Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.legal,net.flame
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations/Humor/Satire/Michael J/Wierd Al/etc.
Message-ID: <300@opus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 23:34:41 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.300
Posted: Sat Mar 31 23:34:41 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Apr-84 07:31:48 EST
References: <437@sequent.UUCP> <275@opus.UUCP> <439@sequent.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 81

<>
For constructive comments on copyright on the net, skip down to <<flame
off>>.

<<flame on>>
Well, let's get one flame out of the way, just to set the mood...
> First off, I wanna know why opus!rcd always sez that his return address
> is "nbires!rcd".  Is this a deliberate attempt to hide? (:<})
No, I'm not hiding, nor even trying.  If Mr. Schwartz wants to send mail to
me, he can do so at nbires!rcd.  See, folks, we have four machines but we
funnel all our traffic thru one (nbires) onto the net.  Mr. Schwartz seems
to type a little faster than he thinks (mind you, I'm not accusing him of
being a fast typist :-) or he'd realize that this situation, and its analogs,
are quite common.  I just don't happen to make my home on the machine which
is our gateway to the net.  Let me also assure Mr. Schwartz, and anyone else who
cares, that although we give our mailing address as P.O. Box 9001, we do
not conduct business from within the P.O. box, but rather several miles
away, at 3450 Mitchell Lane.  I assure you that NBI is not trying to hide,
either.  It's really quite a simple idea...and I'll even be magnanimous
enough to assume that Mr. Schwartz is not hiding behind a login name of
merlyn.

> "Publishing" my "song" on the net DOES NOT
> place it into the PUBLIC DOMAIN any more than publishing the C spec in
> K&R's White C book...
Please go back and read what I wrote before flaming any more.  The net is
in no way equivalent to a publishing house.  The differences are enough to
confuse a flock of lawyers - but chief among them are (1) the completely
decentralized nature of the net, which makes it exceedingly difficult to
assign any responsibility and (2) the fact that material presented to the
net software is automatically copied, without control and without
restriction.  The latter fact is the one which I think is significant; I
don't think that a legal opinion which ignores that fact is worth beans.
It's a unique characteristic of the net and it deserves some study.  I
assume that everyone is aware that in arranging to have a book published,
the author transfers some rights (not all, of course) to the publisher, in
exchange for compensation (royalties) - but still, all of the rights are
reserved to either the publisher or the author and no one else.

Mr. Schwartz has presented material to the net's distribution mechanism.  I
guess public domain is an overstatement; pardon my error there.  Yet I
think that it must be assumed that he has transferred SOME rights to copy
the material - that this must be implicit in giving control of it to
distribution software of the sort we have.  Any competent legal opinion
would be appreciated here.

I have some other, serious reservations about Mr. Schwartz' postings:
> ...LEGALLY.  I alone, reserve that right fully.  This also mean that IF
> you copy MY song, THEN I have the RIGHT to have you NOT DO THAT.  Of
I begin to assume that one of three things is happening:  (1) The "caps
lock" key on his keyboard sticks, (2) Somewhere, a site is turning 1's to
0's in transmission, turning lower case to upper, or (3) Schwartz is really
looking to be argumentative and shouting, terminal-style, a lot.  I think I
have to guess #3.  Then there's his propensity to slap a copyright notice
on anything, regardless of whether it needs it or merits it.  Finally,
there's the 14-line or so signature block which we're expected not only
to endure but to transmit for him to the ends of the earth, at our expense.
I find it hard to feel camaraderie with that sort of person - it feels more
like he's sitting there waiting to say, "Gotcha!  I told you so!"  Is this
what the net is for?  Hardly.
<<flame off>>

I'll even try to end on a positive note - which certainly isn't going to
offset all of my negativity; sorry about that.  Here's a suggestion for a
REASONABLE copyright notice - if you post something which really needs one:
"Copyright (C) 1984 by <your name and identification>.  Copying without fee
is permitted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for
direct commercial advantage and credit to the source is given.  Abstracting
with credit is permitted.  To copy otherwise requires a fee and/or specific
permission; for information contact <your name and address>"
The above is derived from the copyright notice which appears in
Communications of the ACM.  [I am giving them credit in order to follow
their policy as I reproduce their policy.]  I have modified the wording
slightly; the above is only a suggestion and has not been properly reviewed
for its legal ramifications.  However, I will go one step further and
suggest that the above, or something like it, become the policy generally
agreed upon for posting to the net.  I think that it protects the authors
without making the readers and commentators feel paranoid.
-- 
Relax - don't worry - have a homebrew.
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd