> Of course, you have an implicit copyright unless you explicitly waive
> it. However, by posting to the net, you're basically giving people
> free license to copy the daylights out of your document.
By posting my FAQ, I expect people to copy it for *personal* use.
> Not being a lawyer, I can't speak for the legality of trying to
> restrict this by writing your own custom license at the top of the
> file. You don't have the luxury of a shrink-wrap agreement.
> However, Berkeley beat USL on this, but they had contractual
> agreements. A real lawyer would have do a more thorough analysis.
Since an agreement was in place and no such agreements exist here,
this example has no direct relation to this argument, and is
meaningless to this discussion.
> Legalities aside, you shouldn't *want* to assert ownership over
> documents you post.
Sure I would.
> Think of all the people who post various software to the net.
> Nothing legal stops you from enhancing it and releasing a newer
> version, possibly under a different name. Common courtesy
> requires you to consult the original author first.
Nope. Everything legal stops you from enhancing it. If their
software is copywritten and you hack it and re-release it, you are in
VIOLATION of their copyright. Plain and simple.
Common courtesy is you don't break the law. If you arrange a
licensing agreement with the author for the use of his work, then it
is a different story. (and I don't mean that $$$ has to change hands,
either).
Example: I take a copy of Star Wars, erase the soundtrack and add my
own, and re-release it as Outer Space Battles. I am in violation of
Lucas' copyright. (However, Night of ther Living Dead has no such
copyright protection, and has been hacked a few times). Woody Allen
had to get permission (buy the rights) to create "What's Up, Tiger
Lily."
> So, if somebody "steals" your document, don't call them a "thief",
> call them "rude".
If someone steals my copywritten document, I call them a thief. If
someone steals cable, they are a thief. They can be brought up on
charges. If you copy or rebroadcast a major league baseball game
without the express wirtten consent of Major League Baseball(tm) you
are a thief and can be charged and arrested, etc.
> Now, if you feel the desire to take my FAQ, hack it into a book, and
> not give me any credit, that's plagarism. We've got laws to deal with
> that.
Because plagarism is STEALING.
> If all you do is take a collection of FAQ's down to the local copy
> store and make 100 bound copies, then sell them as a course reader
> (where the store is likely marking up by more than just
> cost-of-materials), why should I care?
Because they have stolen from you.
> More eyes see my document. That's what matters to me.
Now we get into the meat an potatoes of the whole CD issue.
Copyright is one thing... licensing is another. You can hold a
copyright and allow unlimited free licensing. That's cool. If
that's what you do, great. That's probably how it should be, and
it is how a lot of people who belive "information should be free" see
it.
I get nothing for my FAQ maintaining efforts except self
satisfaction. I don't ever expect to get anything from it, unless I
get a book deal. I offer free licensing for PERSONAL use to my
readers. If one of my readers starts charging for my FAQ (and I mean
by selling the DOCUMENT, not access to my document) he is no longer
using for *personal* use, but for *commerical gain.*
Look at Letterman's Top Ten Lists... CBS and WorldWide Pants
distribute Dave's audio portion of the list to radio stations for a
fee. However, they allow the text of the lists to be distributed by
whomever wants to. (The Top-Ten distribution list has about 30,000
subscribers now...) But my guess is that the list maintainers cannot
publish all their lists as a book... someone else has those rights.
IMHO, a lot of this comes down to the fact that the copyright laws
are virtually unenforceable. If I did not subscribe to this list, I
would not be aware of Walnut Creek's actions, and my FAQ would be
used in ways I was totally ignorant of. If I didn't know about it,
how am I supposed to enforce it.
This whole argument is really a bunch of gum flapping, IMHO, because
nothing will ever come of it. Unless a lengthy court battle is
fought, why should Walnut Creek stop? Because we asked? If they
don't think they're wrong, they'll never stop.
Do you copy CDs for your friends? I do. Am I breaking a law? Sure.
Do I care? No. Why? Because I'll never get caught. The risk is
so minimal, and my ethics allow me to consider this "right".
However, it is all relative. While I'll copy a $10 audio CD for a
friend, I won't give that same friend a copy of my $500 word
processing software. My loss is too great. I paid too much for it to
give it away for free.
Just my thoughts on this subject.
Jeff
alt.sex.movies FAQ maintainer
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved