Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
(Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use policies might take a look at <http://www.ssz.com/ssz/conditions.html>.) Jim Choate wrote:
Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors anyone?
What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's not. Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled speech. That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still be valid. So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up their rights to what they've written. Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free speech"? Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. And Declan McCullagh wrote:
I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces.
I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."
Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to insist on those things. This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that a good idea? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy gbroiles@netbox.com | in a nutshell: http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host. igor Greg Broiles wrote:
(Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use policies might take a look at <http://www.ssz.com/ssz/conditions.html>.)
Jim Choate wrote:
Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors anyone?
What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's not.
Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled speech.
That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted.
(Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.)
Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still be valid.
So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up their rights to what they've written.
Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement your "public domain only" rule, or only yours?
If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point?
If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free speech"?
Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on your system to all of Usenet through a gateway.
And Declan McCullagh wrote:
I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces.
I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."
Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to insist on those things.
This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that a good idea?
-- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy gbroiles@netbox.com | in a nutshell: http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. ====================================== == This list is still experimental. == == complain to ichudov@algebra.com == ======================================
- Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home writes:
IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other IC> mailing list host. And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by policies of the list operators. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95
Firebeard wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home writes:
IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other IC> mailing list host.
And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by policies of the list operators.
Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. I would probably disconnect from any server that a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS attack) and b) Alters content of any messages. - Igor.
At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in.
if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host.
Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case. Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |
Greg Broiles allegedly said:
At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in.
if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host.
Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case.
Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect?
Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator?
Both realistically and idealistically speaking, the peer relationships should be up to each list operator. And, once again, both realistically and idealistically speaking, each list operator should set their own policies. The beauty of this scheme is that it gives maximum freedom to both the list operators *and* the list members -- if a list operator wants to filter out clever asci art, they can, and contrariwise, if the list members want to change list operators as a result, they can. In fact, I don't see why moderated versions of the list couldn't happily coexist as part of the distributed list. Let those flowers bloom! BTW, I am planning on an upgrade to majordomo 1.94.1 this weekend, and I will be setting up cypherpunks@songbird.com at that time. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F
participants (4)
-
Firebeard -
Greg Broiles -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Kent Crispin