Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World
Publisher: Osborne
Author: Lance Rose
ISBN: 0-07-882077-4
Chapter 3, Owning and Using Online Property
page 98

"So when we look at a message thread, who is the owner? Each user owns the text of each message he or she posts on the online system. At the same time, the system manager might own the collection of messages on the online system (to the extent he or she can claim such ownership at all). Hi or her property is the message threads as a whole, not the individual messages.

What if someone copies a message thread (or substantial part of one) from one system to the other without permission, or reproduces it in a print publication? The copyright in the thread as a collection would be infringed, because the way messages were selected and arranged by the system operator was copied. In addition, all users with essages in that thread would have copyrights in the individual messages, and those copyrights would be infringed. So the unauthorized copier would answerable both to the system operator for infringing a collective work, and to the individual users for infringing their messages a text or literary works.

Copying only a couple of messages from a thread may not violate system operator's collect work copyright. In this case, so little of the selection and arrangement of user messages has been taken that the copying could e legally deemed to minimal to be infringing. It i probably necessary at least to copy either several messages in a row, or samll groups of messages frm scattered points in the thread, to infrnge the collective work copyright. At the same time, copying even a single message would infringe the copyright of the user who poste tha message, even if it does not violate the operator's copyright in the thread as a whole.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

Does Ken Decker have grounds for a lawsuit over his post on fixed defense?

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), October 09, 1999.

I believe this pertains to the thread that was established the day before?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=001XqS

-- spirit (spirit@iserv.net), October 09, 1999.

When I forget my rights I pick up a pencil. Sicne I am right handed, the hand I am using for the pencil is my right hand. Thus everything on that side is the right and everything on the other side is the left. Is this really so difficult. All right everybody, slap your forehead with your RIGHT hand and collectively say duh!!!!

-- Right Hand Man (Do@not.mudwrestle), October 09, 1999.

Tim,

If I send you an email and you publish in a book without my permission, is this a wrong? If I send you a snail mail letter and you publish it without my permission, is that wrong?

Where is the line drawn?

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

Every thing that I create with my creative
energy is my intellectual property. I cannot
sue anyone for theft of my intellectual
property unless I can show financial loss

---

bottom line

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

People worry about petty sh*t like this, and then we all wonder why lawyers rule the world?

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? Knock, knock. Anyone home? The lights are on, but the occupants seem to be on vacation. Lawyers stay fat and happy, because we all scream "lawsuit" over the most trivial matters. Whining about lawyers running our lives, when we create such overwhelming demand for their services, is like sticking your tongue in a light socket and screaming "foul!", when you get electrocuted.

If I spend a year of my life laboring over a written work, and someone plagarizes it, then yes, I'd sue. But If I spend 10 minutes thinking about a post and five minutes typing it, take it! It's yours! It just didn't take that much out of me. Print out a zillion copies and make wallpaper out of it or put in on a billboard. Put my name to it, your name to it, or put Howdy Doody's Name to it. I don't care. I write these things to communicate, and the more people that hear it, the better. If you're writing for profit, then I suggest that perhaps a computer bulletin board is not the ideal place to lay out your rough drafts.

Yes, we all have rights, but we have responsibilities too. One of those responsibilities is to not go around doing stupid sh*t that causes the population to spend half it's freaking time in court, filling the coffers of the legal establishment.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 09, 1999.

When I tell *YOU* weather or not you
can sue, then I've crossed the line in
providing legal counsel and can be
prosecuted.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

Bokonon, Take a chill pill.

Who said anything about suing and lawyers? Is it ethical for ANYONE to publish my letters without permission?

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

Lurker:
"Where is the line drawn?"
You may want to ask the author this question.

Bokonon:
"Yes, we all have rights, but we have responsibilities too. One of those responsibilities is to not go around doing stupid sh*t that causes the population to spend half it's freaking time in court, filling the coffers of the legal establishment." It is madness, is it not? We've become quite a litigious society, I must admit.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), October 09, 1999.

Not for much longer. We're about to return to the days of "Grab a rope and follow me".

The crime rate should plummet. I suggest attorney's wear turtle- necks, begin using poor grammer and claim to be bartenders.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 09, 1999.

for all those who "copyright" their brief comments here, and who even threaten others with death over it (see the first thread) -- the sad part about all this is that all the good points from this forum will not get passed along to others who would benefit from them.

after reading all three threads, and the hypocrisy therein, i for one would not want to share any illustrious insights from this forum with anyone else, for fear of being lynched.

so truth dies, or at least stays holed up in this (public) cave. ...this site that those without computers will fail to access or learn from. but of course we who can come here are not elitist, are we?

it's not the pollies who are winning this one. i am a doomer, and i feel like we have all lost.

-- (don't tell em anything@zip.com), October 09, 1999.

For all those who are afriad of being infringed on..... Go somewhere else. I for one need the info posted here on the forum. I know things about the mechanical world and I would be happy to know that info I posted saved someone some grief or possibly their life.

-- --- (dozerdoc@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

I believe the advice in the book above is worth what it cost to post here - not very much. Fair usage isn't addressed, nor is anything in copywrite law. In other words, if its important, check with a copywrite lawyer.

What is really funny is all of those in the forum who refused to allow their postings to be included in a book, meanwhile post whole articles from various news sources here, a clear violation of copywrite law in some cases.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 09, 1999.

Date February 2000 Subject Book Proposal

Dear Sirs:

No other year since the Civil War has been as devastating to our country as this year. Hundreds of thousands of people froze to death or died of chemical poisoning. Millions more died of slow starvation or disease caused by sewer system failures. Why? Why did they have to die? They could have saved themselves if only they had prepared in time. And they were warned. Lord knows, they were warned.

But they didn't listen. They just stuck their heads in the sand and ignored computer experts who had over twenty years of experience. They laughed at the Yourdon's and the Hamasaki's. They ignored the sometimes frantic cries of those who had warned them. They thought that the many good people who had posted regularly to forums like Timebomb 2000 were flakes. If only they had paid attention to Diane Squire, or Chuck the Night Driver or Sysman or any of the other intelligent writers who had sense enough to put two and two together and figure out the puzzle.

Why were all these experts and intelligent people ignored? How were the "sheeple" fooled into believing it would be just a three day storm? I hope you will publish my book which examines this matter closely. How can we avoid similar failures in the future when whistleblowers warn us of disaster if we don't learn from past mistakes?

And there are important lessens to learn. My book closely examines the spin behind Koskinen's official pronunciations. I closely examine the lies and half-truths that programmers told their CEO's to convince them that they would be ready for y2k. I examine the complacency of the media in investigating what was the biggest story since World War II and show how they were used as tools of the government to prevent preparation (panic).

Finally, I examine in depth the role the internet played--or could have played--in this situation. Until recently, it was nearly impossible for those who disagreed with the Establishment's view of the world or distrusted their motives to be heard. True patriots who questioned what they were told could not air their views over TV or the radio. They usually did not have the money to publish and widely distribute their views through the newspapers either. Most corporations were part of the problem and they would never help subsidize a whistleblower's newspaper through advertisers.

But the late 1990s saw the coming of the internet--and with it came the ability of the average Joe to be heard. It no longer cost thousands of dollars to disseminate your ideas and information to millions of people. Everyone had equal access to the marketplace of ideas through the internet.

With the internet came the ability of whistleblowers to have their stories heard. The internet gave those who did not believe the official spin the chance to analyze government statements and show that they were not to be trusted. The internet gave those who saw disaster coming a voice with which to warn others. And warn they did.

But their warnings fell on deaf ears. Why? I closely examine the works of Polly interlopers who constantly barged their way into the Timebomb 2000 forum in a concerted effort to distract those who might otherwise have prepared. I extensively document the writings of Stephen Poole, whose deft use of humor hides his nefarious agenda. I show how Mr. Decker has used verbal trickery to defend the fiat banking system and lull his audience into a false sense of complacency. And I quote extensively the rantings of CPR who used intimidation tactics to try to silence the Get Its from posting on the so called Debunky site. I also quote a supporting cast including Buddy, Maria, Paul Davis, Patricia, and even (gasp) Robin Messing, who have all further muddied the water and prevented others frompreparing.

Now, I realize there may be a tricky question of copyright infringement. I did not explicitly get copyright permission from CPR et al. But what they wrote is part of the historical record. What they wrote influenced their readers and was at least partly the cause for our nation's insufficient preparedness. They may have meant well. They may have just been trying to prevent a panic. But even people who mean well can have a negative influence on events. They intentionally tried to persuade the public to take certain actions (i.e. leaving their money in the banks.) Because their writing was broadcast to the public with the intent to influence public behavior it should be considered part of the public domain.

One can not study the history of the internet and its role in the y2k disaster without quoting extensively from their work. One must be able to understand their propaganda techniques in order to prevent a reoccurence in the future. They may raise objections based on copyright law, but if their objections are honored then we will have lost an important part of history. They would prefer we forget, but we must not, lest lives be lost in the future. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We must not allow copyright law to be used as an Orwellian Memory Hole to make unpleasant facts disappear.

******************* End Book Proposal***********************

Allright. I don't really expect y2k will be a 9. I suspect it will probably be a 2 and the book above will never be written. But I wrote the proposal to point out that what is written here should not be lost to the historical record. It is part of history whether you like it or not. It is possible that your words may have influenced some people's behaviors, though probably not as many as you would like to have influenced.

If y2k turns out to be a 2 then these writings will be useful to scholars examining the psychology and sociology of needless panic (or at least worry). Gary North and others have predicted bankruns would occur due to panic. Some scholars may someday want to use the writings of those who post here and those who post at Debunky to help explain how the internet was used by some as an attempt to foster bank runs and by others who tried to fight the panic. It may be used by psychologists who want to study how even smart people can make mistakes in logic and arrive at faulty conclusions.

Of course, I could be wrong and y2k could be a 9 (I doubt it). In that case, someone may want to write the book I outlined and CPR, Stephen Poole and other pollies who have tried to influence public opinion should not be able to use copyright law to hide their actions from scrutiny.

Or maybe y2k will end up as a 4 and some chronicler will want to write a book explaining how the Doomers postings alerted just enough people so that we just barely avoided a major disaster.

In any case, these writings are part of the historical record and should not be lost. How can anyone study this history of y2k and leave out this seminal work by Michael Hyatt.

Of course, on this thread I can link to Hyatt's failed predictions. And if I were writing a book I could always publish the URL in my book and let my readers find his column for themselves. But URLs have a habit of disappearing. Who knows if the link will be good two years from now? Shouldn't I have the right to publish his column in a book critiquing important y2k writings, or should Hyatt have the power to use copyright law to make his column disappear from history just because he finds it embarrassing? How about CPR or Stephen Poole?

We run into danger whenever we allow others to rewrite history. That is what the communists did for many years in Russia. Joseph Stalin went so far to airbrush the image of his opponents out of old photographs to shape the historical record to suit his needs. Should we allow copyright law to be abused to do the same?

Robin Messing

P.S. Gary North quotes extensively from other sources on his site. Should those who are quoted be able to use copyright law to try to silence him?

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 10, 1999.

Oops! I inadvertantly posted an old URL for Michael Hyatt's seminal column. rsm7@cornell.edu), October 10, 1999.

According to decisions by the US Supreme Court (Time vs. Mandel, et al--Archives 1984 USSC), if an article, missive or other 'utterance' is published, spoken or otherwise disseminated in a public forum, it may be reprinted WITHOUT permission from the author as long as:

1. No financial injury to the author can be proven;

2. Proper accreditation is given as to the source:

3. The article is contained within quotation marks and is indicated to be an article being quoted.

I would think that quoting an article and including the URL for said article would meet these specifications as set forth by the court. I'm not sure what would happen if they were included as part of a book without written permission (since the book is intended to make a profit). However, the Court is very specific regarding reprinting or copying a post on a public forum as long as the source is identified.

Stuff it, cpr.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Try this URL for Hyatt's column.

-- Robin Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 10, 1999.

Robin, I noticed that your book proposal makes no mention of either mudwrestling or our impending enslavement by The Squirrel King. How can any serious study of Y2k and the Internet.... oh, crudpuppies..... now they've got ME doing it.....

FWIW, if I ever post anything worthwhile (not likely this evening), anyone's free to take it and use it for whatever they want. Once that "Enter" key is hit or the "Submit" button is clicked on, I figure it's in the public domain, for better or worse -- which is why I don't post first drafts of anything on message boards.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 10, 1999.