Official Reporters have more copyright rights

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:31:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> I don't see anyone clamoring that Tim's copyrights are being violated 
> when his articles are bounced around the Net in the same way I see 
> _some_ people yammering that Declan's and "Wired Online's" copyrights 
> are being violated when _his_ articles are being bounced around. The 
> issue is not that some outlets charge money, as most clearly don't. 

This is true, but the reason is that when you post somethin to
cypherpunks, you're essentially giving an implied license to
redistribute (and archive, etc). Same with Usenet. 

When I write something for Wired.com, we don't offer that implied
license.

> Nothing against Declan or "Wired Online," of course. Just noting that 
> once again there seems to be a special status for Official Reporters, 
> Official Publishers, Official Writers. Official Reporters are covered 
> by Shield Laws, ordinary reporters are not. Official Publishers have 
> law professors bemoaning violations of copyright, and so on.

I've never argued for official reporter priv (though I have it,
naturally). I've even pissed off many of my fellow reporters arguing
at a Freedom Forum event a while back that the government is already
licensing reporters who apply for congressional press credentials.

It's more a question of social norms in this case. If you post rants
at timmay.com and slap a coypright notice and some ads up and
explicitly ask that they not be redistributed -- well, then you'll
soon find that people treat you pretty close to the way they treat
Wired.

-Declan