Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ria!csd.uwo.ca!webber
From: webber@csd.uwo.ca (Robert E. Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Request for permission (Important)
Message-ID: <3123@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>
Date: 25 May 91 04:28:11 GMT
References: <14645@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <10051@star.cs.vu.nl> <14701@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Sender: news@ria.ccs.uwo.ca
Organization: see disclaimer
Lines: 70

In article <14701@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes:
.By putting your information on the net, you are giving implicit rights`
.to copy it.  That's exactly what the net does.  Look at how the info in`
.this news group gets distributed from machine to machine.  I even know
.of people who sell tapes of internet news to outfits who *for security
.reasons* cannot be on the net.  Alas, if someone wanted to push their
."copyright" on stuff posted to the net, I'm afraid they would have to
.post an explicit copyright notice with appropriate limitations of rights.
.Anyone who posts an arbitrary message to the net has lost control of how
.that information gets copied (of course, another way to to set the
.distribution, but even that can escape the region specified if someone copies
.the message elsewhere).  Berne convention aside, I'm confident material posted
.to internet news would not stand up as copyrightable without an explicit
.notice.
.Anyone who posts to internet should be aware of the distribution policy, which
.implies a lack of control over the copying and use of the material.  Now if
.someone were to put an explicit notice like "this info is for your own
.edification and cannot be used for commercial gain" I could see a problem.
...
.Note I am not saying that *legally* this is the way it really is.  I'm
.just saying that *it appears to me* (and I'm not a lawyer) that the idea
.of controlling your copyright on a news post is rather ludicrous.  You
.gave up those rights by posting here in the first place.

With regards to the original poster, anyone who expects to go into business
performing tasks of unclear legal implications should probably get a lawyer.

The above approach is one way of looking at things.  There are other
ways.  Until a court rules which is the `official way,' the status of
net postings will be up in the air.

Things that counter the above comments would include:
    1) When one connects to the net, there is no official license that
       one signs giving away any rights.   Thus, what we have here looks
       more like a set of implicit conventions for handling matters
       established by the community.
    2) A situation that is perhaps similar is a typical broadcast
       television station.  Various programmers broadcast programming
       into the airwaves and yet still claim a copyright over the
       programming that restricts its rebroadcast.
    3) At various times in the past people have tried to make money off
       the net and there has usually be significant protest.  Thus laying
       the groundwork for a claim that it is not generally acceptable
       behavior.
    4) Current copyright law already distinguishes between presentation 
       different media - for example, I can go into a bookstore and
       purchase a copy of a play, but I still am not permitted to give
       a public performance of said play.  Similarly with purchasing
       music notation.
    5) Back when there was experimenting with a satellite broadcast of
       net news; some people opposing the project put distribution
       restrictions in their messages and the people running the 
       satellite service at the time claimed to have honored the
       restrictions (i.e., culled out the messages with the flag).
    6) One could argue that what one is doing when one posts is a one
       time performance to the audience of news readers (an audience
       whose definition is not uncomparable to that of a tv audience).
    7) Even printed publications that are given away sometimes include
       copyright notice (such as advertisements).  Are the images of 
       the models in such ads protected from being distributed outside
       the context of such ads?  Probably.  Indeed, undoubtedly,
       otherwise I am sure ad agencies would be more than happy to
       edit the imagery of other ads inserting their own slogans.

The above is not meant to be a conclusive arguement that the quoted
arguement is wrong.  It is just meant to indicate that the matter is
more complicated than the quoted arguement would lead one to believe.
And, of course, I ain't a lawyer either.

--- BOB (webber@csd.uwo.ca)