Archiving mail-lists...

I would be interested in a discussion on the mail-list on this
   issue. Please refrain from sending personal mail. In particular do you
   think such a archive without every members permission is un-ethical?

Unethical, hell; illegal is closer to it. I retain the copyright to
everything I post; although implicit permission to redistribute to the
mailing list is granted when I send to cypherpunks@toad.com, I have granted
no permission to anyone else to use my intellectual property (i.e. my posts,
valuable or not) for any other purpose.
   
   Would a archivist necessarily need the permission of the mail-list
   sponser?

In an actively-moderated group (i.e. where the moderator chooses which
messages to forward, constructs digests, etc.) the moderator possesses a
copyright on the collection of material (but not on the material itself); if
you were republishing a substantial part of the collection (in your case,
all of it) you'd need rights to the collection copyright also.

Study copyright law (including the Berne Convention, to which most nations
having Usenet sites are signatories). Understand what you're getting
yourself into.

Jason

Ah, the old I'm-not-a-lawyer-but-I-play-one-on-the-net.

Problem with Jason Zions' position:
	- Not at all clear that Berne applies to electronic mail, even of a
personal nature
	- Not at all clear that postings to a publicly-read list like this
are not equivalent to speech in a public place (ie not necessarily
copyrighted)
	- Not at all clear what the status of private communications is vis
a vis publication.  The courts in the US seem to be flip-flopping all over
the place in a couple of recent cases involving correspondence used to write
biographies (one of L Ron Hubbard sticks in my mind and I forget who the
other was about).

You can't just wave your hand and say the magic word "Berne" and thereby
prevent someone from archiving, reposting etc your messages to this list.

--Alan Wexelblat, Reality Hacker, Author, and Cyberspace Bard
Media Lab - Advanced Human Interface Group	wex@media.mit.edu
Voice: 617-258-9168 Page: 617-945-1842		an53607@anon.penet.fi
All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.

Alan Wexelblat writesK

> Ah, the old I'm-not-a-lawyer-but-I-play-one-on-the-net.
> 
> Problem with Jason Zions' position:
> 	- Not at all clear that Berne applies to electronic mail, even of a
> personal nature

Hey, it's clear to me.

> 	- Not at all clear that postings to a publicly-read list like this
> are not equivalent to speech in a public place (ie not necessarily
> copyrighted)

That's not the measure of copyright. It's whether the expression has been
instantiated in a tangible medium.

> 	- Not at all clear what the status of private communications is vis
> a vis publication.  The courts in the US seem to be flip-flopping all over
> the place in a couple of recent cases involving correspondence used to write
> biographies (one of L Ron Hubbard sticks in my mind and I forget who the
> other was about).
 
They flipflop because of the trickiness of Fair Use--there's no
hard-and-fast rule as to what qualifies.

> You can't just wave your hand and say the magic word "Berne" and thereby
> prevent someone from archiving, reposting etc your messages to this list.
 
True, but you can say "Berne" and settle the issue of copyright.



--Mike

Alan -

  - Not at all clear that Berne applies to electronic mail, even of a
    personal nature

Copyright exists from the moment the work is set down in concrete form. Are
you arguing that email is not concrete?

   - Not at all clear that postings to a publicly-read list like this
     are not equivalent to speech in a public place (ie not necessarily
     copyrighted)

Ah. The old "if the NFL has to remind us that its broadcast of the superbowl
is copyrighted, so do you" argument.

Okay, let's try this on for size.

Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. Permission to copy and transmit for the purpose
of propagation of the Cypherpunks mailing list in email or local-newsgroup
(usenet) forms is granted; all other rights are reserved.

   - Not at all clear what the status of private communications is vis
     a vis publication.

But this isn't private communication.

   You can't just wave your hand and say the magic word "Berne" and thereby
   prevent someone from archiving, reposting etc your messages to this list.

Law is a complex thing, isn't it. I'd better go back and reread the code and
current decisions. I'm spending more of my time tracking the CompuServe MIDI
copyright actions, though.

Jason

> Are you arguing that email is not concrete?

Ayup.  If it was, we wouldn't need digital signatures on clear-text msgs,
no?

Mike Godwin says it's clear to him; I'd say that he represents a vanguard of
progressive thinkers applying the law to new areas.  I'd also bet that
vanguard is about a 10% minority at the moment.

--Alan

>> Are you arguing that email is not concrete?
>
>Ayup.  If it was, we wouldn't need digital signatures on clear-text msgs,
>no?

Not the point; "concrete" does not mean immutable. If it did, then things
written in pencil, or eraseable ink, or created in mutable media (videotape,
audio tape, ...) would not be copyrightable either.

Jason

>
> Alan -
>
>   - Not at all clear that Berne applies to electronic mail, even of a
>     personal nature
>
> Copyright exists from the moment the work is set down in concrete form. Are
> you arguing that email is not concrete?
>
>    - Not at all clear that postings to a publicly-read list like this
>      are not equivalent to speech in a public place (ie not necessarily
>      copyrighted)
>
> Ah. The old "if the NFL has to remind us that its broadcast of the superbowl
> is copyrighted, so do you" argument.
>
> Okay, let's try this on for size.
>
> Copyright 1994 Jason Zions. Permission to copy and transmit for the purpose
> of propagation of the Cypherpunks mailing list in email or local-newsgroup
> (usenet) forms is granted; all other rights are reserved.
>
>    - Not at all clear what the status of private communications is vis
>      a vis publication.
>
> But this isn't private communication.
>
>    You can't just wave your hand and say the magic word "Berne" and thereby
>    prevent someone from archiving, reposting etc your messages to this list.
>
> Law is a complex thing, isn't it. I'd better go back and reread the code and
> current decisions. I'm spending more of my time tracking the CompuServe MIDI
> copyright actions, though.
>
> Jason
>

I have to admit that I have broken your fair use copyright notice
inadvertantly.

I have stored an image of your message in the ram on my system which is not a
part of inet or usenet nor involved in any way with the transmission to other
nodes of such stored material.

Berne works great for paper, audio recordings, movies, etc. It does not work
for networked information transmission.

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim choate wrote:

> I have to admit that I have broken your fair use copyright notice
> inadvertantly.
> 
> I have stored an image of your message in the ram on my system which is not a
> part of inet or usenet nor involved in any way with the transmission to other
> nodes of such stored material.

Are you claiming to have sold your RAM, while still powered, for a 
profit?  Knowing that it contained copyrighted work?  Shame on you.


> Berne works great for paper, audio recordings, movies, etc. It does not work
> for networked information transmission.

I'm sorry, I didn not realize I was talking to a supreme court justice.  
Had I known you had the ultimate authority on this subject, I would not 
have been wasting your time, or mine.

Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file 
a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?


-ck

Master Knight does seem a bit intolerant, doesn't he?

Kirk Sheppard

kshep@netcom.com

P. O. Box 30911             "It is  Better to Die on Your Feet Than to 
Bethesda, MD 20824-0911      Live On Your Knees."
U.S.A.
			    			     - Emiliano Zapata


On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim choate wrote:
> 
> > I have to admit that I have broken your fair use copyright notice
> > inadvertantly.
> > 
> > I have stored an image of your message in the ram on my system which is not a
> > part of inet or usenet nor involved in any way with the transmission to other
> > nodes of such stored material.
> 
> Are you claiming to have sold your RAM, while still powered, for a 
> profit?  Knowing that it contained copyrighted work?  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> > Berne works great for paper, audio recordings, movies, etc. It does not work
> > for networked information transmission.
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn not realize I was talking to a supreme court justice.  
> Had I known you had the ultimate authority on this subject, I would not 
> have been wasting your time, or mine.
> 
> Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file 
> a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
> 
> 
> -ck
> 
> 
>

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:

<Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file
<a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
 

This appears to be merely hot air, since despite all his talk Master 
Knight hasn't taken any "action" and it is doubtful that he has the money 
or other "necessities" requisite for doing so. Also, notice the term 
"beliefs", which explains a lot. I thought were were having a discussion 
on a legal or academic basis, not one involving religeous or 
philosophical "beliefs" or faith.

Kirk Sheppard

kshep@netcom.com

P. O. Box 30911             "It is  Better to Die on Your Feet Than to 
Bethesda, MD 20824-0911      Live On Your Knees."
U.S.A.
			    			     - Emiliano Zapata


On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim choate wrote:
> 
> > I have to admit that I have broken your fair use copyright notice
> > inadvertantly.
> > 
> > I have stored an image of your message in the ram on my system which is not a
> > part of inet or usenet nor involved in any way with the transmission to other
> > nodes of such stored material.
> 
> Are you claiming to have sold your RAM, while still powered, for a 
> profit?  Knowing that it contained copyrighted work?  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> > Berne works great for paper, audio recordings, movies, etc. It does not work
> > for networked information transmission.
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn not realize I was talking to a supreme court justice.  
> Had I known you had the ultimate authority on this subject, I would not 
> have been wasting your time, or mine.
> 
> Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file 
> a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
> 
> 
> -ck
> 
>

Kirk Sheppard says:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
> 
> <Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file
> <a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
> 
> This appears to be merely hot air, since despite all his talk Master 
> Knight hasn't taken any "action" and it is doubtful that he has the money 
> or other "necessities" requisite for doing so. Also, notice the term 
> "beliefs", which explains a lot. I thought were were having a discussion 
> on a legal or academic basis, not one involving religeous or 
> philosophical "beliefs" or faith.

Archives of the net are already being sold. Furthermore, some folks at
the FBI got a newsfeed from uunet years ago by magtape when they
didn't have a direct uucp link. I'd say that anyone who thinks they
can actually succeed at such a suit is welcome to try, but I wouldn't
break a sweat worrying about it.

Yes, you have a copyright over your work -- however, once you've
posted it to the net it is likely practically impossible to restrict
distribution. Since you've already allowed it to be distributed on
demand to anyone for free it is hard to claim damages if it is
distributed to anyone via some medium you don't like.

Archives of all of usenet already exist. I was talking with Eric Fair
at Usenix about using a Cray at Apple to produce an index of all
usenet traffic thus far -- it likely won't happen, but those worried
about such possibilities are welcome to have their lawyers send me
nasty letters.

If you want your stuff to have limited distribution, you have to make
a conscious effort to limit distribution or you have likely lost all
cause of action. Posting to the net is likely implicit concent to
unlimited distribution, since it is in fact what will happen and you
have no reasonable expectation of anything else.

Perry

> Yes, you have a copyright over your work -- however, once you've
> posted it to the net it is likely practically impossible to restrict
> distribution.

Practical impossibility != legal impossibility.

> Since you've already allowed it to be distributed on
> demand to anyone for free it is hard to claim damages if it is
> distributed to anyone via some medium you don't like.
 
Hard, yes, but not impossible. Most copyright actions involving works that
are not being sold resort to statutory damages. And you can register your
copyright *after* the infringement occurs.


--Mike

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
> 
> <Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file
> <a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
>  
> 
> This appears to be merely hot air, since despite all his talk Master 
> Knight hasn't taken any "action" and it is doubtful that he has the money 
> or other "necessities" requisite for doing so. 

And what sort of action am I supposed to take?  This was, to my knowledge a 
discussion.  And who is this "Master Knight"?


> Also, notice the term 
> "beliefs", which explains a lot. I thought were were having a discussion 
> on a legal or academic basis, not one involving religeous or 
> philosophical "beliefs" or faith.

All of us, including yourself Mr. Sheppard, have been discussing 
theoretical law and rights.  Until it is tried in court, we are all 
stating how we BELIEVE it will go.  This has nothing to do with religion, 
or philosophy; merely interpretation of law.


-ck

"Master" is the term one uses in place of "Mister" or "Mr." when politely 
addressing a male, under the age of majority.

Kirk Sheppard

kshep@netcom.com

P. O. Box 30911             "It is  Better to Die on Your Feet Than to 
Bethesda, MD 20824-0911      Live On Your Knees."
U.S.A.
			    			     - Emiliano Zapata


On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
> > 
> > <Perhaps we should try this.  You sell archives of the net, and we'll file
> > <a class action suit...  I'll back up my beliefs with actions, how about you?
> >  
> > 
> > This appears to be merely hot air, since despite all his talk Master 
> > Knight hasn't taken any "action" and it is doubtful that he has the money 
> > or other "necessities" requisite for doing so. 
> 
> And what sort of action am I supposed to take?  This was, to my knowledge a 
> discussion.  And who is this "Master Knight"?
> 
> 
> > Also, notice the term 
> > "beliefs", which explains a lot. I thought were were having a discussion 
> > on a legal or academic basis, not one involving religeous or 
> > philosophical "beliefs" or faith.
> 
> All of us, including yourself Mr. Sheppard, have been discussing 
> theoretical law and rights.  Until it is tried in court, we are all 
> stating how we BELIEVE it will go.  This has nothing to do with religion, 
> or philosophy; merely interpretation of law.
> 
> 
> -ck
> 
>

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:

> "Master" is the term one uses in place of "Mister" or "Mr." when politely 
> addressing a male, under the age of majority.
> 

I confess to some doubts as to your intentions of politeness.  But, being 
of open mind I will put it to the test:  Mr Sheppard, I am above the "age 
of majority", and request that you refrain from using an incorrect form of 
title.

-ck

Dear Master Knight,

Normally, I would be happy to oblige in using one's requested term of 
address, however I may make an exception in this case as you want fair 
play to be one sided. According to Master Knight, it is OK to start with 
ad hominem attacks, but not to answer them. Also, Master Knight has this 
devious habit of posting "private mail" on this list. Twice, now I have 
answered Master Knight's personal insults with a "private" reply so as to 
ease the burden on the other members of this  very active list, and twice 
Master Knight, shamelessly  posts follow-ups to the list. Not very 
honorable, Master Knight. So no, if I ever have the need to address you 
again it will be "Master" for you.

Kirk Sheppard

kshep@netcom.com

P. O. Box 30911             "It is  Better to Die on Your Feet Than to 
Bethesda, MD 20824-0911      Live On Your Knees."
U.S.A.
			    			     - Emiliano Zapata


On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Chris Knight wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > "Master" is the term one uses in place of "Mister" or "Mr." when politely 
> > addressing a male, under the age of majority.
> > 
> 
> I confess to some doubts as to your intentions of politeness.  But, being 
> of open mind I will put it to the test:  Mr Sheppard, I am above the "age 
> of majority", and request that you refrain from using an incorrect form of 
> title.
> 
> -ck
> 
> 
>

>
>
>    I would be interested in a discussion on the mail-list on this
>    issue. Please refrain from sending personal mail. In particular do you
>    think such a archive without every members permission is un-ethical?
>
> Unethical, hell; illegal is closer to it. I retain the copyright to
> everything I post; although implicit permission to redistribute to the
> mailing list is granted when I send to cypherpunks@toad.com, I have granted
> no permission to anyone else to use my intellectual property (i.e. my posts,
> valuable or not) for any other purpose.
>
>    Would a archivist necessarily need the permission of the mail-list
>    sponser?
>
> In an actively-moderated group (i.e. where the moderator chooses which
> messages to forward, constructs digests, etc.) the moderator possesses a
> copyright on the collection of material (but not on the material itself); if
> you were republishing a substantial part of the collection (in your case,
> all of it) you'd need rights to the collection copyright also.
>
> Study copyright law (including the Berne Convention, to which most nations
> having Usenet sites are signatories). Understand what you're getting
> yourself into.
>
> Jason
>

It is no more illegal (at the present time) for me to store your posting to
every usenet or inet service that I have access to on my hard-drive or a CD-
Rom for re-sale than it is for you to store my posting on your drive or print
it out to the printer.

When I got my account I did not sign any kind of agreement relating to me
retaining my rights to any material I chose to place on the net for
dissimenation to others. There IS an implied motivation to put that material
in the public domain so that others may use it for the betterment of all.

If you are serious about your view then please forward a money order for
$1000 dollars for having my original post stored on whatever medium you used
to reply to it.

There is no legal precedence at this time that would necessarily and
automaticaly copyright every entry I (or you) made, Berne not withstanding,
to inet or usenet. If that position is valid then each and every one of us is
commiting copyright infringement for storing the material on a hard drive.
When discussing copyright there is no involvment in medium of transmission
other than what the original author limits it to prior to release of that
material.

The motivation for bringing this topic up is that it provides a perfect way
to make the commen wide-spread usage of encryption a commen and everyday
occurance. Namely, authors who wish to retain all rights should do one of two
things. They should either encrypt the file and require potential users to
contact the author or distributor for keys to unlock it or else it should be
mandator for a author to put some sort of fair-use statement in their
releases that specificly delineates what the fair-use of that material is.
Users of usenet/inet do not read minds and can't necessarily imply what the
original motivation was, this means (to me anyway) that the responsibility of
enlightening potential users falls solely on the shoulders of the author.

>If you are serious about your view then please forward a money order for
>$1000 dollars for having my original post stored on whatever medium you used
>to reply to it.

Sigh. One more time.

The courts have recognized that permission to make copies which are
essential for the perception of the work is implicitly granted by the
copyright owner when the work is distributed. In order to perceive your
copyrighted works my system *must* make a copy or three to get it to me (as
would intervening systems if we both lived on uucp links instead of
internet). This is relatively old ground that was plowed by computer cases;
the exact issue of having to load a copy of a program into ram in order to
execute it has indeed been the subject of litigation.

The quote from your message I include above falls under the Fair Use
exceptions, under both Scholarship and Criticism.

>There is no legal precedence at this time that would necessarily and
>automaticaly copyright every entry I (or you) made, Berne not withstanding,
>to inet or usenet. [...] When discussing copyright there is no involvment in
>medium of transmission other than what the original author limits it to
>prior to release of that material.

But this is *precisely* what the current law says. From the moment the work
exists in concrete form, and a posting *is* concrete form, copyright exists.
Usenet and Internet are merely distribution mechanisms, the use of which may
cause the copyright holder to implicitly grant certain rights (as described
above).

From another message:

>when I buy a software program the copyright notice specificaly states that I
>am allowed to make copies for backup purposes. Some of them notices on high-
>dollar packages even tell me how many I can keep and whether I can keep them
>on a network or not.

Yep. Backups are separate from implicit rights granted due to the medium of
expression; I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, except that
there is a recognized right for you to make a backup of your usenet news
archives. But you can't distribute that backup.

From yet another message:

>I have to admit that I have broken your fair use copyright notice
>inadvertantly.
>
>I have stored an image of your message in the ram on my system which is not a
>part of inet or usenet nor involved in any way with the transmission to other
>nodes of such stored material.

You can't perceive the work without loading it into some device that can
turn electrical signals into something perceivable by a human; ram on a
computer is as good as anything else. As I stated above, this has been
covered by case law; it's a copy necessary to the perception of the work.
(The identical case arises with CDs - the bits are copied into a buffer in
your CD-player before they're fed through the D/A converters. This copy is
necessary to perceiving the work and hence permission is implicitly
granted.)

Jason

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim choate wrote:

> It is no more illegal (at the present time) for me to store your posting to
> every usenet or inet service that I have access to on my hard-drive or a CD-
> Rom for re-sale than it is for you to store my posting on your drive or print
> it out to the printer.

I think the question of storage goes beyond copyright law.  I have yet to 
find someone who lost a suit for owning a copy of a magazine.  But since 
you feel the way you do about CDs, why don't you scan in a couple of 
issues of Life magazine, master it, and try to sell it?  Do they supply 
Inet feeds in prison?

> 
> When I got my account I did not sign any kind of agreement relating to me
> retaining my rights to any material I chose to place on the net for
> dissimenation to others. 

Have you ever published an article in say a not-for profit journal?  Just 
because you don't sine a contract guaranteeing your rights DOES NOT mean 
you have given them up!

There IS an implied motivation to put that material

> If you are serious about your view then please forward a money order for
> $1000 dollars for having my original post stored on whatever medium you used
> to reply to it.

Now that you have set your rate, I set mine.  Please remit your check of 
$10,000....  I think this is getting a bit carried away.  Copyright cases 
generally relate to the sale or use of material belonging to an author.  
As I said above, I have never heard of a case where someone lost a suit 
for posessing a 1942 issue of Life magazine.



-ck


The material in this message composed by me, lines NOT preceeded by the 
">", is expressly copyrighted as the posession of Chris Knight.  You may 
reply to this message, forward this message, and store it for PRIVATE 
use.  Any attempt to sell this material either alone, or as part of an 
archive will be met by me, at you backdoor, late at night, with a chaninsaw.
I have the DOOM cheats!  I am invincible!   ;>

p.s.  The above bit of humor is copyrighted 1994, cmk.