🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <DM30qL.Gn@world.std.com>,
Stephen Boursy <boursy@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <kjfair-3101961540590001@ngrh-34.rh.uchicago.edu>,
>Kenneth Jason Fair <kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>In article <DM18sp.HrD@world.std.com>, boursy@world.std.com (Stephen
>>Boursy) wrote:
>>>
>>>        The very notion that you'd view a usenet post sent out to
>>>a potential audience of millions to quote and follow up on as 
>>>'your own property' is extremely amusing.
>>
>>Danielle Steele still owns the words in her books, even though she's 
>>sold 130 million copies of those books.  The copy of her book that you
>>buy is your property; the right to use, modify, change, or eliminate
>>the words is her right and her right alone.  That's intellectual property.
>
>	I agree.  And that has nothing whatsoever to do with a usenet
>post.  If Danielle Steele engaged in interactive discussion in this 
>newsgroups she'd have no claim to copyright--at least an enforceable one.

I fail to see why "interactivity" makes a difference. If I wrote a followup
novel for every one of Danielle Steele's novels, the exchange would be
"interactive", are you saying that neither Danielle Steele nor I would 
therefore be able to enforce our respective copyrights? And lest you think 
this example is far-fetched, you should be aware that professors in academic 
journals indulge in just this sort of intellectual give-and-take all the time. 
Ditto newspaper columnists. Yet no-one is suggesting that they forfeit their 
copyright protection when they do so. Can you cite a single legal precedent 
holding that copyright rights are forfeited in the case of "interactive" 
dialogue? I'd be very surprised to see such a precedent.

>Hell--you just quoted me without my consent as I've done with you ...

Covered by Fair Use, I believe.

>... and you can by commercial CD's with the entire contents of newsgroup 
>discussions.  

And the legal status of those commercial CD's vis-a-vis copyright law remains
a fertile source of debate. But that debate does not center on whether or not
the articles are part of an "interactive" dialogue. Frankly, I think 
"interactivity" is a Red Herring. Interactivity might perhaps be a live legal 
issue if one were trying to distinguish between, for example, Libel and 
Slander, but in the context of Copyright, as long as the communication at 
issue is conveyed in a "tangible" medium, "interactivity" doesn't seem 
particularly relevant.

							- Kevin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger kevin@msen.com for public key

iQCVAwUBMRFDn/POMH8rIaFRAQElmwQAqQwraioE3WpbAEajfGufgBg/0/RiJW4F
+JHntR2M0P3uqAEkK2bcMEBT3fxiGtXeBapxDngWrSCwI2seqScYegRVzWe0vGno
kYzbhNPY21RS1ZoJ9lYgF6xqN9okM/pThsXLWJSYAujqzbrb24zEZL2dLwiCSTaO
65kVMQfxwpU=
=A7jn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----