Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!rex!ames!ig!mcb From: mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet (copyright discussion) Message-ID: Date: 28 Dec 89 01:50:14 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> <443@deadpup.UUCP> <66654@looking.on.ca> Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA Lines: 52 In the referenced article, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > It is my opinion that only human beings can violate a copyright. > Computers can't. > > So if a link is created (by humans) but afterwards maintained by > machine, then if that link violates a copyright, the violation is > by the human who commanded the transfer. I'm not sure I completely agree. It really depends on how you define "commanded the transfer". One could argue that the original poster "commanded the transfer" by posting the article with real or constructive knowledge as to the workings of the news transport software; alternately one could argue that the person(s) who control the machine "commanded the transfer" by installing and activating software that mechnically performs various acts of copying and dissemination. It has a lot to do with whether you adopt a "publisher", "common carrier", or "bookstore" paradigm for Usenet, and that remains a totally open question. > If copyrighted information is already flowing, and I tap into it without > permission, then I, in creating the link, am guilty. > > If a link exists, and people start feeding copyrighted information down > that link, even though this would be a violation of the copyright, then > the people doing the feeding are guilty. > > What this means to my mind is -- any copyright that forbids material from > going down a link to a system you don't like *is* valid if you declare it > before the link is in place. But it is not valid if you declare it after > the link is in place, and you yourself use that link. I understand the underlying point, but if I were representing an infringement plaintiff, one of the points I might touch on would be the fact that any news administrator could, at his option, install a filter that would eliminate dissemination of any article with notice of copyright, or a special type of notice, or whatever. (I'm not talking about AI here, just a regular expression type thingie). This would be overinclusive, but would effectively eliminate the possibility of infringement. A defense to this is the fact that no such filter exists in the widely-used news transport software (it may come to that, someday, though the performance penalty for those who choose to compile it in would be severe indeed); however, such a filter would be a quick hack for anyone who understands the news software. In which case, the argument, "Yes, Your Honour, but the defendant didn't even spend a hour or two on a technical solution that would have effectively and automatically prevented the infringement" might be a persuasive one. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb