Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!dan
From: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: network public domain?
Summary: A copyright is a necessary evil
Message-ID: <1262@ccnysci.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 89 17:43:16 GMT
References: <2712@looking.UUCP> <1449@papaya.bbn.com> <2944@stiatl.UUCP> <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> <530@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG>
Reply-To: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt)
Organization: City College Of New York
Lines: 53

The idea that things that are posted become public domain has been
adequately refuted.  I want to respond to the attitude that leads
people on the net to make this type of statement by pointing to some
experience in a rather different area.

Conclusions first.  Attractive as the idea of freely distributed
information is, the protection of intellectual property rights through
copyrights and related legal mechanisms is an unavoidable minor evil.
That doesn't mean that rantings like this require that sort of
protection, but things of potential value do require it.  Rhf is an
example of something which requires that kind of protection.

Now the example.  Back in the dark past -- in the 1950's -- just as
folk music was becoming popular there was a strong feeling that "folk
music" should not be copyrighted or in other ways restricted.  This
kind of protection was "against the folk tradition".  Various folk had
taken songs and melodies from the folk tradition and so protected
them.  They then wouldn't let other people duplicate these songs and
otherwise restricted their use.  They even collected royalties when
the songs were performed.  Those people were *BAD PEOPLE*!

A good friend of mine was one of the strong supporters of the "folk
tradition".  Not only that, he was a contributor to that tradition.
One of the things that he did was write a very beautiful tune to an
old traditional ballad for which there was no known tune.  He didn't
protect his work.  Other folk singers picked up this song.  Some of
the more commercial ones recorded it, protected their "arrangement" of
the song and made money from it.  No mention was ever made of the real
author of the tune.

Now, some 20 years later, the real author of the tune is usually
mentioned in the fine print.  I doubt that he is really bothered by
the money that he might or might not have made.  But the credit for
the creative effort that should have gone to him was for the most part
lost.

Folk music is now routinely protected.  The idealistic belief in the
folk tradition just didn't work.  Folk music hasn't been hurt by this
change.  It keeps the good guys from being ripped off by the bad guys.

The net has grown to the point where "tradition" doesn't provide
adequate protection any more.  People will take action to protect
their intellectual property so they aren't stolen blind.  The net will
survive.  There may be some bad moments like the recent ones
surrounding Brad's claims.  But they will get worked out.

It was just another one of those predictions of the death of the net.

-- 
Dan Schlitt                        Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@ccnysci                        City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.bitnet                 New York, NY 10031
                                   (212)690-6868