> > This is not good enough. You are violating copyright and the express wishe
> > of many FAQ maintainers by including their FAQs without first explicitly
> > requesting permission. This behavior is unethical and illegal and
> > should cease > immediately.
>
> Oh give me a break. Look, my FAQ includes an explicit copyright at the
> beginning and I'm not getting bent out of shape about it.
The presence or absence of a copyright statement is irrelevant.
Copyrighted works (and all FAQs are copyrighted unless the author
explicitly places them in the public domain) may not legally be
reproduced without the express permission of the author.
If you've granted permission in your FAQ, fine. But Walnut Creek is
taking the position that they don't have to ask for your permission --
they'll presume you approve unless you write to tell them you don't.
That presumption is utterly without legal basis.
> 1. [the CDROM people] are violating copyright .... This behavior is
> [illegal]
>
> Well, its quite possible that they would have a leg to stand on in a
> courtroom battle. I don't know about you, but my copyright specifically
> allows distribution via electronic means;
No, it doesn't. Your copyright is what gives you control over your FAQ
in the first place. If you write a statement that grants permission for
others to distribute your copyrighted work, that's called a license.
The license and the copyright are separate things.
> although I do prohibit the
> collection of money for such distribution, they might be able to make the
> case that they are only collecting 'fair distribution' costs, given how
> inexpensive the CD is.
"Fair distribution" has no legal meaning. You may be thinking of "fair
use," which does not include for-profit publishing of other people's
work.
> Because this is the standard interpretation of the implicit copyright,
"Standard interpretation" is another phrase with no legal meaning. You
would be well advised to read a book on copyright law.
> I'll grant that I have only read a very tiny fraction of the FAQs
> on Usenet, but I've seen very few explicit copyrights in them. Do yours?
Irrelevant. A creative work is automatically protected by copyright the
moment it is created. No "explicit copyright" statement is required.
> 2. 'by including their FAQs without first explicitly requesting
> permission'
>
> But that's precisely what they've just done! They are making an
> assumption that most people don't mind the inclusion of their FAQ on the
> CD
Asking for permission and *assuming* permission are NOT the same. How
about this: I assume that I can enter anyone's house and help myself to
their belongings unless they explicitly tell me not to. If they're not
around to say no, I'll assume the answer is yes. Would you send me your
street address, please?
> but expressly informing the maintainers of the FAQs of their intention
> to publish and giving them the option of saying 'I don't want you making
> money off my FAQ'.
They have *not* expressly informed the maintainers of all the FAQs they
use. Are you assuming that every FAQ maintainer in the world reads this
list? Wrong. Many of them have no idea that their work is being
pirated. I didn't find out for sure until today.
> I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. They are further disseminating
> information that I for one began compiling so that more people would know
> about it.
You don't speak for all of us. Nor should you.
> I just don't get what the problem is, here.
Walnut Creek is publishing copyrighted works without permission. That's
theft, pure and simple.
> And what do you think they _should_ do? Pay each and every FAQ
> maintainer?
No, but they *should* ask each and every FAQ maintainer for permission.
I will grant it for my FAQ, but I *want to be asked.*
> What do you think that would come out to be...maybe a penny
> per CD sold per FAQ? No thanks, I've got a drawerful.
Money is NOT the issue here. Respect for the rights of authors is.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved