🚀 go-pugleaf

Here's an interesting cross-posting and response from the listserv
CYBERIA-L (check their archives for a hundred more in response to my Q):

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:31:56 -0700 Robert Cannon <cannon@DC.NET> writes:
>I agree with Mark's argument about not letting conservative legal
>counsel create an absurd legal environment for us.  It is akin to self
>fulfilling prophesy.  If we pay homage to the myth that we must ask
>permission to link, soon the myth will become reality.  Judges (and we
>know Judges are so good at comprehending cyberspace.  See Stratton
>Oakmont and Jews for Jesus) will look at common practice and say, well
>gee, look, everyone is asking permission to link.  Therefore there
>must
>be some reason.  There must be some copyright to a mere link.
>
>But there is no copyright to a mere link.
>
>This myth begins to become reality in absurd ways.  I wrote a paper
>for
>the Internet Society this year, for the summer Geneva conference.  We
>were given specific instructions that we were NOT allowed to put URLs
>in
>footnotes for fear of copyright concerns.  This goes to Dan's question
>about whether I have to ask permission to cite to someone in a
>footnote.
>That is exactly what was happening.  The Internet Society, the people
>who should know a great deal about this medium, said that you could
>not
>make a proper cite to someone in a footnote without their permission.
>Beyond the insanity of the copyright issue, I am also left completely
>unsure how to now write a paper.  How do I cite to documents whose
>only
>existence is on the web?
>
>And of course most of the documents I cite are federal government
>documents at federal cites for which the federal government makes no
>claim of copyright.  But the Internet Society extended copyright
>protection on its own accord to these documents as well.
>
>And when a court sees the Internet Society recognizing copyright
>interests in URLs, this will influence the courts.
>
>How do we stop stupid litigation about URLs?  By stopping it now and
>treating like they are, and not by following legal advice that gives
>rights in cyberspace that do not exist.
>

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:36:11 -0400 "Robert F. Bodi" <rfb@BODI.COM> writes:
>I think the way to stop it is to use the argument I have been
>proposing.
>That the server has control of the copies it generates, and if it
>sends the
>copy, then it implies consent for the recipient to have that copy.  If
>the
>server does not want links to internal documents, it can point all
>external
>requests to its home page first.  Thus, eliminating the problem.  Put
>the
>onus on the web server who has the power to control the distribution
>of the
>site data.  That is where the control belongs.
>
>Obviously, there must also be limits on how the user actually uses the
>pages thus transmitted (can't publish them or take them as his own,
>can't
>make multiple copies, etc.)
>
>At 08:31 AM 10/7/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>I agree with Mark's argument about not letting conservative legal
>>counsel create an absurd legal environment for us.  It is akin to
>self
>>
>
>Sincerely,
>Bob
>
>Robert F. Bodi
>Bodi & Associates, Inc.
>2217 Chesterland Avenue
>Lakewood, OH 44107-6111
>
>Check out our Web Sites:
>http://www.Bodi.com
>http://www.CleveNet.com
>