Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: New compromise position on rec.humor.funny Message-ID: <2732@looking.UUCP> Date: 7 Feb 89 07:35:19 GMT Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo Ont. Lines: 159 Well, I never expected such a backlash to my clarification of compilation copyright. Sorry about that folks. As such, I have created a new, compromise position on the matter, to be discussed and put in the next monthly posting. Now first of all, you all recall the copyright message on the "rn" program: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rn Kit, Version 4.3 Copyright (c) 1985, Larry Wall You may copy the rn kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will use this as the base of my new policy, as thus: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rec.humor.funny newsgroup joke stream & collection Compilation Copyright 1987,88,89 by Brad Templeton You can copy and distribute the rec.humor.funny stream/collection in whole or in part in electronic form, as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you are the one who put it together. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now (almost) nobody can complain about this sort of declaration, since it is a well established, years-old net precedent that controls the very program many people are using to read this message! I could always use the "inews" copyright which forbids things like renting, "marketing" and insists a prominent copyright notice to be put in by any distributor. (I'll deal with the almost nobodies down below.) 8-) Since a number of posters feel that I should have absolutely no control over who feeds what to who on usenet (and I can see some merit in that), I would also very much like to add the following: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsgroup sometimes contains material some consider offensive, and material that may not be suitable for some minors. As such, all redistributors should make sure that nobody reads the group other than by personally requesting it, and all redistributors should take whatever precautions they feel are necessary with regards to newsgroup access by minors. and No warranties ae made about the accuracy of warning keywords or rotation schemes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's face it. The last thing that I or the net need is for a site to give accounts to a pile of ten year olds and then complain at us about how bad we were. Also, if a newspaper ever prints something like this again, as the Boston Herald did: Richmond, a native of London now living in Cambridge, first became aware of the jokes when he turned on his computer on Nov. 8 and picked up this on his screen: (nasty joke, misquoted out of context) Now we all knew that was false, but it sure is nice to try to make sure it will always be false. (Richmond had to subscribe, ignore a warning that said "Jonathan Richmond don't read this" and then decrypt a coded joke to get that message on his screen.) Now, the other thing I said in my previous posting was that If somebody engaged in an all-out war against me the way Richmond and Stanford have, including libel in the press and the works, I wanted whatever weapons could be at my disposal. In particular, the right to say, "if you're going to do nothing but complain about it, don't read it" and MEAN it. But I have gotten a lot of flack about that one. So with regret, I will let it slip. I hope that in such attacks, net people will help me voluntarily. That's probably best, because most of you are good folks, I think. Now, I will also keep the rules for submitters pretty much as is. (Submitters, unless they ask otherwise, grant the right for me to electronicly distribute the submission and put it in the books.) Except for the last part, this always went without saying, but it's always better to make it clear so nobody gets surprised. At any rate, anybody can put limits on their submission like "not in the book" or whatever, and I will respect them, of course. I hope that this satisfies most of you who have had a problem with the original policy as posted back in early January and as qualified last week. If a lot of people object to my second clause (subscription, minors etc.) then we could have a vote on that. Now back to the first clause. I will provide more information on that later, because there are some philosophical and net administration issues to discuss. I said almost nobody can object. I feel this is so because I feel compilation copyright is a valid, legal concept, and that otherwise this clause is a well accepted net practice for intellectual property creations fed to the net. Those who object have to explain how a copyrighted posting or program is fundamentally different from a compilation, when copyright law says they aren't. Objections might go: A) A compilation copyright isn't valid (for whatever reasons) If this is so, there is no reason for you to object. If it isn't valid, then I'm the one who would have to pay the high cost of testing it if it ever got that far. B) Compilation copyrights exist, but they should be barred from USENET. This is the philosophical issue. It is my belief, and there is a mountain of evidence for it, that ownership of created intellectual property is *fundamental* to the good "flow of information" that everybody talks about. People who say, "everything should be unowned because that helps the famous free flow of information." are just plain wrong in my book. It actually hinders it. I will prove this by argument in later postings, and by actual example in a short while. The people who would, after seeing my policy, shut off rec.humor.funny from sections of the net in the name of "free flow of information" remind me of the phrase "screwing for chastity." C) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not to you because you didn't announce these rules when the group was created (as OtherRealms and Gourmand did.) If you check the copyright Acts of the main nations on USENET, you will find that the concept of copyright does not have to be declared. It exists from the moment of creation unless explicitly renounced. To describe the always-existing right is not a midlife change. To renounce the compilation copyright, as Rich Salz did, is a mid-stream change, not that anybody seems to mind. E) Compilation copyrights exist, and should be allowed on USENET, but not to you because I don't like you. Have a nice day. TO SUMMARIZE: a) I will change the licence statement to one that everybody should be able to handle, and I'll even make it looser if necessary, adding the various promises I have made in this debate. b) I am asking if people object to the inclusion of a clause that puts responsibility where control is, asking site admins to worry about who reads what on their own site. c) I'm giving up my quest for rights I can use in fights against those who wish to destroy this newsgroup. d) Once again, I'm ready to give whatever assurances people need that I don't intend to be some sort of net dictator here -- randomly shutting off sites or demanding fees from honest, hardworking sites that charge to cover costs. People are talking like I have an army of lawyers and am planning lawsuit city. That's about as far from the truth as I can imagine. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473