Ayale-com.707
net.general
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!yale-com!leichter
Tue Jan 19 14:05:10 1982
Copyrights and USENET - continued from net.space
There has been some discussion on the net about copyright protection.  Most
of it has been uninformed and generally just plain wrong.  Before someone
gets burned on this, here is (a closer approximation to) the facts.  (If you
want certainty about the details, you'll have to contact a lawyer who is a
wizard in the field.)

     - Making copies for a "closed group" doesn't have any effect on copy-
       right protect.  Neither does whether you are making the copy for
       profit or not.  In fact, making a copy of a book for your own personal
       library, which you NEVER let anyone else use, is as much a violation of
       the copyright as making a million copies and selling them.  (The dama-
       ges you might be libel for would be different, but you COULD receive a
       large fine even for the single copy, under the right circumstances.)
       The "fair use" provision is a very specific set of exceptions.  I
       don't know exactly how it is worded, but one of the things that publi-
       shers wanted - and got, I think - is the EXCLUSION of such things as
       a professor making copies of a paper for all members of his class.  In
       principle, the professor must pay the copyright holder a fee for such
       use.  I find it very doubtful that sending out hundreds of copies of
       material on a network would be considered "fair use" if you were
       sending out anything more than brief quotations.

     - Including a reference to the copyright holder has no bearing whatso-
       ever on whether something is a violation.  In fact, such a reference
       would only constitute proof that the violator knew that the material
       was copyrighted.

     - There would be no distinction, as far as copyright laws are con-
       cerned, between feeding news directly from a newswire into the net
       and typing it in by hand.  Mark's comment tha this is like typing in
       the text of a newspaper article is exactly right - BOTH are violations.

       Further, even typing in a PARAPHRASE is a violation.  Copyright laws
       protect not just the exact text but its overall structure - the work
       that went into the text.  A court would have to decide whether the
       alleged paraphrase just coincidentally looked like the original, or
       if it was more in the nature of a "translation".  (Translations into
       other languages ARE fully protected.)  The basic raised would be things
       like order of presentation, what was included/excluded, etc.  Judges
       have traditionally viewed paraphrasers as people trying to sneak past
       the protection and have been especially harsh on them.

     - In any case, newswire services generally provide their product under
       a license that is significantly more restrictive than copyright.  I
       doubt you can even allow people to log in to your machine over a net
       to read the service, much less send it out!  Check your contract...

Most of us view copyright laws a nuisances to be gotten around.  It is help
to understand the way the courts look at them.  A copyright is a form of
"intellectual property" protected by the state in exactly the way that rights
to physical property are protect.  As the creator and owner of a piece of
intellectual property, I have the right, within limits, to decide who may
use it and how, and to receive payment for such use.  If you abuse my "copy
right", you are stealing from me and I have a cause of action against you.

So be careful!  Networks and electronic media in general are too new for the
laws governing them to be totally clear yet.  However, this doesn't give you
license to do clearly stupid, or clearly wrong, things.
                                                       -- Jerry
(decvax!yale-comix!leichter)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <[email protected]>
of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/


This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.