Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: IN MODERATION NETWORK Message-ID: <1989Jun19.085441.18558@twwells.com> Date: 19 Jun 89 08:54:41 GMT References: <1989Jun17.011948.4245@twwells.com> <12250@well.UUCP> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 37 In article <12250@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: : In the referenced message, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) wrote: : }That is incorrect. They may claim a compilation copyright. That does : }not prohibit anyone from distributing the individual articles (e.g. : }Usenet); it most certainly would prohibit someone from simply : }redistributing the feed. : : So what's the difference? Like this: if I take a standard newsfeed, their compilation copyright is irrelevant. If I provide a service like theirs, but with my own people doing the selection and editing, and without reference to theirs, their compilation copyright is irrelevant. If I provide some service that uses their material as input, but use the material *only* to guide my own actions, and not as direct input, their compliation copyright is irrelevant. If I provide some service that uses their material as input and is essentially a mechanical transformation (whether done by people or machines is irrelevant) of their material, their compilation copyright should permit them to sue my pants off. There are grey areas, but this is how I've heard it from the legal gurus around where I work. Basically, what the compilation copyright protects is the intellectual effort invested in forming the compilation. One can use the results indirectly, as one could use the information in a book, but copying, cutting, or rearranging it and then distributing the result would be a violation of the compilation copyright. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com