and then played through the radio station and received at your home radio? [...]
It is the difference between "broadcast" and "interactive communication." Tell me, if I call in to the talk show you are distribute as part of your radio program, do _I_ now own the copyright to a portion of your show?
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on [any particular storage media]
If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. got it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for the use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an infringement.
Buzzz. According to your logic all that one needs to do is to change the label on the order from from "Usenet articles on CD-ROM" to "Quarterly Usenet Feed distributed on CD-ROM" and I am in the clear. I am not selling a collectoin containing your articles, I am providing a low-bandwidth newsfeed to those who do not have the same level of connectivity you have or that want the excitement of seeing thier newsfeed delivered over the "original information superhighway" (aka postal services.) It is still store-and-forward, it is just store-forever-and-forward-not-so-often.
But under all the smoke and mirrors nothing changes the fact that I am selling archives of the Usenet. No amount of puffed up indignation is going to change the fact that your Usenet posting or message to a mailing list is of no real value to you and is honestly as free as a bird once it hits the wire.
jim
From: Jason Zions <jazz@hal.com>
Infringement occurs when you copy those bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an infringement.
This is hardly cut-and-dried. Try the defense lawyer's interpretation: recipients of the CD-ROM are leaf nodes; the CD-ROM is a convenient transport medium. Usenet has been propagated over magtape, after all. CD-ROM is the modern equivalent, cheaper to cut than a tape. You seem to be concerned that your words might be stored on a `permanent' medium. You should be. Anything you post is propagated to a vast and unknown number of systems worldwide. *Somebody* is going to archive it, maybe back it up to WORM. You know this already, so what's the big deal about a CD-ROM? I agree with your basic contention that authors of Usenet postings retain copyright minus some concession to the nature of the medium. But your concessions are unrealistically limited. In the real world, you can't count on the destruction of every copy of your `ephemeral' article. You can't know or control the media of propagation. You can't expect the RFCs to be followed to the letter -- the bulk of news systems these days are probably neighborhood BBSes who run their gateway software out of the box. This is Usenet; post if you can accept it. Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
jazz@hal.com, in a message on 1 February, wrote: JA> If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. g JA> it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for th JA> use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can JA> keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those JA> bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward JA> propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a JA> CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an JA> infringement. Hmm... why is "stuffing articles on a CD-ROM and selling them" not a type of store-and-forward propagation? Usenet is not just a bunch of machines speaking CNews. I agree that you have a copyright on the expression of ideas that make up a Usenet post. However I maintain that by posting them on Usenet you are explicitly allowing them to be distributed (either freely or for a cost) by all methods used to distribute Usenet. I would seem obvious to me that taking a nice piece of Usenet prose and publishing it a collection of essays would be in violation of a copyright. On the other hand, publishing the same thing in a collection of this month's Usenet traffic would not. People redistribute and sell your Usenet postings all the time, why would it make a difference if they do so via CD-ROM? -Blake (Never underestimate the bandwidth of a trunk full of CD-ROMs) ... * ATP/DJgcc 1.42 * blake.coverett@canrem.com, disclaimers? fooey!
Kirk writes,
Dear Jason,
I don't think you are neccissarily correct about making an archive of the usenet. You may be correct, but I don't believe this point has been litigated yet. Furthermore, just because something is forwarded and something is archived I don't believe is expressly covered in copyright law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but am not a copyright/trademark specialist. Also, as was posted earlier someone is already making an archive of the usenet. See earlier postings. Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.
Let me argue against Usenet archiving on a different point. Archiving violates the poster's implicit right to cancel or provide an expiration date for his posting. Do Usenet archivers provide a revised CD-ROM with the cancelled posts removed on a regular basis, and ensure the original disks are returned? Without such a guarantee, the owners of those messages aren't able to exercise reasonable control over the messages. There's a clear harm done when a cancel message isn't honored in this situation: a potential employer may see a message written in anger or the author was in an exceptionally bad state of mind, yet the author (responsibly) sent out a cancel message just after the CD-ROM happened to be pressed. A second-hand copy of such an incriminating message is hearsay, and should rightfully be considered with suspicion by a potential employer, but a Usenet CD-ROM carries considerably more weight. I'm not a lawyer, but it *seems* to me that when you publish a message from a set of newsgroups containing a 'control' group that allows retraction of messages, you're agreeing to honor those retractions when they're issued by the original poster. If that's not obvious enough, when a message contains an expiration date, the author CLEARLY has a reasonable expectation of having it honored. I'd go further and say there's a strongly implied agreement that says, "if you want to use and republish this information, you must honor my expiration date." Most of us have special words for someone who refuses to honor such an implied agreement, even if it's made void by the message being considered "in the public domain."
Kirk Sheppard
kshep@netcom.com
Jim Nitchals writes:
Let me argue against Usenet archiving on a different point. Archiving violates the poster's implicit right to cancel or provide an expiration date for his posting.
"Implicit right to cancel"? Where'd that come from?
a potential employer may see a message written in anger or the author was in an exceptionally bad state of mind...
There's a poem by Carl Sandburg with some relevance to this. I don't see why the feature of cancel messages (which aren't guaranteed to work anyway) carries with it a new right.
I'm not a lawyer, but it *seems* to me that when you publish a message from a set of newsgroups containing a 'control' group that allows retraction of messages, you're agreeing to honor those retractions when they're issued by the original poster.
I am perfectly free to implement my own news system and mailer that does not honor cancel messages. What authority would force me to do so if I don't want to?
when a message contains an expiration date, the author CLEARLY has a reasonable expectation of having it honored.
Why? Does he have an equally clear right to expect that the message does not get deleted before then?
I'd go further and say there's a strongly implied agreement that says, "if you want to use and republish this information, you must honor my expiration date."
This seems pretty specious to me. -- | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but
If I use your logic, a published article in a magazine becomes public domain because it has become available to a large number of subscribers.
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.
Tangible difference... Lets see... A CD-ROM can be duplicated and sold for profit, and doing so with net archives violates the copyrights of any message author who cares to file class action or personal... Who did you say had that archive, and were they selling it? -ck
Regarding the archive I believe it was some company in Canada, I'm not sure. There was a thread about this archiving question on another group I suppose in the last three weeks. I can't remember where I saw it, if it wasn't here. Sorry. And about "paying" for the cd-rom, I pay for the usenet feed, and none of us who post are getting royalty payments from any of the internet providers. So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet? None materially, except that the cd is not interactive, and some providers are (not all as in bbs' that don't send e-mail to the internet, but have some usenet groups.) There is no material difference that I can determine. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but
If I use your logic, a published article in a magazine becomes public domain because it has become available to a large number of subscribers.
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.
Tangible difference... Lets see... A CD-ROM can be duplicated and sold for profit, and doing so with net archives violates the copyrights of any message author who cares to file class action or personal... Who did you say had that archive, and were they selling it?
-ck
So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet?
It's the difference between listening to the radio yourself and buying a home-made tape of the radio program from someone else. The first is legal; the second is, generally, not. Better yet, it's the difference between watching a program on HBO when you are getting that service legally (i.e. paying for it) and buying a tape of the same program from a friend who has HBO. Whether or not you also have legal access to HBO, the sale of the tape infringes on the copyright of the program. Jason
This is not an accurate comparison. A posting on usenet is not the same item as a program on HBO or the radio. In what way does my internet provider (netcom) have a "legal" distribution of usenet news, while a cd-rom provider does not? HBO has paid for the use of the programs it broadcasts that are produced by others, hence they have a contract between themselves and the owners of the copyright. No providers of usenet news have any agreements between themselves and the posters regarding copyrights. Netcom and all the other internet providers receive postings "free" and a cd-rom manufacturer has the same "right" to use postings as any other internet provider. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:
So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet?
It's the difference between listening to the radio yourself and buying a home-made tape of the radio program from someone else. The first is legal; the second is, generally, not.
Better yet, it's the difference between watching a program on HBO when you are getting that service legally (i.e. paying for it) and buying a tape of the same program from a friend who has HBO. Whether or not you also have legal access to HBO, the sale of the tape infringes on the copyright of the program.
Jason
This is not an accurate comparison. A posting on usenet is not the same item as a program on HBO or the radio. In what way does my internet provider (netcom) have a "legal" distribution of usenet news, while a cd-rom provider does not?
I've already said it. I own the copyright to my posts, and only permit them to be distributed by Usenet because I can *cancel* and provide expiration dates with my posts. CD-ROMs do not provide these standard Usenet message control features. If I issue a cancel message, it's obvious that I'm asserting control over the further distribution of my content (sites that ignore them notwithstanding.) Any time a CD-ROM is published with my message, and it contains an expiration date or is later cancelled, the publication violates my right as a copyright holder to retract my message. [portions deleted] > No providers of usenet news
have any agreements between themselves and the posters regarding copyrights. Netcom and all the other internet providers receive postings "free" and a cd-rom manufacturer has the same "right" to use postings as any other internet provider.
My expiration dates or cancel messages are perfectly reasonable ways to communicate the way in which I'm exercising my copyright. Netcom and other service providers currently honor those communications, but CD-ROM publishers of Usenet news do not.
Kirk Sheppard
kshep@netcom.com
P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata
Many news systems don't understand expiration dates, and some don't grok cancel messages. CD-ROMs can easily carry cancel messages, too, by the way -- they are a transport medium. Next bright idea? Anyway, people who want to use the law to restrict distribution of their news articles are extremely foolish. Your words are out there and they WILL be read. Forever. You can't help it. If you find your words embarassing, don't say them. .pm Jim Nitchals says:
I've already said it. I own the copyright to my posts, and only permit them to be distributed by Usenet because I can *cancel* and provide expiration dates with my posts. CD-ROMs do not provide these standard Usenet message control features.
If I issue a cancel message, it's obvious that I'm asserting control over the further distribution of my content (sites that ignore them notwithstanding.) Any time a CD-ROM is published with my message, and it contains an expiration date or is later cancelled, the publication violates my right as a copyright holder to retract my message.
[portions deleted] > No providers of usenet news
have any agreements between themselves and the posters regarding copyrights. Netcom and all the other internet providers receive postings "free" and a cd-rom manufacturer has the same "right" to use postings as any other internet provider.
My expiration dates or cancel messages are perfectly reasonable ways to communicate the way in which I'm exercising my copyright. Netcom and other service providers currently honor those communications, but CD-ROM publishers of Usenet news do not.
Kirk Sheppard
kshep@netcom.com
P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata
Anyway, people who want to use the law to restrict distribution of their news articles are extremely foolish. Your words are out there and they WILL be read. Forever. You can't help it. If you find your words embarassing, don't say them.
Yeah. You guys should lighten up. You won't be able to keep your posts off of CD-ROM collections, but you might still have some fun with the vendors. The next release of my KA9Q NOS software, prior versions of which have already appeared on quite a few CD-ROMs, will contain a copyright notice that explicitly grants permission to CD-ROM publishers to carry it for free -- on the condition that they send me a free copy of the disk. Most already do, as a courtesy, usually when I show up at their booths at the Dayton Hamvention. My new notice should take care of the rest. Heck, each one probably costs them no more than a buck to make, so how could they object? Seems like a win-win situation to me. They enhance their sales and I build up a nice CD-ROM collection quite cheaply... By the way, there's a very good reason why you should *welcome* the availability of USENET archives on CD-ROM. Imagine that one day you toss out on the net a clever little idea in the hope that someone may find it useful. You don't think much of it at the time. Several years later, much to your dismay, you discover that some slimeball has stolen and been granted a patent on your idea. You're convinced they got it from your original USENET article, but how do you prove it? Simple -- if your original comments were preserved for posterity on a commercial CD-ROM, complete with silk-screen label showing the dates of the articles it contains. Don't laugh - this has already happened to me. Fortunately, I had also published my idea in a ham radio journal more than a year before the bogus patent application was filed. But if I hadn't, I'd now be frantically looking around for 5-year-old USENET archives. Phil
On Sun, 6 Feb 1994, Phil Karn wrote:
The next release of my KA9Q NOS software, prior versions of which have already appeared on quite a few CD-ROMs, will contain a copyright notice that explicitly grants permission to CD-ROM publishers to carry it for free -- on the condition that they send me a free copy of the disk.
It's a good idea... But can you see a CD-ROM publisher sending a free CD to everyone who puts that in a disclaimer? Still... It's more likely than calculating royalties! -ck
Jason Zions says:
So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet?
It's the difference between listening to the radio yourself and buying a home-made tape of the radio program from someone else. The first is legal; the second is, generally, not.
The reason selling a tape of a radio show isn't legal is because then you can play it as often as you like. On the other hand, usenet is already distributed in a form that lets you read the messages as often as you like. You can archive them forever, and in fact thats part of the news software. .pm
The reason selling a tape of a radio show isn't legal is because then you can play it as often as you like.
Even if you made play-once-and-then-self-destruct tapes like on Mission Impossible, selling them would still be illegal. You've made an unauthorized copy, plain and simple.
You can archive them forever, and in fact thats part of the news software.
Yes, you, a recipient, can archive them forever. You *cannot* distribute that archive in any form whatsoever. I'm struggling with drawing an appropriate distinction between CD-ROM as newsfeed medium and CD-ROM as archive medium. If a newsfeed provider sent you a quarterly newsfeed on CD-ROM which you then fed into your normal news system as if it were a live feed, after which you broke the CD-ROM; that looks like a high-bandwidth-delay-product newsfeed. If a provider sent you a quarterly newsfeed in Cnews directory form which you then mounted onto your news system, I'd buy that as a newsfeed. If the provider sent to a newsfeed in Cnews form which you mounted someplace other than as a part of the news system - now an archive has been created and sold. But if you mounted it as part of Cnews and then copied it via news onto your own CD-ROM drive, then it seems like it'd be a personal archive. No one said this was gonna be easy. It seems like I'm swallowing camels and straining out flies, but these flies are camel-sized. Jason Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. Copying or retransmission for the purpose of propagation of the Cypherpunks mailing list in email or newsfeed form is permitted, except that no copy may be made on any permanent digital optical storage medium.
Jason Zions says:
You can archive them forever, and in fact thats part of the news software.
Yes, you, a recipient, can archive them forever. You *cannot* distribute that archive in any form whatsoever.
The news software is explicitly designed to allow remote hosts to request articles from each other. Article numbers are never reused -- I can just use a nasty hierarchical storage system to keep all the news articles I ever receive online. So, how can you reconcile the existance of the news software with your quaint notions? Are you claiming that CNews and INN break the law? Are you claiming usenet is illegal or something?
I'm struggling with drawing an appropriate distinction between CD-ROM as newsfeed medium and CD-ROM as archive medium.
Maybe you are struggling because there is no reasonable way to make the distinction?
Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. Copying or retransmission for the purpose of propagation of the Cypherpunks mailing list in email or newsfeed form is permitted, except that no copy may be made on any permanent digital optical storage medium.
Well, you can now sue all the people who back up their home directories nightly to optical disk. I believe all the folks at Bell Labs who use Plan-9 are now in violation of your "copyright". Perry
Jason Zions says:
[portions deleted]
I'm struggling with drawing an appropriate distinction between CD-ROM as newsfeed medium and CD-ROM as archive medium.
Maybe you are struggling because there is no reasonable way to make the distinction?
There is. Copyright 1994 James Nitchals. Duplication and redistribution rights permitted only until the expiration date or issuance of a cancel message by the author. CD-ROM publishers cannot honor the request except by reissuing the CD-ROM without my content. Anyone who backs up their home directory is safe, but if they redistribute my article after it's expired or cancelled, they are in violation of my copyright.
Now all you have to do is explain what an "expiration date" is and explain the legal liability of sites that miss cancel messages by accident. .pm Jim Nitchals says:
There is. Copyright 1994 James Nitchals. Duplication and redistribution rights permitted only until the expiration date or issuance of a cancel message by the author.
CD-ROM publishers cannot honor the request except by reissuing the CD-ROM without my content. Anyone who backs up their home directory is safe, but if they redistribute my article after it's expired or cancelled, they are in violation of my copyright.
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:
So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet? . . . Better yet, it's the difference between watching a program on HBO when you are getting that service legally (i.e. paying for it) and buying a tape of the same program from a friend who has HBO. Whether or not you also have legal access to HBO, the sale of the tape infringes on the copyright of the program.
Several variations on this analogy have been posted, but I still don't see how it applies to Usenet. If HBO allowed anyone who could receive its signal to pass it along to anyone else, without a prior license agreement, I would say it would have little grounds for trying to prevent the sale of programs taped off HBO. But to attempt to bring this back from misc.legal to cypherpunks territory... Have people here thought about what happens to the concept of intellectual property in an environment of strong cryptography and cheap anonymity? When there's no way for the government to enforce Berne on movies and electronic books, what hope is there for Usenet postings? Joe
Have people here thought about what happens to the concept of intellectual property in an environment of strong cryptography and cheap anonymity? When there's no way for the government to enforce Berne on movies and electronic books, what hope is there for Usenet postings?
I was wondering when it was going to come around to this. Surprise. Within ten years, the entire concept of intellectual property will be radically altered, if not completely gone. The whole thing will become so completely unenforceable that something will give; I'm not sure what, but something. At the Austin Crypto Conference, John Perry Barlow was asked what he thought would happen to copyright. As I recall, he said something along the lines of this: that compensation for intellectual property would cease to be a thing of law and become a thing of interpersonal relationships. That people would pay the producers of stuff they liked as an incentive for them to produce more. That the ability of the Internet and its services to make widely-separated people into a community, with all the emotions and duties humans tend to experience in communities, would ensure a kind of darwinism amongst the "stuff" out there; the stuff people liked would get supported out of that sense of community, and the stuff people didn't like would not. Would you pay $895 for a CD-ROM version of the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary? If you could get it for almost nothing on the net, would you be willing to send a check for $10 to the Oxford folks who made it possible? Shareware is the future of just about all intellectual property. Once a movie is released on video, it will be cloned and copied to rapidly that they'll sell, what, a few hundred? Everyone else will trade perfect copies around. There are only a few ways the studios could get huge bucks: 1) Shareware. Ask each owner of a copy to send a few bucks. Personally, I'd rather send it to the director and actors and crew than to the back-office overhead, but what the hell. 2) Stick with theatrical release. It'll get swiped from there too; film is so expensive that the first users of really high-quality digital video will be the studios, at which point it's just a question of dubbing the digital bits (no film involved anymore). 3) Charge out the wazoo for the video tapes. Doesn't matter; the Blockbuster's of the world will pay for one copy, which will be rented and cloned. 4) Serializing digital copies to track down the "leaker". All you need is two copies from different sources to find steganographically-hidden bits or to produce a combination of the two that has a unique fingerprint that doesn't match anything already shipping. Within ten years it's all over. Until then, until societal changes occur to help creative people get paid the money they deserve for the fruits of their labors, try and stay honest with the law as it is, eh? It's not that expensive to do it by the book (send your check to the copyright clearance center for printed matter, for example) and it's the primary feedback mechanism you have to the creators of the works you like. Jason Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. You can copy this to propagate cypherpunks mailing list as email or local newsgroups; no permanent digital optical copies allowed (except for backup purposes, which I can't restrict anyway; see relevant case law).
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:
Surprise. Within ten years, the entire concept of intellectual property will be radically altered, if not completely gone. The whole thing will become so completely unenforceable that something will give; I'm not sure what, but something.
Here's my slant on it: Without government coercion, "intellectual property" is limited to its only natural form -- a secret. If you don't want everyone to have certain information, don't tell anyone. At the very least, don't tell anyone who has no incentive to keep the information to himself.
At the Austin Crypto Conference, John Perry Barlow was asked what he thought would happen to copyright. As I recall, he said something along the lines of this: that compensation for intellectual property would cease to be a thing of law and become a thing of interpersonal relationships. That people would pay the producers of stuff they liked as an incentive for them to produce more. That the ability of the Internet and its services to make widely-separated people into a community, with all the emotions and duties humans tend to experience in communities, would ensure a kind of darwinism amongst the "stuff" out there; the stuff people liked would get supported out of that sense of community, and the stuff people didn't like would not.
EFF Co-Founder Solves Prisoner's Dilemma Game Theorists Had Neglected "Community Spirit," Says Barlow
Shareware is the future of just about all intellectual property.
Maybe. I wouldn't expect to get rich on it, though...
There are only a few ways the studios could get huge bucks:
[most of list deleted]
4) Serializing digital copies to track down the "leaker". All you need is two copies from different sources to find steganographically-hidden bits or to produce a combination of the two that has a unique fingerprint that doesn't match anything already shipping.
Is this really a settled issue? I'll bet I could devise a scheme for tagging a large number of copies of an image, such that the information available to a cheater from two images isn't enough to produce an untraceable copy. Such a scheme would entail some image degradation -- if you didn't mess with some visible bits in each picture, a cheater would only have to randomize all the "invisible" bits. But of course this stuff is only useful if the work is distributed non-anonymously in the first place. It doesn't do QVC/Paramount much good to know that an2538295 was the one responsible for redistributing 10,000 copies of Star Trek L. Computer software and other interactive works should fare better, since the publishers can restrict their distribution to secure machines on a network. Customers would pay to use the software, but never receive a copy of their own. Reverse-engineering even "Dragon's Lair"-type games would be non-trivial and error-prone. And after getting ripped off for a bad interactive copy, most people would probably be happy to pay a premium for the real thing. Joe
Boy, this has been one of the most contentious, arguing-in-circles thread I've seen in a long time. I was getting ready to delete all these posts by lawyers, semi-lawyers, wannabee-lawyers, and non-lawyers when I ran across this nice and concise post by Joe Thomas:
But to attempt to bring this back from misc.legal to cypherpunks territory... Have people here thought about what happens to the concept of intellectual property in an environment of strong cryptography and cheap anonymity? When there's no way for the government to enforce Berne on movies and electronic books, what hope is there for Usenet postings?
Joe
Exactly! The copyright laws, confusing as they may be, are basically unenforceable for _private_ and _mostly private_ behaviors. Xeroxing books, sheet music, and the like is done routinely--stand in a copy shop for a while and watch what happens. And these things are indisputably violations of copyright (there is a "grey zone" for short copying jobs, under the "fair use" interpretatins, but certainly not for copying entire chapters or books, or sheet music). Ditto for copying software, as we all know. Copying CDs onto tapes is a murkier issue, because of the recent revisions to the laws and the so-called "tape tax," which collects a royalty on blank tape while allowing essentially unlimited copying for _personal_ use (e.g., I can safely tape CDs onto DAT so long as I don't then _sell_ them). Where the rubber meets the road on all this stuff is when a visible, public situation occurs--the college instructor who makes Xerox copies of a textbook (not his own, but maybe even that is a violation) and distributes or sells them to a class, the musician in a public concert who is seen with piles of Xeroxed sheet music, the guy selling dubbed videos at a flea market, the corporation buying one copy of a program and then duplicating it for 30 employees, etc. In these cases, a whistleblower can call in the Music Police (don't know their real name), the Data Narcs (SPA), etc., and some action _may_ be taken. (Rarely, for many reasons.) The hair-splitting about whether making backup copies of Usenet constitutes any kind of violation is not all that useful. The issue is what happens when--as is inevitable--folks sell compilations of other people's postings. Indeed, there was a raging debate on this several years ago when Brad Templeton was planning to sell a book of the best jokes he's seen in rec.humor.funny. Maybe the book even came out....I never did hear the outcome. Anyone know? With strong crypto and anonymous systems, few actions will be publically visible enough to allow enforcement and sanctions. Copyrighted material may be sent through remailers to protect the source (recall the "Information Liberation Front"). Ditto for other kinds of "software." A brave new world. My fear is that the NII will be structured so as to limit crypto use with a public rationale of preventing these kinds of abuse (the private rationale being the NSA/FBI/national security state sorts of things). --Tim May, who's not a lawyer and doesn't want to become one (and who hates to see fine minds devoted to the credo "Cypherpunks study law") -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power:2**859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
Regarding the archive I believe it was some company in Canada, I'm not sure. There was a thread about this archiving question on another group I suppose in the last three weeks. I can't remember where I saw it, if it wasn't here. Sorry. And about "paying" for the cd-rom, I pay for the usenet feed, and none of us who post are getting royalty payments from any of the internet providers. So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet? None materially, except that the cd is not interactive, and some providers are (not all as in bbs' that don't send e-mail to the internet, but have some usenet groups.) There is no material difference that I can determine.
I'm just glad you are not a politician. If all you are concerned with is "Material differnce", then you think it's perfectly ok for me to sell you a good copy of a magazine? By your "logic" (loosely used), you had to pay for the copy, and you had to pay for the original, so what's the difference? The difference is the WILL AND PERMISSION of the author! As the author of this message, I willingly placed it within the net. I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL NOT, GIVE FREE PERMISSION TO A CD-ROM PUBLISHING HOUSE TO PUBLISH MY WORK. The basis of copyright law is the protection of the author's rights. One of these rights is the choice of distribution. Perhaps you should try writing for money sometime. You might actually appreciate what you seem to be trying to tear apart. -ck
Dear Mr. Knight, I am not interested in "tearing apart" anything, I was just participating in a discussion. Ad hominem attacks are really unjustified. Even though you have a hard time understanding my arguments, I have refrained from calling you stupid, until now. You are not only stupid, but silly. "I'm glad your're not a politician" is a non-sequitur, and is certainly irrelevant to the discussion. Further, this whole discussion is entirely "academic", since there is absolutely no case law on this particular subject. So if you are so excited about it, collect your pennies and hire an attorney to enforce your copyright, I'm sure my brethern could use the business. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
Regarding the archive I believe it was some company in Canada, I'm not sure. There was a thread about this archiving question on another group I suppose in the last three weeks. I can't remember where I saw it, if it wasn't here. Sorry. And about "paying" for the cd-rom, I pay for the usenet feed, and none of us who post are getting royalty payments from any of the internet providers. So answer the question again, what is the difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet? None materially, except that the cd is not interactive, and some providers are (not all as in bbs' that don't send e-mail to the internet, but have some usenet groups.) There is no material difference that I can determine.
I'm just glad you are not a politician.
If all you are concerned with is "Material differnce", then you think it's perfectly ok for me to sell you a good copy of a magazine? By your "logic" (loosely used), you had to pay for the copy, and you had to pay for the original, so what's the difference? The difference is the WILL AND PERMISSION of the author! As the author of this message, I willingly placed it within the net. I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL NOT, GIVE FREE PERMISSION TO A CD-ROM PUBLISHING HOUSE TO PUBLISH MY WORK.
The basis of copyright law is the protection of the author's rights. One of these rights is the choice of distribution.
Perhaps you should try writing for money sometime. You might actually appreciate what you seem to be trying to tear apart.
-ck
Chris Knight says:
If all you are concerned with is "Material differnce", then you think it's perfectly ok for me to sell you a good copy of a magazine? By your "logic" (loosely used), you had to pay for the copy, and you had to pay for the original, so what's the difference? The difference is the WILL AND PERMISSION of the author! As the author of this message, I willingly placed it within the net. I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL NOT, GIVE FREE PERMISSION TO A CD-ROM PUBLISHING HOUSE TO PUBLISH MY WORK.
Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another equivalent medium. Usenet is NOT a magazine. Failing to put a copyright notice in your work destroys whats left of your ability to do anything. I'm sure you can pay a lawyer to sue for you, but this isn't exactly one anyone is going to take on contingency. .pm
On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue
Lost revenue can be measured in more than one way. Besides estimated loss of sales, it can be measured in profit earned by the defendant. If an author published a story in a magazine once, and never intends to publish it again, this does not give you the right to sell his story because he wasn't going to be making money on it anywhay.
anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another equivalent medium.
Profanity aside, that's not an entirely logical arguemnt. There are plenty of free publications in the US that contain copyrighted work. Publishing in a "free medium" does not strip your rights. -ck
Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another equivalent medium.
One can register the work and sue for statutory damages and attorneys' fees. No need to prove damages in such a case. If the Copyright Act is amended this year, it may be that one need not even register the work. --Mike
Mike Godwin says:
Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another equivalent medium.
One can register the work and sue for statutory damages and attorneys' fees. No need to prove damages in such a case.
Absolutely true, but one has to say "Copyright" in the work in such a case. Virtually no usenet work has that magic word in it. From what I understand, if you don't say "Copyright" they can stop you in court but there is a presumption going for the defendant. Perry
Perry writes:
Mike Godwin says:
Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another equivalent medium.
One can register the work and sue for statutory damages and attorneys' fees. No need to prove damages in such a case.
Absolutely true, but one has to say "Copyright" in the work in such a case.
This is not true.
Virtually no usenet work has that magic word in it. From what I understand, if you don't say "Copyright" they can stop you in court but there is a presumption going for the defendant.
May have been true in the old days, but it isn't true now. --Mike
participants (14)
-
blake.coverett＠canrem.com -
Chris Knight -
Eli Brandt -
Jason Zions -
jazz＠hal.com
-
Jim McCoy -
jimn8＠netcom.com -
Joe Thomas -
Kirk Sheppard -
m5＠vail.tivoli.com -
Mike Godwin -
Perry E. Metzger -
Phil Karn -
tcmay＠netcom.com