On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Evan Rudowski wrote:

> At 09:22 AM 1/16/96 -0700, RASCHKE wrote:
> >
> >I think it would be appropriate for the listserve to
> >discuss in general what are the boundaries of disseminating
> >electronic documents of any form on a listserve.  That would be
> >useful.
> >
> >As a final point, and I realize I will get flak for this comment
> >among journalists, I am wondering if we can really have it both
> >ways - pushing aggressively for latitude in the cyberworld when
> >it comes to censorship but demanding ever tighter restrictions
> >when it comes to copyright?  Please think about it.
> >
> It's very simple -- if you have not verified that you have permission from
> the copyright holder before you distribute its intellectual property
> (article, essay, whatever) on a listserv or anywhere else, then you have no
> right to distribute it.

  I think your sense of militant righteousness gets in the way of 
appreciating the paradoxes of the situation you are addressing here.  
There is no absolute claim of copyright, especially when it comes down to 
a matter of use.  That is why we have the "fair use" principle, which 
allows redistribution even of whole documents.  The arguments here, and 
elsewhere, assume that anything anyone writes anywhere is automatically 
copyrighted, which is technically true, if another person makes use of 
what is written for personal gain.  The problem became severe in the 
courts with the Kinko's decision, because Kinko's was profiting from the 
massive reprinting of various copyrighted documents.  

By your own argument you have violated copyright in quoting me above 
without my permission.  If I want to make sure no one contradicts me, I 
can simply put (C)Copyright Carl Raschke at the end of every post.

The issue really comes down to whether we consider a listserve 
"publishing."  If it is, then everything that appears on this listserve 
is copyrighted in principle, and every reproduciton without permission is 
an infringement, which of course is absurd.

There are various court cases, which of course have been muddied by the 
Kinko's decision, that support the principle that certain newspaper 
articles, because of their ephemeral character, can be reproduced in a 
public forum without violation of copyright.

You miss my point.  The technology is there for massive redistribution of 
documents.  As one participant pointed out, newspaper articles are 
routinely put on people's home pages.  Is that really violation of 
copyright, especially if they are being used for educational and 
discussion purposes.  The law is not clear, and it is really up to the 
litigants to push the matter to decide whether the openness of cyberspace 
should be left alone for the benefit of learners and readers, or fenced 
in for the benefit of "content producers."  I doubt any daily newspaper 
reporter ever lost one penny of income because his or her article for the 
day got reproduced on a listserve.  The same would be true for the newspaper.

I would say bluntly that if newspapers are going to demand absolute 
copyright clearance for anything, regardless of its value, that is posted 
in cyberspace, they are not behaving much differently than 
scientologists, and the public will deal with their medium accordingly.  

If newspapers use the sword of copyright to create a "chilling effect" on 
the distribution of materials electronically, they have no moral right, 
or philosophical consistency, to challenge the censors in Washington who 
want to use the leverage of "decency".  That would be the height of 
hyporcrisy.  The now familiar saying "information wants to be free" is 
the name of the game.  Newspapers can benefit - and some are - by rolling 
with the new medium.  Others are probably going to be to the information 
revolution what banditos were to the building of the railroads.  After 
all, in many cases the railroads did take away their lands...


 > 
> Intellectual property by definition is owned by someone. No intellectual
> property originates by default in the public domain. The copyright owner can
> choose to release the work to the public domain (or the copyright can
> expire, many years after creation), but otherwise someone, somewhere owns
> the rights to the work. You are in violation, legally and ethically, if you
> distribute the work without confirming that you have the right to do so.
> 
> As for cyberspace, the restrictions are not getting tighter as you suggest.
> The only thing that is happening is that individuals now have technology
> available that makes it easier than ever for them to redistribute
> intellectual property in violation of the author's copyright. Steve Outing
> is absolutely right to make sure that this list is not used for that purpose.
> 
> Evan Rudowski
> 
> 
> 
> ======================================
> Evan Rudowski
> MCI/News Corp. Internet Ventures
> evanrud@newscorp.com
> (212) 462-5077
> (speaking for myself, not my employer)
> ======================================
> 
> 

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #477
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Wed Jan 17 11:06:50 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05365 ; for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 11:06:47 -0500