🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <849@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
> >This article is not in the puiblic domain.  Mr. Crist has commiteed a crime
> >by publishing it without permission.
> >There is no excuse for stealing a writer's work.

> From: Nick -- Editor Badger/Nexus reviews
> Gimme break pal.
> Let's keep USENET free from "outside intervention".  
> A simple flame will suffice.  No need to black-mail the guy into an
> apology.  

From someone who claims to be an 'editor' you show very little respect
for the concept of a Copyright -- the very lifeblood of an editor and
a writer.  Writers don't live on words, Writers live on the rights to
use those words, and when that right is taken away, you can't just
ignore it.

This is NOT a situation where we can afford to keep USENET free from
'outside intervention' as you so nicely put it.  It is USENET who has 
intervened in the outside world, not the other way around.  To simply
try to shake this off puts USENET outside the law, which is wrong. Period.

To keep the group notified about what is going on, I've sent a letter to
Larry Niven explaining the situation.  I've also talked with Ken, and he
will also be contacting Larry. Any further action is completely up to
Larry Niven, based upon what he feels must be done to protect his Copyright,
and Ken, to do what he feels needs to be done to apologize to the net.

Again, I recommend seriously that all System Administrators find the
offending copy of this article and delete it from their systems. All people
who made copies of the story should destroy them.

> Why, the next thing you know, IBM will be suing the USENET community for
> making fun of the PC.  Or better yet, everyone and their brother will
> sue DEC because of Ken Ardnt's statement, plus the fact that he doesn't
> put a disclaimer in his postings.  Or better yet, Madonna will sue
> the USENET because someone faked her name in a posting to net.singles,
> and it's clear that she no longers has armpit hair.
> Yeah, and the Catholics in net.religion.catholic will sue the Jews in
> net.religion.jewish for not believing in Jesus, thus causing them to
> question the meaning of Christmas trees.
> Well I'll show them..

These questions have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, except
to try to avoid the problem and play on emotionalisms.  Legally, we are
protected from IBM and Madonna because they are public figures, as long
as we don't get into libelous material (Libel has nothing to do with
Copyright). Religious freedom is protected under the First amendment,
which has nothing to do with Copyright. Dec and Ken Arndt are on their
own -- they can play with the EOC all they want, although that STILL
has nothing to do with Copyright.

I'll put this very simply. A law was broken. What we need to do now is to
try to minimize the damage. USENET doesn't stand outside the law, although
sometimes it seems to try.  We simply do NOT take the legalities involved
in the situation into consideration often enough, unless it is to our
favor.  There have been a number of cases of Copyright infringement on
the net, this being the latest.  There have also been a number of cases
where AT&T's Unix licenses. If you really want USENET to be free of
"outside intervention" you have to play by the rules and not give them a
reason to intervene.  We haven't, and so far we've been lucky.  I don't want
to be around when that luck runs out.

A few rules to live by:

o If it is Copyrighted, don't post it unless you have specific permission.
	If you aren't sure, assume it is Copyrighted until you find out
	otherwise. If you arne't sure, get permission or don't post.

o If you see something that has been posted that you know to be Copyrighted,
	contact the poster and let them know.  If it has been posted without
	permission, the Copyright owner must be informed.  If it has been
	posted without permission AND without the Copyright notice, it is
	CRITICAL that the Copyright owner be notified and all reasonable 
	attempts be made to protect the Copyright -- if this isn't done,
	that piece is in jeopardy of falling into the public domain.

o If someone is silly enough to post something under their own name
	without permission, Copyright, or the original authors name,
	that is plagiarism.  You think I'm hyper about Copyright, try
	that and see what happens. You don't want to know. Trust me.

Just to give you an idea of breaking Copyright could be worth to you,
an author can sue you for royalties on the piece the he should have gotten
had you really bought it from him, at market rates.  If it is determined
that the posting damages future royalties (if, for example, it puts it 
into the public domain and forfeits the Copyright) you can be liable for all
future royalties that story WOULD have made, plus punative damages. On top
of this, you'll be hit with court costs and legal fees from both your lawyer
and HIS lawyer.

Who's liable? Damn good question.  Definitely the person who posted the
Copyright violater.  Probably the people who administer/own the site it 
was posted on, or the people who own that machine, for not policing it
properly.  Possibly the entire net, or the individual companies that support
the net with resources (i.e. every site that had a copy of the offending
article or transported it to another site) for conspiring to break the
Copyright.  I don't know HOW someone would sue the net, or whether it would
stick, but I'd certainly prefer not to see someone try and find out.

Would YOU like to explain to YOUR boss why you just got a subpoena? Let's
be careful, folks. With 20,000 readers (by Brian Reids estimates) we
aren't small time anymore, and with size comes responsibility. Let's show some.

chuq

-- 
:From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid:          Chuq Von Rospach 
chuq%plaid@sun.COM	FidoNet: 125/84		 CompuServe: 73317,635
{decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq

Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be
the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table.
					-- The Anarchist Cookbook