Anatomy of a Thief
Craig David Horton
question. I wouldn't want to put something online about someone
without giving them a chance to defend themselves, although in this
case there is no plausible defense.
This is in reference to a site named "The Smiths of Staten Island"
whose webmaster is purported to be Johnathan Mark Smith Web Designer /
Internet Consultant at smi...@walrus.com
Now anyone who has been online for any period of time is familiar with
Matt's Script Archive located at http://worldwidemart.com/scripts
Matt's Script is one of the most respected source for CGI scripts.
Anyhow, Johnathan Mark Smith Web Thief / Internet Crook has taken
Matt's work and made a few modifications (renamed variables is
basically all he had done without adding any further value to the
scripts) and is distributing them WITHOUT Matt's name and has placed
his own name as the original author. The entire catalog of Matt's
altered scripts can be found at http://www.walrus.com/~smithj/
This is outright unethical. I have emailed Johnathan Mark Smith and
have received no response. Several others have gone to his "guest
book" (which was also born from Matt's Script) and publicly outed the
guy. All he does is remove the bad entries and he leaves the entries
that praises "his" scripts.
Well Mr. Johnathan Mark Smith, I have a real eye-opener for you. We
publish a reputable page called htmlZine which has recently won an
entry in April's Off The Net page. We received this recognition for
contributing our OWN work online. You sir have just won our
recognition as our Thief of the Net award and this newsgroup article
is going to hold it's place within the htmlZine so all who visit the
zine will know about you.
But there's more Mr. Smith! We are taking this forgery of yours one
step further and this article will soon grace the databases of almost
every search engine on the Internet. This article will be contained
within an .html file for all the search engines to pick up that now
visit our site.
This type of outright theft must be addressed and handled on the
Internet. I can assure you that your decision to steal Matt's script
and call it your own will not go unnoticed on the Internet. When I am
through ..... Jonathan Mark Smith will be the shining example of what
someone should not do when going online with a website.
You have made a decision you will soon regret. You can find a copy of
this article entitled "Anatomy of a Thief" at
http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
Craig David Horton
DBasic Software Company
Publisher of the htmlZine
Member of the HTML Writers Guild
Host of the Western United States FAQ
http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html
Craig David Horton
>cho...@dbasic.com (Craig David Horton) wrote:
<snip> No need repeating it!
I am following up on the previous article posted. Before doing so I
wanted to say that we really didn't want to have to do what we did in
outing Mr. Smith. We felt compelled to do so only because of the
increasingly disregard by others in recognizing intellectual property
rights and the fact that Mr. Smith had disregarded other attempts of
resolve. We distribute our "original" and original author "modified"
scripts freely. We don't want our scripts stripped of our names or
the original authors we have recognized.
Now, the good news. The scripts in question have been removed since
the appearance of this post and our article entitled "Mr. Smith -
Anatomy of a Web Thief" which appeared at .......
<URL:http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/index.html>.
Since posting this a couple of questions had arisen which I want to
address publicly for others to read. First, since Mr. Smith hasn't
commented on this, I wish to pass on what transpired privately.
********************************************************************************
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:42:34 -0400
From: Johnathan Smith
To: cho...@dbasic.com
Subject: Webcan - Johnathan Mark Smith
WebCan is not build by Johnathan Mark Smith the WebCan man running
Webcan was renting space and a e-mail address from me. Al so 4-15-96
the WebCan is taken off The Smiths Of Staten Island. Please remove the
News message about the Smiths of Staten Island. If did not do anything
wroung we was only renting space!!! - Johnathan Mark Smith
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:45:04 -0400
From: cho...@dbasic.com
To: Johnathan Smith
Subject: Webcan - Johnathan Mark Smith
I can post a retraction to an extent. I can take back that Mr. Smith
is a thief. But to do this you will have to PUBLICLY out your
customer. Your customer has screwed you over.
You need to explain who this customer is other than WebCan for us to
retract our accusation against you. Your allowing Mr. X to use your
email address has left you open to accusations that are not without
merit. Attempts were made in bringing this to your attention for you
to take action prior to our having to do this. We don't like this.
This is not what we are about. But what your customer has done is
becoming more and more of a problem on the Internet and us being in a
position of limited influence has prompted us to take the first step
in stopping theft on the Internet.
We will work with you and will even endorse your integrity online. But
someone's name must take a hard fall in what is an apparent violation
of ethics. - DBasic Software Company
********************************************************************************
Now to answer the questions that have arisen:
Q: Why are you defending Matt's Script? Why not let Matt Wright fight
his own battle?
A: This isn't about Matt's Script. This is about anyone who takes
something from one person, makes simple changes and then passes it as
their own without giving the original author any credit. This is
about anyone who places "free" script online and has it's intellectual
value stolen.
Q: Why put all this in the public arena? Why not handle it privately
with the guy?
A: First I tried handling it privately. Secondly, unless we start
outing those who are flagrantly violating intellectual rights, the
practice will become even more of problem. Similar to this censorship
issue with the U.S. Governent. Are we going to start handling the
problem ourselves or shall we let governments who haven't a clue step
in and fight our battles. And Third, it worked! The scripts have
since been removed.
Q: Why waste productive time chasing after those who steal online.
A: Why not! Minutes spent now will save hours later. Besides, this
not only took obviously stolen scripts offline, but I think other Mr.
Smith's out there will think twice before seeing their names outed
publicly.
Now in case some are wondering what "Intellectual Property" rights
were violated, here's a snipet of the codes. Basically all that
occurred in the transferring of the scripts authorship was renaming of
the variables.
TIP: If you're going to steal something don't be so obviously stupid
and spend more time on restructuring the script if you don't want to
get caught. :-)
> Matt's WWWBoard Script - This is an older version which has since been
> updated with items that are reflected in Mr. Smith's script below.
>
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl
> ###########################################################################
> # WWWBoard
> # Version 2.0 ALPHA 2
> # Created by Matt Wright
> # Created on: 10/21/95 Last Modified on: 11/25/95
> # I can be reached at: ma...@xtc.net
> # Scripts Found at: http://worldwidemart.com/scripts/
> ###########################################################################
> # Define Variables
>
> $basedir = "/path/to/wwwboard";
> $baseurl = "http://your.host.xxx/wwwboard";
> $cgi_url = "http://your.host.xx/cgi-bin/wwwboard.pl";
>
> $mesgdir = "messages";
> $datafile = "data.txt";
> $mesgfile = "wwwboard.html";
> $faqfile = "faq.html";
>
> $ext = "html";
>
> $title = "WWWBoard Version 2.0 Test";
>
> ###########################################################################
Mr. Smith's Version: The Stolen Script
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> #############################################################
> # Program: WebCan Message Centre
> #
> # Version: 1.1
> # Author: WebCan
> # Tech. Sup.: WebCan (smi...@walrus.com)
> # Created on: 3/30/96
> #
> # Copyright: You can freely copy and use
> # without modification
> #############################################################
> # H I S T O R Y
> # Version: Date:
> # 1.1 - Fix Security hole 4/5/96
> #############################################################
> #-----------------------------------------------------------#
> # Necessary Variables #
> #-----------------------------------------------------------#
> $homedir = "/home/smithj/public_html/webcan/tech";
> $yoururl = "http://www.walrus.com/~smithj/webcan/tech";
> $cgi_url = "http://www.walrus.com/~smithj/webcan/tech/msgcentr.cgi";
>
> $msgdir = "messages";
> $next_num_file = "nextnum.txt";
> $msgfile = "msgcentr.html";
>
> $ext = "html";
>
> $title = "WebCan Message Centre (Rel 1.0)";
> #############################################################
> # MODIFICATION OR ADAPATION BELOW THIS LINE IS PROHIBITED
> # BY THE COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT
> #############################################################
> require "cgi-lib.pl";
Steve Palincsar
J.M. Ivler
Steve Sloan
>
>
>>cho...@dbasic.com (Craig David Horton) wrote:
><snip> No need repeating it!
>
>I am following up on the previous article posted. Before doing so I
>wanted to say that we really didn't want to have to do what we did in
A question I have is: what is an "acceptable" usage of scripts such
as Matt's? FOr example, I am right now (even as we speak!) modifying
his "wwwboard.pl" for one of my clients. In the body of the script, I
have carefully noted all my modifications (mostly for my own sake, but
just in case anyone who inherits it has a question too). I am keeping
all the header info intact (Matt's (C) notice, etc). Is this sufficient?
I freely use other people's scripts, and I also contribute my own scripts
to various listservs gratis. All I ask for is my name and e-mail attached
to the script.
I'm wondering if there are some guidelines for this that I may (as well
as many others, in all likelihood) may be missing?
Any pointers would be appreciated.
Steve Sloan
Craig David Horton
>So why not sue the guy for copyright infrigements?
Let me guess .... You're a lawyer? :-)
Why sue? This isn't about getting revenge or compensation. This is
about having people do the right thing. Nothing more. There are
cases where a lawsuit may be appropriate. But the statement I am
making is why put anyone in a position to have to take legal action.
Why not just act like responsible webmasters and let the lawyers do
what lawyers do best ... chase ambulances. (Sorry to any lawyers out
there reading this. I guess I let my true colors show).
Craig David Horton
>stvs...@longbow.com (Steve Sloan) wrote:
>A question I have is: what is an "acceptable" usage of scripts such
>as Matt's? FOr example, I am right now (even as we speak!) modifying
>his "wwwboard.pl" for one of my clients. In the body of the script, I
>have carefully noted all my modifications (mostly for my own sake, but
>just in case anyone who inherits it has a question too). I am keeping
>all the header info intact (Matt's (C) notice, etc). Is this sufficient?
I can't speak for Matt's Script, but I would assume that recognizing
him is sufficient enough.
Most of us put our work online for others to use freely. We state
that and we really don't expect nothing in return. But we, and you,
expect recognition for the work we contribute. Recognition doesn't
have to come in the form of a Times Square billboard. Just mention of
the name and email address should be sufficient.
It's apparent that you, Steve Sloan, doesn't even come close to being
a Mr. Smith. (For others with the last name of Smith out there, I'm
sorry about any reference you may feel this holds. The Mr. Smith in
question knows who we are talking about)
>I freely use other people's scripts, and I also contribute my own scripts
>to various listservs gratis. All I ask for is my name and e-mail attached
>to the script.
And that should be respected. If someone can't give you that much,
they are parasitic. In the case of Mr. Smith's WebCan, it was a
classic case of a parasite feeding off of the work of others. Sounds
harsh but it's pure Webster.
Parasite = A person who lives at others' expense without making any
useful return.
>I'm wondering if there are some guidelines for this that I may (as well
>as many others, in all likelihood) may be missing?
Guidelines? I'm sure there are some. But the best guidelines one can
follow is ...simple mutual respect towards others and just a bit of
common sense.
I hope I'm not scarying people into not "improving" and "modifying"
scripts for their own use? This thread of articles is directed at
those who are outright thieves and they know what they are doing is
wrong. One's conscience should be all that is needed in guiding them
in this matter.
Take our htmlZine for example! It had it's beginnings as Matt's
WWWBoard. You wouldn't hardly be able to tell because of all the
modifications I have made with it, but it has it's roots with Matt's
Script. But you don't see this mentioned anywhere in the htmlZine.
Why? Why should it? I have not placed the script in the domain for
others to use. Using a script without giving credit is not the same
as reproducing it and distributing it under a different author's name.
At one point I will be distributing the script for the htmlZine.
About 10% of the script maintains the original WWWBoard script and
when I do release the Zine's script, it will give recognition of it's
roots. Why? Simple ol' fashioned mutual respect.
But there's a problem with all this. I have a stronger constitution
than some. As a Clipper programmer, I am all to aware of others who
feed off others' labors. What's sad is that there are people out
there that have no conscience and thus common sense doesn't apply.
It is because of this that there are lawyers. Could you imagine a
world without the need of lawyers? Gawd what a concept.
Craig David Horton
>Steve Palincsar <pali...@nicom.com> wrote:
>>So why not sue the guy for copyright infrigements?
After receiving emails saying this is a copyright thing and should be
treated as such, I feel compelled to clarify something here. We are
not talking about copyright infringement perse'. Here's an excerpt
from Matt's Guest Book READ.ME file:
"Distribute this freely, but please leave my name and address
somewhere in it. Not necessarily in the Guestbook, but somewhere in
the script. I cannot guarantee the safety or integrity of this
package, I only did my best. It is being used many places and people
seem to like it."
Now if you want to get technical, it could be construed as a copyright
violation, but that's not Matt's Script is about. It's about giving
others his script FREELY and only asking recognition in return.
And it's about others LIKE ME who have benefited so much from Matt's
Script to give something back to him in defending his work online.
Therefore when someone like Mr. Smith doesn't abide by this simple
request ..... he can expect to feel nothing more than peer pressure
within his own community to cease. Sometimes peer pressure can be as
effective as the F. Lee Baileys but a tad easier on the pocketbooks.
That's what this is all about.
John Matusiak
Craig David Horton
><SNIP>
>This is in reference to a site named "The Smiths of Staten Island"
>whose webmaster is purported to be Johnathan Mark Smith Web Designer /
>Internet Consultant at smi...@walrus.com
This is the final posting we are going to be making concerning this
particular incident. After having spoke to "The Smiths of Staten
Island" over the phone for about an hour this evening an understanding
had been reached concerning the subject of this article.
This whole thing was a simple misunderstanding about who maintains
rights to intellectual property. That although Matt's Script is
distributed freely, it shouldn't be modified (without substantial
modifications) and redistributed under another author's name. "The
Smiths of Staten Island" were not fully aware of the impact this has
on the integrity of the Internet's community.
I'm not going to rehash what I have already said in previous posts
about mutual respect and all. I just wanted to clear the air in
saying that "The Smiths of Staten Island" now feel this to be a more
serious matter than first perceived. I personally feel they are
sincere in clearing up the mistakes made and now it's time to move
forward. I'm sure others will join with me in letting bygones be
bygones.
In closing I want to say that this article did serve a purpose and
will hopefully stand as reminder to others that you just can't take
someone else's intellectual property (whether it's a web page or CGI
script) ... make a few modifications and call it your own.
Chris Gray
> A question I have is: what is an "acceptable" usage of scripts such
> as Matt's? FOr example, I am right now (even as we speak!) modifying
> his "wwwboard.pl" for one of my clients. In the body of the script, I
> have carefully noted all my modifications (mostly for my own sake, but
> just in case anyone who inherits it has a question too). I am keeping
> all the header info intact (Matt's (C) notice, etc). Is this sufficient?
>
> I freely use other people's scripts, and I also contribute my own scripts
> to various listservs gratis. All I ask for is my name and e-mail attached
> to the script.
>
> I'm wondering if there are some guidelines for this that I may (as well
> as many others, in all likelihood) may be missing?
>
> Any pointers would be appreciated.
The best way to protect software from being hijacked by air-sellers,
whilst keeping it freely distributable, is to put it under the GNU
Public Licence (GPL for short). (Presumably Matt didn't do this, or
else you'd already have the pointer you seek).
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray Chris...@bcs.org.uk Compuserve: 100065,2102
http://plato.digiweb.com/kiffer/chris_gray/
__________________________________________________________________________
I R A Aggie
+ I'm not going to rehash what I have already said in previous posts
+ about mutual respect and all. I just wanted to clear the air in
+ saying that "The Smiths of Staten Island" now feel this to be a more
+ serious matter than first perceived. I personally feel they are
+ sincere in clearing up the mistakes made and now it's time to move
+ forward. I'm sure others will join with me in letting bygones be
+ bygones.
So, are you going to retract your accusations of theivery?
James
--
#!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa
2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print
pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n)&~1)/2)
Craig David Horton
>stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
>So, are you going to retract your accusations of thievery?
No, I am not. The person I had accussed was not the individual who
had "stolen" the intellectual property, but the person I had accussed
was the catalyst in getting the purported thief offline.
The person I had accussed had been sub-providing web space to the
actual thief, which is WebCan. Unfortunately the sub provider "The
Smith's of Staten Island" were caught in the middle. Their customer,
WebCan, refused to address the problem and thus I was forced to put
pressure on "The Smith's of Staten Island" to act.
Now this has opened a whole new question for webmasters that is
actually becoming a common problem. Who maintains responsibility for
what one puts online? More and more people are acting as
sub-providers on the Internet. Unless we address this question,
you'll start seeing someone's government stepping in trying to
regulate this area. Sound familiar?
This is a growing area of the Internet that outright thieves are
utilizing to host their dishonest intentions. An analogy of this is a
dishonest mail order company that will use Mail Boxes Etc. instead of
using the U.S. Postal Service to host their P.O. Boxes. It "looks"
like they have a "real" post office box when in reality they are using
someone else to deliver their ill-intentions. Today, a sub-provider
is the online version of the snail mail Mail Boxes, etc. And thieves
know this.
Personally, I held the "The Smith's of Staten Island" responsible for
hosting the obvious theft of the cgi scripts. And they took
responsibility and showed integrity by kicking WebCan off their site.
Now it appears that WebCan has contracted with someone else and has
intentions to continuing the distribution of these scripts with a
different sub-provider (more to come when I know the "facts").
I want to make a public statement about the "The Smith's of Staten
Island" <URL:http://www.walrus.com/~smithj>
Johnathan Smith did a dumb thing about posting "The weekend is coming"
posts in the CGI newsgroup. He has learned from his mistake as I had
early in my newsgroup postings. They were ignorant to the impact of
what their customer was doing online and has since decided that
integrity online was more valuable than their customer.
Frankly, because of my "public" appeal for action, lines of
communication had open up that were previously closed. Not just with
the "The Smith's of Staten Island" and I, but also many others who are
now aware of an increasingly bigger problem than was previously
thought. There are many WebCans out there that are outright stealing
others' intellectual property. Peer Pressure is the quickest form of
justice on the Internet.
Damage to the reputation of the "The Smith's of Staten Island"?
Although I made strong accusations against them in the beginning, I
now applaud them for the integrity they showed in their actions in
removing the scripts. There is nothing wrong in reversing one's
opinion. The objective was served (removing of the scripts) and
hightened awareness about the problem was achieved.
I spoke to Johnathan Mark Smith this morning on the telephone. Really
a nice and sincere person. He stated because of my actions, hits to
his site have been in the thousands over the last couple of days. I
think in the long run, his decision to can WebCan as a client will
reap him more clients in WebCans place.
I guess the next question is whether this form of "Web Justice" is
appropriate. The finger was pointed at the wrong man but did "The
Smith's of Staten Island" have a responsibility for what their
customer placed on their site? Do we have the right to publicly force
this issue into the foreground?
We have placed this thread of articles on our web site in the htmlZine
under the caption of "Anatomy of a Thief". Many have commented in it
that it's about time this is coming to light? What do you think and
what should others do in the future when intellectual material (CGI
scripts, web pages, graphics) are taken and "recycled" as their own?
Legal recourse should always be the last option. There are other
methods of web justice available before the lengthy and costly
alternative to legal litigation. Peer pressure worked in this case.
Should we try using Peer Pressure more before taking legal action.
Keep in mind that before Peer Pressure SHOULD BE private attempts in
communication. We didn't just come out and point fingers. We made
several attempts of contacting WebCan privately first.
What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
someone else's work.
Craig David Horton
DBasic Software Company
Publisher of the htmlZine
Member of the HTML Writers Guild
Host of the Western United States FAQ
http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/index.html
George Stripling Jr.
>>stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
>>So, are you going to retract your accusations of thievery?
>
>No, I am not. ...
...<snip>...
...yadda yadda yadda...
...<snip>...
>Craig David Horton
>DBasic Software Company
>Publisher of the htmlZine
>Member of the HTML Writers Guild
>Host of the Western United States FAQ
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/index.html
It's a good thing the original creators of the web - tcp/ip, html, etc..
were not as worried about "intellectual property" as Craig.
I thought HTML was about making information available in a standard form
for all to see, use, and in turn share again.
--
George Stripling Jr. <gds...@edge.net> / PGP Key ID F6A2CA2D
http://edge.edge.net/~gdstrip
Youth is a gift of nature, age is a work of art.
I R A Aggie
+ >stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
+ >So, are you going to retract your accusations of thievery?
+ No, I am not. The person I had accussed was not the individual who
+ had "stolen" the intellectual property, but the person I had accussed
+ was the catalyst in getting the purported thief offline.
So, you admit that you have libeled someone's good name? I'll have
to keep that in mind...
+ WebCan, refused to address the problem and thus I was forced to put
+ pressure on "The Smith's of Staten Island" to act.
No one forced you to. This is one of Matt's scripts. Let Matt
persue the matter. Or are you his representative in this matter?
Inquiring minds want to know.
+ Now this has opened a whole new question for webmasters that is
+ actually becoming a common problem. Who maintains responsibility for
+ what one puts online? More and more people are acting as
+ sub-providers on the Internet. Unless we address this question,
+ you'll start seeing someone's government stepping in trying to
+ regulate this area. Sound familiar?
Yes. But what do you expect of a government that's concerned with
saving us from ourselves??? Perhaps, tho, the telcomm bill recently
signed provides an answer - isn't the ISP responsible for all material
on their site?
Does that make *any* sense?
No. The person responsible is the one who put the material on
the web. Or do you want the person running the site to be responsible
for everything on their machine?
D*mn, there's that "personal responsibility" thing again.
+ This is a growing area of the Internet that outright thieves are
+ utilizing to host their dishonest intentions. An analogy of this is a
+ dishonest mail order company that will use Mail Boxes Etc. instead of
+ using the U.S. Postal Service to host their P.O. Boxes. It "looks"
+ like they have a "real" post office box when in reality they are using
+ someone else to deliver their ill-intentions. Today, a sub-provider
+ is the online version of the snail mail Mail Boxes, etc. And thieves
+ know this.
This analogy is really lacking. The USPS will rent "real" post boxes
to anyone with the rent...
+ Frankly, because of my "public" appeal for action, lines of
+ communication had open up that were previously closed.
Uh, if memory serves, you never tried private communications. I would
give you a instant replay of your original post, but you've issued
a cancel on it, so I can't say one way or the other...
+ Damage to the reputation of the "The Smith's of Staten Island"?
+ Although I made strong accusations against them in the beginning, I
+ now applaud them for the integrity they showed in their actions in
+ removing the scripts.
But you haven't retracted the accusation. You've admitted that they
where not at fault. This is libelous. That *is* actionable.
+ I guess the next question is whether this form of "Web Justice" is
+ appropriate. The finger was pointed at the wrong man but did "The
+ Smith's of Staten Island" have a responsibility for what their
+ customer placed on their site? Do we have the right to publicly force
+ this issue into the foreground?
You admit the finger was pointed at the wrong man, but what the hell
your sense of justice has been served.
I believe such behaviour can be termed "vigilantism".
+ We have placed this thread of articles on our web site in the htmlZine
+ under the caption of "Anatomy of a Thief".
Perhaps the proper caption is "Anatomy of Libel".
+ Many have commented in it
+ that it's about time this is coming to light? What do you think and
+ what should others do in the future when intellectual material (CGI
+ scripts, web pages, graphics) are taken and "recycled" as their own?
+ Legal recourse should always be the last option.
Here would be my steps:
1. privately communicate with the individual an attempt to reach
a settlement
2. if that fails, take the matter up with the person's ISP, privately.
3. if that fails, take the matter up with the ISP's provider.
4. if that fails, time to talk to a lawyer.
The way I get around that is to not put anything I consider overly
valuable on the net/web/what-have-you.
+ Keep in mind that before Peer Pressure SHOULD BE private attempts in
+ communication. We didn't just come out and point fingers. We made
+ several attempts of contacting WebCan privately first.
That's not the way I read it...but I can't disprove you, either...
+ What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
+ our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
+ justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
+ someone else's work.
Perhaps that's what you want to do.
Personally, I'd rather have the rule of law than the rule of the mob.
Craig David Horton
>In article <4l3p6t$5...@news2.cais.com>, cho...@dbasic.com wrote:
>So, you admit that you have libeled someone's good name?
No I didn't libel someone's good name. As a webmaster, you are
responsible for material on your site, whether you place it there or a
customer of yours places it there, especially when they use your email
address.
> I'll have to keep that in mind...
Go right ahead and keep that in mind.
>No one forced you to. This is one of Matt's scripts. Let Matt
>persue the matter. Or are you his representative in this matter?
>Inquiring minds want to know.
Well being so you want to turn this into the National Enquirer ....
"THANKS! Keep me posted if you see them pop up." - from Matt Wright
(Matt's Script) to DBasics Software Company 4/17/96
>No. The person responsible is the one who put the material on
>the web. Or do you want the person running the site to be responsible
>for everything on their machine?
I think a webmaster should be responsible for what's on his/her site.
The site in question was told about the "theft" and no action was
taken until it was made public.
>D*mn, there's that "personal responsibility" thing again.
Bravo! You're catching on. Now "keep that in mind"
>This analogy is really lacking. The USPS will rent "real" post boxes
>to anyone with the rent...
You obviously don't have one. It requires an I.D. and a street
address which was verified against the I.D.
What's lacking is your tearing apart an idea that holds merit.
>Uh, if memory serves, you never tried private communications. I would
>give you a instant replay of your original post, but you've issued
>a cancel on it, so I can't say one way or the other...
Better check that memory then. I cancelled the original post out of
respect to the webmaster that took action after me making it public.
There's no sense in continually dragging his name through the dirt
because of a client of his. It took a public notice to get their
attention finally and when the results were achieved there was no
sense in letting the post stay online.
>But you haven't retracted the accusation. You've admitted that they
>where not at fault. This is libelous. That *is* actionable.
"Actionable" , "Libelous"? Get over it. They knew they had stolen
scripts on their site and they didn't do anything about it until
someone went public in the newsgroups and the web. You have said not
one word about their actions ... or lack of. Do you support "Web
Thiefs"?
>You admit the finger was pointed at the wrong man, but what the hell
>your sense of justice has been served.
>I believe such behaviour can be termed "vigilantism".
Call it what you want. I got results and sent a clear message to
others. This was not something that just occurred overnight.
Attempts at communication were made. Several hours of examining
hundreds of lines of code were spent. Advice was sought from others
on what action to take. Action was Taken and Results were Achieved.
"The Smiths of Staten Island" have no complaints over what I did.
They seem to understand what has occurred. I spoke to both the Mr.
and Mrs over the phone for several hours since all this occurred.
There seems to be no misunderstanding or hard feeling from them.
What's your baggage?
>
>+ We have placed this thread of articles on our web site in the htmlZine
>+ under the caption of "Anatomy of a Thief".
>Perhaps the proper caption is "Anatomy of Libel".
Well then why don't you put "Anatomy of Libel" on your site and be
sure you get my name right ... Craig David Horton and the Company is
DBasics Software Company.
>Here would be my steps:
>1. privately communicate with the individual an attempt to reach
> a settlement
Did It, Done It, Several attempts were made and no response received.
>2. if that fails, take the matter up with the person's ISP, privately.
Did It, Done It, WebCan was a customer of "The Smiths of Staten
Island".
>3. if that fails, take the matter up with the ISP's provider.
Didn't Need To Do It, results were achieved and I didn't have to take
it any further.
>4. if that fails, time to talk to a lawyer.
See, things can be resolved without always running to a lawyer. You
started thinking from Step 4 and worked your way back. I started at
Step 1 and never made it to Step 3.
>The way I get around that is to not put anything I consider overly
>valuable on the net/web/what-have-you.
You don't have much original work then do you.
>+ Keep in mind that before Peer Pressure SHOULD BE private attempts in
>+ communication. We didn't just come out and point fingers. We made
>+ several attempts of contacting WebCan privately first.
>That's not the way I read it...but I can't disprove you, either...
For what? So called Libel? Read above. I'll even link your "Anatomy
of a Libel" article to the htmlZine. I would include what you stated
in this article but you have nothing more than a bunch of one-liners.
>
>+ What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
>+ our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
>+ justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
>+ someone else's work.
>Perhaps that's what you want to do.
Another one-liner with no substance.
>Personally, I'd rather have the rule of law than the rule of the mob.
Well you don't have to worry about that considering you stated you put
nothing "overly valuable" online right?
James, I tossed out an idea. You toss back criticism without merit
but a bunch of one-liners. Now I see why you would need to go to a
lawyer. Coming from a state that issues justice through a video
camera I see your objection to direct confrontation.
DISCUSSION CLOSED!
Anthony Boyd
> What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
> our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
> justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
> someone else's work.
I think it's interesting that the people at dbasic -- which has taken a
huge number of posts from newsgroups and reprinted them on the htmlZine
Web site -- would be concerned about intellectual rights and copyrights.
Rick Brown, Craig Horton, Ross Carlson, Jeff Kester, Lili Crawford, Brian
Kehs, Will Mego, Jani Pertilla, Constance Fawcett, Anastassios Retzios,
Eric Lyons, John Singleton, Adonis Pointer -- did any of you receive
notice that your posts are now articles in htmlZine? I don't remember
being informed.
htmlZine has taken a post I made here months ago and put it up as an
article on the WWW site -- without my permission, far as I can remember.
Someone ELSE does essentially the same thing with one of Matt's scripts,
and suddenly htmlZine is concerned about "intellectual material"?
I am curious to hear htmlZine's response.
__________Anthony Boyd: whi...@zoom.com____________________________
| Scream Press AMERICA: http://www.zoom.com/~whisper/ |
| Scream Press EUROPE: http://www.jsp.fi/~whisper/ |
|_____________Freelance: http://www.zoom.com/~whisper/webmaker.html__|
I R A Aggie
+ stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
+
+ >In article <4l3p6t$5...@news2.cais.com>, cho...@dbasic.com wrote:
+ >So, you admit that you have libeled someone's good name?
+
+ No I didn't libel someone's good name. As a webmaster, you are
+ responsible for material on your site, whether you place it there or a
+ customer of yours places it there, especially when they use your email
+ address.
Well, if they're using one's email address, then, yes, one becomes
responsible. I'll give you that much.
+ >No one forced you to. This is one of Matt's scripts. Let Matt
+ >persue the matter. Or are you his representative in this matter?
+
+ >Inquiring minds want to know.
+
+ Well being so you want to turn this into the National Enquirer ....
Just curious as to your interest in this matter...
+ "THANKS! Keep me posted if you see them pop up." - from Matt Wright
+ (Matt's Script) to DBasics Software Company 4/17/96
I wanted to know what motive you had in all this. Did you have
a commercial interest in this, or just as a "good usenetter"?
Such information may be of use...
"Keep me posted if you see them pop up" is a bit vague. Context?
what/who is "them"? the scripts? WebCan? and how do you go from
"Keep me posted" to "Go ahead and take action against them"??!!
+ >No. The person responsible is the one who put the material on
+ >the web. Or do you want the person running the site to be responsible
+ >for everything on their machine?
+ I think a webmaster should be responsible for what's on his/her site.
+ The site in question was told about the "theft" and no action was
+ taken until it was made public.
There's this concept of "due process". The wheels of justice turn slowly,
but they do turn.
+ >D*mn, there's that "personal responsibility" thing again.
+
+ Bravo! You're catching on. Now "keep that in mind"
I always do.
+ >This analogy is really lacking. The USPS will rent "real" post boxes
+ >to anyone with the rent...
+ You obviously don't have one. It requires an I.D. and a street
+ address which was verified against the I.D.
Well, you know, Traci Lords had a valid drivers license, and US
passport, but was still underage when doing porn. If she can put
a bogus Date of Birth past the DL Division, I think I can get a
bogus street address past them, too.
+ >Uh, if memory serves, you never tried private communications. I would
+ >give you a instant replay of your original post, but you've issued
+ >a cancel on it, so I can't say one way or the other...
+ Better check that memory then. I cancelled the original post out of
+ respect to the webmaster that took action after me making it public.
+ There's no sense in continually dragging his name through the dirt
+ because of a client of his. It took a public notice to get their
+ attention finally and when the results were achieved there was no
+ sense in letting the post stay online.
But you still haven't retracted your charge of theft against that
webmaster. Since you haven't, the charge must be valid, yes? then
there's no sense in canceling the post...
+ >But you haven't retracted the accusation. You've admitted that they
+ >where not at fault. This is libelous. That *is* actionable.
+ "Actionable" , "Libelous"? Get over it. They knew they had stolen
+ scripts on their site and they didn't do anything about it until
+ someone went public in the newsgroups and the web. You have said not
+ one word about their actions ... or lack of.
Well, that's because this is about *you* and *your* actions.
+ Do you support "Web Thiefs"?
No. But on the other hand, if I leave my car running, lights on and
drivers side door open, I've made things a *lot* easier for a car
thief. The web is a *lot* like that. Especially if you place images
and scripts in positions to be downloaded.
One shouldn't be too suprised when someone else downloads/takes/steals
your material and claims it as their own...
+ >You admit the finger was pointed at the wrong man, but what the hell
+ >your sense of justice has been served.
+ >I believe such behaviour can be termed "vigilantism".
+
+ Call it what you want. I got results and sent a clear message to
+ others.
A spade is a spade. Only message I got is that you're willing to
run roughshod over people.
+ What's your baggage?
Wait?! Is this the National Enquirer??
Words have meanings. A thief is someone untrustworthy. I don't want
to deal with anyone untrustworthy. But then you say this was a bit
of a misunderstanding over property rights and wrongs. That once they
understood, they took action. But you still haven't retracted the
original accusation.
Call me confused...are they a den of thieves or not?
You also offend my sense of justice. If they are thieves, then so
be it. Don't deal with them. Apply justice fitting the crime. But
if they are not thieves, then retract the charge!
+ >+ We have placed this thread of articles on our web site in the htmlZine
+ >+ under the caption of "Anatomy of a Thief".
+
+ >Perhaps the proper caption is "Anatomy of Libel".
+
+ Well then why don't you put "Anatomy of Libel" on your site and be
+ sure you get my name right ... Craig David Horton and the Company is
+ DBasics Software Company.
Well, I wouldn't want to violate your property rights...
+ See, things can be resolved without always running to a lawyer. You
+ started thinking from Step 4 and worked your way back. I started at
+ Step 1 and never made it to Step 3.
You forgot step 2a: Make public charges.
+ >The way I get around that is to not put anything I consider overly
+ >valuable on the net/web/what-have-you.
+ You don't have much original work then do you.
You would dare to complain about my one liners? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
I won't bore you to list my original works, but I have works in the
Library of Congress. Do you?
But they have no commercial value, and thus much of the material in
those works *are* available on the web. If someone finds them to be
useful, then I am gratified.
+ >+ What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
+ >+ our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
+ >+ justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
+ >+ someone else's work.
+
+ >Perhaps that's what you want to do.
+
+ Another one-liner with no substance.
That's because the substance comes in the second line:
+ >Personally, I'd rather have the rule of law than the rule of the mob.
I take it that you have problems with this concept?
+ Well you don't have to worry about that considering you stated you put
+ nothing "overly valuable" online right?
That's right. Just like I don't leave my wallet out in the open where
just *anyone* can come by and pilfer it...
+ James, I tossed out an idea. You toss back criticism without merit
+ but a bunch of one-liners.
I raised objections. You have this idea that web justice can be obtained.
I worry that web justice will become mob rule. How do you plan to
avoid that? Who will be the arbriter of what is and isn't a "web
crime"? will there be an appeal mechanism or arbritration?
What will you do to people who make false accusations?
We have institutions that have been dealing with such incidents
of discord between citizens for over 200 years. They have experience
and expertise in the area. And both sides get to tell their side of
the story.
But suddenly that's not good enough??
+ Now I see why you would need to go to a
+ lawyer. Coming from a state that issues justice through a video
+ camera I see your objection to direct confrontation.
Well, at least our cops don't generally beat the crap out of us...
+ DISCUSSION CLOSED!
Ahhhhhhh...and I was just starting to enjoy this...
J.M. Ivler
: In article <4l3p6t$5...@news2.cais.com>, cho...@dbasic.com wrote:
:
: > What we need to do is talk about web theft, define web theft, refine
: > our actions towards it and then implement the quickest form of web
: > justice available to us to make others think twice before stealing
: > someone else's work.
:
: I think it's interesting that the people at dbasic -- which has taken a
: huge number of posts from newsgroups and reprinted them on the htmlZine
: Web site -- would be concerned about intellectual rights and copyrights.
: Rick Brown, Craig Horton, Ross Carlson, Jeff Kester, Lili Crawford, Brian
: Kehs, Will Mego, Jani Pertilla, Constance Fawcett, Anastassios Retzios,
: Eric Lyons, John Singleton, Adonis Pointer -- did any of you receive
: notice that your posts are now articles in htmlZine? I don't remember
: being informed.
I never thought I would be coming to dbasic's defense, but...
Anthony, this is a different issue. When you publish on the net, if I
give you proper attribution to your work and republish it, am I doing
anything more than a "compilation" of work issued to the public domain. I
haven't taken ownership of the work, just pulled it together into a
cohesive form. If I add original work to it, then I can take credit for
the work as a whole, but not the individual parts that made it up.
This is a sticky issue, and it has been one in publishing for any number
of years. The question, as I remember it being put, was what was the
compensation for the authors of the original work or the compiled work. I
am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in this case I seem to
rememeber that compensation was the issue, not the ability to reprint as
attribution had been kept.
: htmlZine has taken a post I made here months ago and put it up as an
: article on the WWW site -- without my permission, far as I can remember.
I'm sure you could ask for it to be taken down, but then dbasic could
just as easily put a url to it's location in dejanews :-)
: Someone ELSE does essentially the same thing with one of Matt's scripts,
: and suddenly htmlZine is concerned about "intellectual material"?
Um, big difference here. If I put a copy of an attributed posting into a
compilation work, and maintain the attribution, then I haven't even come
close to doing what was done with Matts work. If I remove attributions
and claim your posting as mine, then we are getting much closer. If I
then modify say 10 lines of your posting and claim it as mine, then we
are very close to what was done with Matts work.
Matt created something for people to use, and gave it away for free. That
doesn't give anyone the right to use that work to make money from it
without giving Matt his fair share, or permit someone to take ownership
for the work of another.
Craig David Horton
>I wanted to know what motive you had in all this. Did you have
>a commercial interest in this, or just as a "good usenetter"?
>Such information may be of use...
You see NO commercial venture attached to the htmlZine. NONE! You'll
see no advertisements or mention that we are consultants, web
developers, web designers.
We decided to publish an online newsletter of sorts that takes various
issues and articles from the comp.infosystems.www.authoring newsgroups
and make something structured out of them.
Motivation? If I only put the "good" parts of web development online
I would be guilty of not covering the entire gambit of web
development. Additionally, I have authored script that we, like
Matt's Script, give freely to others. Many of our scripts had their
beginnings with Matt Wright and recognition is given where recognition
is due.
>There's this concept of "due process". The wheels of justice turn slowly,
>but they do turn.
Depends on what you call justice. I put this form of justice to the
general public to make the decision. My publishing names didn't do
the job, it was the "peer pressure" that was instrumental in bringing
this form of justice to a good closing.
You are missing the other side of this. What if I was wrong about the
scripts in question? What if I accused a webmaster of harboring
stolen scripts on their site and I was wrong. It would have been me
that paid the price. I took a calculated risk with my pointing the
finger which could've backfired. Granted there will be those that
don't agree with my form of justice and that's their right. But the
bottom line was that the scripts are off-line. "The Smiths of Staten
Island" are satisfied, we are satisfied and so are many others that
have commented in support of this form of justice.
>Well, you know, Traci Lords had a valid drivers license, and US
>passport, but was still underage when doing porn. If she can put
>a bogus Date of Birth past the DL Division, I think I can get a
>bogus street address past them, too.
Don't degrade this issue to the level of porn movie stars. Anyone can
break the law and many can get away with it. Doesn't mean it's right.
The United States Postal Service requires a valid I.D. to rent a U.S.
P.O. Box. It is assumed that the person providing the I.D. is being
honest in providing proper ID. Those that use a false ID and break
U.S. Postal Laws ARE in violation of Federal Statutes and they do go
to Federal prison. The Feds don't take using a P.O. Box to commit
crimes very lightely. Just as we shouldn't be tolerant of scripts
being stolen and redistributed under different authorship.
>But you still haven't retracted your charge of theft against that
>webmaster. Since you haven't, the charge must be valid, yes? then
>there's no sense in canceling the post...
The Webmaster in question was allowing WebCan to use his email
address. I asked for the name of the person behind WebCan and the
webmaster choose to keep the identity private, which is his right in
client confidentiality. Therefore, the Webmaster choose to take the
"rap" for his customer's actions.
Keep in mind that damage has been done. There are Matt's Scripts out
there right now under a different name although the script's
distribution point has been removed. This is not an issue of me
retracting anything. Sounds like the old attitude of the accussed
has more rights than the victims is being expressed by you.
Fact is, I wasn't wrong. Now who has more rights here. The Webmaster
hosting the bad scripts ..... or Matt's Scripts, the victim?
>Well, that's because this is about *you* and *your* actions.
Right, the world evolves around Craig. Give me more credit than that.
Again, please enlighten us to my motivations here. Because you can't
see some alterior motive you accuse me of "using" this as an
opportunity of some sort.
>No. But on the other hand, if I leave my car running, lights on and
>drivers side door open, I've made things a *lot* easier for a car
>thief. The web is a *lot* like that. Especially if you place images
>and scripts in positions to be downloaded.
>One shouldn't be too suprised when someone else downloads/takes/steals
>your material and claims it as their own...
Yes they should! Because someone can be a thief doesn't mean we can
accept that as an occupational title. Just as in our society, the web
is giving the benefit of the doubt that all webmasters are acting
responsibly. If they don't, if they get caught, then there's a price
to be paid.
>A spade is a spade. Only message I got is that you're willing to
>run roughshod over people.
Steal and then roughshod it is. Zero Tolerance and I let the public
be the judge. I was only the prosecutor in this case.
>Wait?! Is this the National Enquirer??
Is it?
>Words have meanings. A thief is someone untrustworthy. I don't want
>to deal with anyone untrustworthy. But then you say this was a bit
>of a misunderstanding over property rights and wrongs. That once they
>understood, they took action. But you still haven't retracted the
>original accusation.
>Call me confused...are they a den of thieves or not?
They were until they were enlightened with reality. Ignorance was the
case here and my "motive" in continuing this thread is to bring less
ignorance into the web.
Again, Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity is decided ignorance.
Once the webmaster in question was made aware through public
condemnation, he choose not to continue into the realm of stupidity.
>You also offend my sense of justice. If they are thieves, then so
>be it. Don't deal with them. Apply justice fitting the crime. But
>if they are not thieves, then retract the charge!
Are you saying because the "The Smiths of Staten Island" FINALLY did
the right thing they should be persecuted still? They paid the price
for not responding to private pressure. But the end result was
achieved and I'm willing to let bygones-be-bygones. Why should I
apologize or retract anything? I did what I felt is right.
>Well, I wouldn't want to violate your property rights...
YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SLANDER US ANYWAY YOU SEE FIT ON YOUR
WEBSITE. Freedom of expression! Say anything about me you want.
Just don't take my work and call it yours.
>I won't bore you to list my original works, but I have works in the
>Library of Congress. Do you?
Oh, is this about my Dad is bigger than your Dad?
>Personally, I'd rather have the rule of law than the rule of the mob.
Are you calling public opinion and peer pressure "rule of the mob".
>That's right. Just like I don't leave my wallet out in the open where
>just *anyone* can come by and pilfer it...
Just because you leave your house unlocked doesn't give a thief the
right to come in and rob you blind. If you loose your wallet, it has
$10,000 in it with your I.D., it's stealing for someone to keep it
when they know who it belongs too.
>I raised objections. You have this idea that web justice can be obtained.
It was obtained.
>I worry that web justice will become mob rule. How do you plan to
>avoid that? Who will be the arbriter of what is and isn't a "web
>crime"? will there be an appeal mechanism or arbritration?
>What will you do to people who make false accusations?
The public will barbecue the one making the accusation.
>We have institutions that have been dealing with such incidents
>of discord between citizens for over 200 years. They have experience
>and expertise in the area. And both sides get to tell their side of
>the story.
They have expertise in making a living! How many innocent people have
gone to prison for not having the "dream team" in their defense.
Don't talk about our justice system to me. I brought justice on the
web to the people to make the decision.
>But suddenly that's not good enough??
When it would cost the victim to obtain justice, no that's not good
enough!
>Well, at least our cops don't generally beat the crap out of us...
Good point! The illegal aliens you all saw a couple of weeks ago were
running people off the road threatening lives. Once again we are more
worried about the criminals rights and not the victims. Yes there was
more force used than needed, but they were breaking the law and
threatening lives of innocent people. None of the illegals received
any physical harm that required hospitalization (although they were
taken there for their benefit). Rodney King? Frankly, it's a good
thing I wasn't holding one of those batons.
I work in South Central Los Angeles. You would be surprised to hear
that most who live here agree with my views. It's the opportunists
that you see rioting and objecting to the handling of the illegal
aliens.
>Ahhhhhhh...and I was just starting to enjoy this...
DISCUSSION OPEN! Shoot!
Craig David Horton
>I think it's interesting that the people at dbasic -- which has taken a
>huge number of posts from newsgroups and reprinted them on the htmlZine
>Web site -- would be concerned about intellectual rights and copyrights.
>Rick Brown, Craig Horton, Ross Carlson, Jeff Kester, Lili Crawford, Brian
>Kehs, Will Mego, Jani Pertilla, Constance Fawcett, Anastassios Retzios,
>Eric Lyons, John Singleton, Adonis Pointer -- did any of you receive
>notice that your posts are now articles in htmlZine? I don't remember
>being informed.
>htmlZine has taken a post I made here months ago and put it up as an
>article on the WWW site -- without my permission, far as I can remember.
>Someone ELSE does essentially the same thing with one of Matt's scripts,
>and suddenly htmlZine is concerned about "intellectual material"?
>I am curious to hear htmlZine's response.
Posts in the newsgroups are public domain. This however, doesn't mean
that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup. And I
haven't done that. I have put the htmlZine online in the same manner
as DejaNews operates but under a different format. I am perfectly
within my legal boundaries in doing this. See
<URL:http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen> for information on Web Law
by Oppedahl & Larson.
I didn't have to state the author's name and link them to their email
addresses. I could've reprinted the articles without recognitition to
the original authors. I gave the proper recognition to the authors
and considering you object, I'll gladly remove your contribution.
Jerry Kindall
>whi...@zoom.com (Anthony Boyd) wrote:
>
>>I think it's interesting that the people at dbasic -- which has taken a
>>huge number of posts from newsgroups and reprinted them on the htmlZine
>>Web site -- would be concerned about intellectual rights and copyrights.
>>Rick Brown, Craig Horton, Ross Carlson, Jeff Kester, Lili Crawford, Brian
>>Kehs, Will Mego, Jani Pertilla, Constance Fawcett, Anastassios Retzios,
>>Eric Lyons, John Singleton, Adonis Pointer -- did any of you receive
>>notice that your posts are now articles in htmlZine? I don't remember
>>being informed.
>
>>htmlZine has taken a post I made here months ago and put it up as an
>>article on the WWW site -- without my permission, far as I can remember.
>>Someone ELSE does essentially the same thing with one of Matt's scripts,
>>and suddenly htmlZine is concerned about "intellectual material"?
>
>>I am curious to hear htmlZine's response.
>
>Posts in the newsgroups are public domain.
A creative work is copyrighted by their creator unless its creator
specifically waives this right. Posting an article to Usenet grants
implicit permission to copy the article as necessary for the normal
distribution and reading of news, but it does not waive all copyrights.
In particular it does not necessarily give you the right to create a
compilation of what you consider the "best" articles. This process
involves editorial judgment, not merely mechanical distribution of the
article by news servers. In effect you are creating a derivative work
based on others' copyrighted works.
>This however, doesn't mean
>that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup.
If the postings were truly public-domain you could indeed sell them if you
wanted. Of course, the number of people who would pay for something
available freely elsewhere might be rather small. Still, there would be
no legal impediment to doing that. There are plenty of people making
money selling Linux CD-ROMs, for example.
>And I
>haven't done that. I have put the htmlZine online in the same manner
>as DejaNews operates but under a different format. I am perfectly
>within my legal boundaries in doing this.
DejaNews is a search engine which indiscriminately archives every
newsgroup posting. Your site is not -- you select what you consider to be
the "best" and publish them. The difference is like the difference
between compiling a phone book and compiling a list of "best names" from
the phone book.
>See
><URL:http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen> for information on Web Law
>by Oppedahl & Larson.
Went there, read that. Among other things this citation states:
"...when one posts to a usenet group, one is giving permission to those
who operate news servers to propagate the posting in the way that news
servers propagate postings...."
"It would be a mistake, however, for someone to think that because it is
easy to copy things from the internet, it is always legal to do so.
Similarly it would be a mistake to assume that because a person who posted
news or opened a web site granted permission to the public to do certain
things, that the permission extends to all kinds of copying. "
These are excerpts. They argue exactly opposite your point. Also, note
the page's Disclaimer: "This is not legal advice." Using a page of "not
legal advice" to support your point is treading on thin ice. I recommend
you consult an attorney and find out what the law really says.
I am not quite certain, from the information on this page, whether
DejaNews is really within their legal rights to offer their service.
Probably this has not yet become an issue because nobody really objects
and because the service is free, not to mention very useful. If they
charged money for it, the service would likely be challenged.
>I didn't have to state the author's name and link them to their email
>addresses.
No, of course not. You don't HAVE to do anything. You are perfectly free
to take any any action you like and live with the consequences. But since
you don't have permission to copy the articles in the first place,
reprinting them without attribution would be adding insult to injury.
>I could've reprinted the articles without recognitition to
>the original authors.
Just because you could do something doesn't mean it's legal. I could
probably steal your car if I really wanted to.
>I gave the proper recognition to the authors
>and considering you object, I'll gladly remove your contribution.
I expect most people would have been happy to grant their permission had
you merely bothered to ask. It's not like Usenet posts have great
commercial value. It is, as they say, the principle of the thing. I find
it very disturbing that an individual who relies on copyright law so
heavily for his livelihood (e.g. a software developer) would have such a
shallow understanding of it.
>Craig David Horton
>DBasic Software Company
>Publisher of the htmlZine
>Member of the HTML Writers Guild
>Host of the Western United States FAQ
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/index.html
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
PALINDROME #11 IN A SERIES: Collect 'em all!
May a moody baby doom a yam?
Anthony Boyd
>Posts in the newsgroups are public domain. This however, doesn't mean
>that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup.
And J. M. Ivler agreed:
>Anthony, this is a different issue. When you publish on the net, if I
>give you proper attribution to your work and republish it, am I doing
>anything more than a "compilation" of work issued to the public domain.
When I read the above I got mad and wanted to start a flame war, because
frankly, you two are wrong. But a flame war isn't going to teach anyone
about copyright law. So, I'm going to take a deep breath and then CITE
SOURCES AND LAWS, both U.S. and International, that make Craig David
Horton's reproduction of posts in his htmlZine illegal.
From Information Week, March 25, 1996, page 46:
"Merely posting a message on the Net doesn't mean it's in the public
domain. An article posted on a Usenet newsgroup and an email message
transmitted over the Internet are both automatically copyrighted by their
authors. Posting the message does nothing to change that."
From The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Congress is empowered to "promote the progress of science and useful arts
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the *exclusive*
right to their respective writing and discoveries."
From The Copyright FAQ:
Q) Are Usenet postings and email messages copyrighted?
A) Almost certainly. They meet the requirement of being original works of
authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression (see section 2.3).
They haven't been put in the public domain; generally, only an expiration
of copyright or an unambiguous declaration by an author is sufficient to
place a work into public domain.
From The Copyright Act Of 1976:
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html)
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title [17 USCS
101 et seq.], in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium
of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device.
Subject to sections 107 through 120 [17 USCS 107-120], the owner of
copyright under this title [17 USCS 101 et seq.] has the *exclusive*
rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
1. to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
2. to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
3. to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;
4. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
5. in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to
display the copyrighted work publicly.
From Ten Myths About Copyright:
(http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html)
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but
that's essentially the only difference. It's still a violation if you
give it away -- and there can still be heavy damages if you hurt the
commercial value of the property.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a
note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain."
Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to
everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel
that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the
thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent)
of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is
true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it
simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the
sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case
is this a placement of material into the public domain. Furthermore it is
very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated
licence that the copier was aware of.
From the Graphic Artists Guild Handbook, page 17:
The Berne Convention, an International agreement, establishes all works as
copyrighted the moment they are created, even without a copyright notice.
This doctrine traditionally grants to artists and writers four specific
rights:
1. The right to protect the integrity of their work to prevent any
modification, distortion or mutilation which would be prejudicial to
their honor or reputation;
2. The right of attribution (or paternity) to insist that their
authorship be properly acknowledged and to prevent use of their names
for works they did not create;
3. The right of disclosure to decide if, when and how a work is
presented to the public; and
4. The right of recall to withdraw, destroy or disavow a work if it is
changed or no longer represents their views.
From NWU vs. The New York Times (1993):
10 freelance writers sued the New York Times for reproducing their work
electronically without permission and WON. As a lawyer, I would see this
a trump card -- precedence has been set legally: copyrights exist on the
Internet and violaters can be sued for financial compensation.
IN SUMMARY:
Copyright laws protect ANY original work set in ANY fixed media. You do
not need to register your copyright or even note "Copyright 1996 by
So-And-So" on your work. If your work is infringed upon, you can sue to
have the work taken down, removed, or retracted. You can be awarded any
money that was gained by the violater. In addition, if you REGISTER your
copyright with the Copyright Office, you are then entitled to additional
damages, specifically: infringement, statutory damages, and attorney's
fees. Statutory damages is the killer: you can sue for whatever amount of
money you like as punishment. However, most judges will not award
statutory damages beyond about a million dollars.
Finally, I would like to note that I was not opposed to being in
htmlZine. I think htmlZine is a damn fine resource. It just totally blew
my mind to see them so crassly violating the laws above when it was in
their interest and then demanding the same laws be upheld when it was in
their interest. And I was not asked permission, nor was I even informed
that my post was included, so I was unable to ask it be removed or
maintained.
You can see the entire Berne Convention agreement at:
gopher://gopher.law.cornell.edu:70/00/foreign/fletcher/BH006-1971.txt
You can see the entire U.S. Copyright law at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html
You can register your copyrights at: Copyright Office
Library Of Congress
Washington, DC 20559
Craig David Horton
>A creative work is copyrighted by their creator unless its creator
>specifically waives this right. Posting an article to Usenet grants
>implicit permission to copy the article as necessary for the normal
>distribution and reading of news, but it does not waive all copyrights.
>In particular it does not necessarily give you the right to create a
>compilation of what you consider the "best" articles. This process
>involves editorial judgment, not merely mechanical distribution of the
>article by news servers. In effect you are creating a derivative work
>based on others' copyrighted works.
Okay, I don't argue any of these points and in the process of me
trying to make sense between republishing someone else's work under a
different name and our republishing work under the original author's
name, something got lost in the translation.
First, here's the original issue. Someone knowlingly was taken cgi
scripts written by one person and redistributing them under a
different author's name with only minor changes being made to the
script.
The new issue appears to be our taking newsgroup postings, summarizing
the best points, placing them in a format that makes them easier to
read and putting them within our htmlZine. We kept the original
authors name intake on all newsgroup articles used.
Knowing that Anthony Boyd had a problem with this, although he never
told us until making it public, we removed any contribution he had in
the article. I have since however, added his comments within this
thread and made reference to the original author. To this point,
he'll have to notify me to remove them. Or he can sue us. Whichever
action he feels is best for him. We have no problem in taking
newsgroup articles that are informative and insightful and putting
them in the htmlZine and REFERENCING THE AUTHOR who contributed the
intellectual value.
We are not talking about the same issue here. If someone has a
problem with us contributing them with providing insightful knowledge
that is of use to many .... that sounds like a personal hangup. We
are GIVING RECOGINITION where recognition is due and that's to the
original author. The htmlZine is only the vehicle of delivering the
recognition to the authors.
The issue that is in question is the right to take original author's
name off the work and replacing it with someone else's. We have not
taken any newsgroup article clippings and put our name on them as
being the author.
Of course everything is copyrighted on the Internet. EVERYTHING from
3 identically placed wordings (it would be a hard one to prove) to
images (including all forms of graphics).
Copyright issues are not the issue. That part is quite clear.
EVERYTHING IS COPYRIGHTED.
What's in question is someone taking someone's work ..... making
slight modifications and then republishing it under a different name
and saying it's theres. We are not saying clippings from the
newsgroups are ours. WE DON'T MAKE A DIME off someone else's
contribution to the Internet community. We help the community in
sharing this knowledge. There is a big difference here in what we are
discussing at issue.
If someone has a problem with what we are doing, that's fine and we
could care less if they object. If they want to post publicly that we
are violating copyright laws .... fine. So is 80% (conservative
figure) of the Internet. Blow the whistle on us. Big Deal. We are
open about what we are doing but most importantly ... we are giving
credit to where credit is due .... the original authors.
What we aren't doing is taking someone else's work and calling it our
own work. We are doing the same thing as the person who creates a
page with nothing more than links. Except our links are actual quotes
(with proper referencing) from the newsgroups. And only part of the
htmlZine is like this. A vast majority of the zine is my own original
work.
So going back. How does comparing an apple to an orange derive the
same ethical value? Except maybe they are both fruits? That's a
vague comparision which is what is happening in this thread.
I R A Aggie
Boyd) wrote:
+ SOURCES AND LAWS, both U.S. and International, that make Craig David
+ Horton's reproduction of posts in his htmlZine illegal.
[various deletia]
Is Mr. Horton going to invoke "web justice" in this case?
I R A Aggie
+ stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
+
+ >I wanted to know what motive you had in all this. Did you have
+ >a commercial interest in this, or just as a "good usenetter"?
+ >Such information may be of use...
[deletia because I couldn't parse it into something that made sense]
+ You are missing the other side of this. What if I was wrong about the
+ scripts in question? What if I accused a webmaster of harboring
+ stolen scripts on their site and I was wrong. It would have been me
+ that paid the price.
Really? We'll get to ID's and the ease of which they can be obtained.
Let's discuss ease with which accounts can be obtained. What if I
get an AOL account and make accusations against, oh, say dbasic.com?
Ok, they turn up false. I ditch the AOL account and get one at CRL,
an ISP that's gotten a reputation to dragging their feet on net.abuse,
and repeat the accusations. Maybe I "borrow" someone's university
account and do the same.
How long before you give up defending yourself against such baseless
accusations and remove whatever "offending" material? or will you not
accept accusations from AOL and the like?
+ I took a calculated risk with my pointing the
+ finger which could've backfired. Granted there will be those that
+ don't agree with my form of justice and that's their right.
Thanks for acknowledging that right. You took a risk because you're
not going any where any time soon.
+ >Well, you know, Traci Lords had a valid drivers license, and US
+ >passport, but was still underage when doing porn. If she can put
+ >a bogus Date of Birth past the DL Division, I think I can get a
+ >bogus street address past them, too.
+
+ Don't degrade this issue to the level of porn movie stars.
*sigh* You sure missed the point, didn't you. Besides, she's a big
name singer now... ;)
+ Anyone can
+ break the law and many can get away with it. Doesn't mean it's right.
Never said it was. I said it was potentially easy to do, depending on
your skill/experience, and the skill/experience of those who are supposed
to keep things like that from happening.
+ The United States Postal Service requires a valid I.D. to rent a U.S.
+ P.O. Box. It is assumed that the person providing the I.D. is being
+ honest in providing proper ID.
Let's see what is wrong with this picture:
You expect that a dishonest person will deal honestly with the US Post
Office.
+ Those that use a false ID and break
+ U.S. Postal Laws ARE in violation of Federal Statutes and they do go
+ to Federal prison.
Well, if the intention is to committ mail fraud...the consequences of
being dishonest on ones PO Box rental form is relatively minor.
+ The Feds don't take using a P.O. Box to commit
+ crimes very lightely.
Doesn't matter if they use a US Post Office box or a MailBoxes Etc box.
Mail fraud is mail fraud.
+ The Webmaster in question was allowing WebCan to use his email
+ address. I asked for the name of the person behind WebCan and the
+ webmaster choose to keep the identity private, which is his right in
+ client confidentiality. Therefore, the Webmaster choose to take the
+ "rap" for his customer's actions.
I would concur with you on that. Doesn't mean the webmaster is a thief.
+ Keep in mind that damage has been done.
Really? What damage, exactly, has been done?
+ There are Matt's Scripts out there right now under a different name
+ although the script's distribution point has been removed.
Perhaps that distribution point should point back towards Matt's scripts,
with an explanation of what happened.
+ Fact is, I wasn't wrong. Now who has more rights here. The Webmaster
+ hosting the bad scripts ..... or Matt's Scripts, the victim?
Matt does, of course. But that's interesting. Not so many posts back,
you said something about fingering the wrong person...
+ >Well, that's because this is about *you* and *your* actions.
+ Right, the world evolves around Craig.
Are you really this dense? Do you honestly not understand what I was
driving at?
+ Again, please enlighten us to my motivations here. Because you can't
+ see some alterior motive you accuse me of "using" this as an
+ opportunity of some sort.
I don't know your motivations. I've asked, point blank what your
interests in this matter are. You haven't given me an answer that
I could parse. To refresh your memory, take a look at the very first
paragraph I wrote that was quoted by you...
+ >No. But on the other hand, if I leave my car running, lights on and
+ >drivers side door open, I've made things a *lot* easier for a car
+ >thief. The web is a *lot* like that. Especially if you place images
+ >and scripts in positions to be downloaded.
+
+ >One shouldn't be too suprised when someone else downloads/takes/steals
+ >your material and claims it as their own...
+
+ Yes they should!
[deletia - am I writing in a langauge you don't understand?]
Dishonest people do dishonest things. And you're surprised when this
happens???!!!
+ >A spade is a spade. Only message I got is that you're willing to
+ >run roughshod over people.
+
+ Steal and then roughshod it is. Zero Tolerance and I let the public
+ be the judge. I was only the prosecutor in this case.
And judge. And jury.
+ >Call me confused...are they a den of thieves or not?
+
+ They were until they were enlightened with reality. Ignorance was the
+ case here and my "motive" in continuing this thread is to bring less
+ ignorance into the web.
Then they're *not* a den of thieves? and any thievery was because of a
misunderstanding of copyright law?
I'm still confused. You tell me they're thieves, but then you tell me
they're not, but you won't retract the charge that they're thieves.
Uh, my brain hurts.
+ Again, Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity is decided ignorance.
Decided ignorance is usually called "willful ignorance". Stupidity is
inability to learn (one of "stupid"'s synonyms is "mental dullness").
+ Once the webmaster in question was made aware through public
+ condemnation, he choose not to continue into the realm of stupidity.
So, you admit that theirs was a sin of ignorance, not of commission?
+ >You also offend my sense of justice. If they are thieves, then so
+ >be it. Don't deal with them. Apply justice fitting the crime. But
+ >if they are not thieves, then retract the charge!
+ Are you saying because the "The Smiths of Staten Island" FINALLY did
+ the right thing they should be persecuted still?
I'm saying that if they want to regain our trust, they need to earn it
back. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
+ They paid the price
+ for not responding to private pressure. But the end result was
+ achieved and I'm willing to let bygones-be-bygones. Why should I
+ apologize or retract anything? I did what I felt is right.
Then don't apologize. You've finally cleared the air. Sheesh.
+ >Well, I wouldn't want to violate your property rights...
+ YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SLANDER US ANYWAY YOU SEE FIT ON YOUR
+ WEBSITE. Freedom of expression! Say anything about me you want.
+ Just don't take my work and call it yours.
Not good enough. I need you to permit me to libel you. This *is*
a written media...
+ >I won't bore you to list my original works, but I have works in the
+ >Library of Congress. Do you?
+ Oh, is this about my Dad is bigger than your Dad?
Oh, Nice, Mr. Horton. You wanted to reduce this to the level of "my
wanker is bigger than yours". I take it, then, that the following
by yourself:
+ >The way I get around that is to not put anything I consider overly
+ >valuable on the net/web/what-have-you.
+
+ You don't have much original work then do you.
wasn't a request for references?
+ >Personally, I'd rather have the rule of law than the rule of the mob.
+ Are you calling public opinion and peer pressure "rule of the mob".
Yes. As long as public opinion can be spun, it is a mob. "Vox populi,
vox humbug" - William T. Sherman.
+ >That's right. Just like I don't leave my wallet out in the open where
+ >just *anyone* can come by and pilfer it...
+ Just because you leave your house unlocked doesn't give a thief the
+ right to come in and rob you blind. If you loose your wallet, it has
+ $10,000 in it with your I.D., it's stealing for someone to keep it
+ when they know who it belongs too.
Yes and Yes.
But what fool walks about with US$10,000 in their billfold?? That's being
willfully ignorant of the possibilities that may befall a person doing
so.
It's like being the wrong skin color in the wrong neighborhood at the
wrong time. As dear ol' dad told me when I was a wee lad "don't go looking
for trouble, because you'll likely find it".
Doesn't mean it's right or legal. It is, however, the way things are.
+ >I worry that web justice will become mob rule. How do you plan to
+ >avoid that? Who will be the arbriter of what is and isn't a "web
+ >crime"? will there be an appeal mechanism or arbritration?
+
+ >What will you do to people who make false accusations?
+ The public will barbecue the one making the accusation.
And if they have a "disposable" account, as I spoke of earlier?
+ >We have institutions that have been dealing with such incidents
+ >of discord between citizens for over 200 years. They have experience
+ >and expertise in the area. And both sides get to tell their side of
+ >the story.
+ They have expertise in making a living! How many innocent people have
+ gone to prison for not having the "dream team" in their defense.
+ Don't talk about our justice system to me. I brought justice on the
+ web to the people to make the decision.
Our justice system, for all its faults, is still far better than anything
tried in the last 1,000 years. The rule of law, not the rule of the mob.
For examples of the last, look up "The Reign of Terror".
+ >But suddenly that's not good enough??
+ When it would cost the victim to obtain justice, no that's not good
+ enough!
Shouldn't the "victim" take care of/defend their property? that's how
copyright is enforced...
+ >Well, at least our cops don't generally beat the crap out of us...
+ Good point! The illegal aliens you all saw a couple of weeks ago were
+ running people off the road threatening lives.
So, of course the intelligent thing is to pursue them, so that they
feel the need to go even faster. I'm simply amazed that you seem to
think that it is reasonable that someone engaged in an illegal activity
will otherwise behave legally!
Instead of backing off and letting radio waves and helicopters do the
work, they chose to pursue them, endangering even *more* motorists...
+ Once again we are more worried about the criminals rights and not the
+ victims.
Consider the alternative...take the "war on drugs". In order to confiscate
your property (car/computer/home), the police simply have to have someone
swear out an affidavit that you've been profiting from the drug trade.
Doesn't matter much that the person swearing the affidavit is a junkie
that's never met you...
+ Yes there was
+ more force used than needed, but they were breaking the law and
+ threatening lives of innocent people.
Should have just shot them on the spot and been done with it!
+ None of the illegals received
+ any physical harm that required hospitalization (although they were
+ taken there for their benefit).
Well, if cops had observed standard operating proceedures, they wouldn't
have had to offer them medical treatment.
+ Rodney King? Frankly, it's a good thing I wasn't holding one of those
+ batons.
You, sir, disgust me.
+ I work in South Central Los Angeles. You would be surprised to hear
+ that most who live here agree with my views. It's the opportunists
+ that you see rioting and objecting to the handling of the illegal
+ aliens.
That's because they're foolish enough to think that by giving up some
of their freedoms, they'll be more secure. But in the long run, they'll
have neither.
+ DISCUSSION OPEN! Shoot!
Nah, that's ok. We seem to have a failure to communicate, and I'm not
going to bother trying to bridge the gap...
+ Publisher of the htmlZine
Please don't publish anything of mine. Thanks.
I R A Aggie
+ >stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) wrote:
+ >Is Mr. Horton going to invoke "web justice" in this case?
+ Hell no! If you would like to administer it for me, you are welcomed
+ to try.
That would be hypocritical of me to do so.
+ Please tell the world where we are committing fraud.
Fraud? Don't think so. Are you making a derivative work from
the works of others? yes. Are they aware? maybe...maybe not?
Is that a "good thing"?? I don't know.
+ You are adding nothing except your insistent raving about
+ imposing web justice on us.
Excuse me, but that's *your* job. You're the self-appointed
WebMarshall...
+ Well do it! Who's stopping you! Quit your crying and act!
Me. Like I said, it would be hypocritical.
BTW, under the Fair Use Clause, you would be permitted to take
small snippets of public communications and use them in your
own works.
James - just like it might be hypocritcal of you to not enforce
"web justice"...
Craig David Horton
>Finally, I would like to note that I was not opposed to being in
>htmlZine. I think htmlZine is a damn fine resource. It just totally blew
>my mind to see them so crassly violating the laws above when it was in
>their interest and then demanding the same laws be upheld when it was in
>their interest. And I was not asked permission, nor was I even informed
>that my post was included, so I was unable to ask it be removed or
>maintained.
Again .... read my lips! I gave the authors recognition .... the
origin of this thread was about someone else taking someone's
intellectual material, changing the name and redistributing under a
different authorship.
What part of this are you missing. I have also stated in subsequent
postings that ALL MATERIAL ON THE INTERNET IS COPYRIGHTED!
My use of the phrase "public domain" was out of context where I was
trying to convey the meaning behind this thread.
Don't place us in the same company as someone who takes away the
author's name and put ours in it's place. This is totally unfair and
is putting your rebuttals out of context.
I appreciate your research into the copyright laws. It did add value
to the discussion. If you have a bitch about what we are doing, take
it to a different article for debate. You have done a good job of
washing over the original discussion of outright fraud. We have not
committed ANY fraud in presenting the htmlZine.
Additionally, anyone quoted in the htmlZine may have their
contributions removed if they wish. I thought we were promoting your
work about "Advertising a Service Online". You made a good point.
So much for recognizing someone's contribution as being worth noting.
Oh, you don't mind if I call you Anthony Boyd or am I violating
copyright law. That's how petty you are taking this.
Again! WebCan took someone's work, made minor changes and was
redistributing under a different authorship.
WebCan's fraudaulent act and the copyright laws you quoted are not
relevant to each other. You have taken an apple and compared it to an
orange again.
Craig David Horton
Hell no! If you would like to administer it for me, you are welcomed
to try. Please tell the world where we are committing fraud. Please
tell the world where we have taken the work of others and replaced
that work with our name. Please tell the world. Or please shut up!
That's "web justice". Put up or shut up! Either add some value to
this discussion or stay out. You are adding nothing except your
insistent raving about imposing web justice on us.
Craig David Horton
nowhere conversation. I accomplished what I set out to do with 100%
results. I need not explain my actions beyond the extensive posting I
have done so far.
Those feeling the htmlZine is in violation of copyrighted material and
you wish to make a claim, please have your lawyer contact me. Let's
make a contribution to our local lawyer's christmas fund. Maybe my
lawyer will send me more than just a card this year if you do.
I now return you to your regularily scheduled chaos ... I R A Aggie's
ramblings about Tracy Lord's singing career and Anthony Boyds
copyright researches. (Sorry, I've overdosed on my ego pills)
Henry Davis
writes:
>Posts in the newsgroups are public domain.
I've been troubled by the way in which you have referred to the "facts"
surrounding your actions and the basis upon which you consider your
actions to be appropriate. Your statement above encapsulates what I
believe is the root of the problem.
Posting a message to a newsgroup in no way causes it to become "public
domain." The act of writing the message creates a copyright under the
Berne Convention. The principle under which messages are forwarded
throughout the Internet is termed "implied license." The concept is
that by posting the message, the author implicitly agrees to the normal
forwarding of messages for newsgroups.
Even if the author takes no action to register their copyright, their
work is protected for a minimum of five years.
For a work to become "public domain" requires an explicit,
unconditional license from the author. This license is most often
included in the message or workproduct itself.
> This however, doesn't mean
>that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup. And I
>haven't done that.
Not only can't you sell them, you may not store them in a manner that
is different from the usenet newsgroup. In particular, assembling
other's messages into an online (or printed) magazine without explict
license to do so is a violation of the author's rights.
> I have put the htmlZine online in the same manner
>as DejaNews operates but under a different format. I am perfectly
>within my legal boundaries in doingFrom: hda...@ix.netcom.com(Henry Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi
Subject: Re: Anatomy of a Thief
References: <4kuhib$d...@news2.cais.com> <4l1ki0$e...@news2.cais.com> <stricherz-170...@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu> <4l3p6t$5...@news2.cais.com> <stricherz-180...@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu> <whisper-1904...@192.0.2.1> <4l8fv5$h...@news2.cais.com>
In <4l8fv5$h...@news2.cais.com> cho...@dbasic.com (Craig David Horton)
writes:
>Posts imy email
or news postings?")
>I didn't have to state the author's name and link them to their email
>addresses. I could've reprinted the articles without recognitition to
>the original authors. I gave the proper recognition to the authors
>and ce is the root of the problem.
Posting a message to a newsgroup in no way causes it to become "public
domain." The act of writing the message creates a copyright under the
Berne Convention. The principle under which messages are forwarded
throughout the Internet is termed "implied license." The concept is
that by posting the message, the author implicitly agrees to the normal
forwarding of messages for newsgroups.
Even if the author takes no action to register their copyright, their
work is protected for a minimum of five years.
For a work to become "public domain" requires an explicit,
unconditional license from the author. This license is most often
included in the message or workproduct itself.
> This however, doesn't mean
>that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup. And I
>haven't done that.
Not only can't you sell them, you may not store them in a manner that
is different from the usenet newsgroup. In particular, assembling
other's messages into an online (or printed) magazine without explict
license to do so is a violation of the author's rights.
> I have put the htmlZine online in the same manner
>as DejaNews operates but under a different format. I am perfectly
>within my legal boundaries in doing this. See
><URL:http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen> for information on Web Law
>by Oppedahl & Larson.
Actually, if you read O&L more closely, you'll see that they are of an
opinion different that that which you state. Here's what Oppendahl &
Larson have to say ""... when one posts to a newsgroup, one is giving
permission to those who operate new servers to propagate the posting in
the way that news servers propagate posting." (See
http://www.patents.com/ section titled "Can other people copy my email
or news postings?")
>I didn't have to state the author's name and link them to their email
>addresses. I could've reprinted the articles without recognitition to
>the original authors. I gave the proper recognition to the authors
>and considering you object, I'll gladly remove your contribution.
You must obtain a license (permission to publish) from each author to
conform to copyright law. Whether the authors would seek damages from
you for failing to obtain a license is another matter.
The problem with trying to consider copying a post as "fair use" is
that you copy the entire work. Thus, you fail the test of excerpting a
portion with credit.
>
>Craig David Horton
>DBasic Software Company
>Publisher of the htmlZine
>Member of the HTML Writers Guild
>Host of the Western United States FAQ
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/index.html
>
Henry
Matt W
: In article <4l73en$7...@news2.cais.com>, cho...@dbasic.com wrote:
:
: + >No one forced you to. This is one of Matt's scripts. Let Matt
: +
: + >Inquiring minds want to know.
: +
: + Well being so you want to turn this into the National Enquirer ....
:
: Just curious as to your interest in this matter...
:
: + "THANKS! Keep me posted if you see them pop up." - from Matt Wright
: + (Matt's Script) to DBasics Software Company 4/17/96
:
: I wanted to know what motive you had in all this. Did you have
: a commercial interest in this, or just as a "good usenetter"?
: Such information may be of use...
:
: "Keep me posted if you see them pop up" is a bit vague. Context?
: what/who is "them"? the scripts? WebCan? and how do you go from
: "Keep me posted" to "Go ahead and take action against them"??!!
OK, I am going to speak, but please don't flood my e-mail box with
flames, just cause I don't have the time.
I created Matt's Script Archive for the sole purpose of providing CGI
scripts free to the internet. I am a 17 year old high school student and
self-taught perl programmer. There are a few simple things I ask be done
if you use my scripts:
1) Any modifications are allowed, just keep my name and URL in the script
and acknowledge my work. If the script is pretty much exactly the same,
just a few minor modifications, keep the whole header on the script. I
even allow users to take out the default messages on their web page that
usually say "Script Provided by Matt Wright and can be found at Matt's
Script Archive". I appreciate it being left in there, but it is not
necessary.
2) Don't sell my scripts. They are out there for free. Now I have
allowed many other places to sell them and use them, for instance: They
have appeared in many books, HoTMetaL 3.0 will be using the scripts in
version 3.0, several ISPs use the scripts for users on their system.
What I don't appreciate is people either:
a) not contacting me about it
b) stripping my name and all references to me as original author
and then preceding to redistribute and/or sell the scripts. This
is what WebCan did.
3) This is optional, however I appreciate it when users tell me the
location where they are using my scripts. Just cause it is an
ego-booster to know I haven't wasted my time in creating these things for
people. And also cause I keep a record of where people can find examples
of the usage of the scripts.
Now I don't think that is a lot to ask. especially when you consider the
fact they are free.
I support what Dbasic did. They have no commercial gain by pointing out
that someone els is redistributing my exact scripts over the internet.
They are just happy users of my scripts (WWWBoard in particular) and have
actually created add-ons for it (which they distribute for free). I did
not appreciate what WebCan did by changing variable names and then
redistributing my scripts under different names.
1) I was given no credit for the numerous hours I have put into these
scripts.
2) Re-distributing them on other sites cuts back on traffic I get to the
worldwidemart.com site. The only compensation I get for writing these
scripts comes from:
1) The little ad space I manage to sell (although I haven't found
too many interested buyers yet).
2) A couple of books I have written in (and one I am currently
co-authoring), and misc jobs I get for freelance work.
Therefore having my site listed and myself given credit to in a script is
the only way I earn income. Form the advertisers to the chapters I may
write in a book, the only way people know I can program is by seeing my
work. Most people would not take a 17 year old who has no formal
programming knowledge (have never taken a class in my life) and hire
them for misc jobs, much less to write a book for a publisher like Wiley
or Que. Therefore these scripts are important to me.
They will remain free to people. The fact that WebCan took my scripts
and stripped my name out, and redistributed my scripts under their name
did not please me.
My quote sent to Dbasic simply said, thanks for pointing them out and
taking action, and let me know if they come up again, yes that being
WebCan. Jonathan Smith called Dbasic the day after the post letting
them know he kicked the user off, but that WebCan said they would soon be
setting up the shop at another ISP. That is what I meant when I referred
to popping up again. Why did they take action and not let me do it
myself? I dunno, but I am thankful. I do not have time to chase down
every web site to see if they are illegally using my scripts.
Well, that's enough bandwidth this thread has wasted IMHO. So I'll end
my message after this shameless plug:
<a href="http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/">Matt's Script Archive</a>
- Free Perl/CGI scripts for ANYONE.
Sorry for the mass confusion and wasted bandwidth,
Matt.
(any grammatical errors are a result of lack of time. I'm not just that
stupid. :-) )
******************************************************************************
Matt Wright http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/
ma...@worldwidemart.com http://www.worldwidemart.com/mattw/
******************************************************************************
Matt W
: A question I have is: what is an "acceptable" usage of scripts such
: as Matt's? FOr example, I am right now (even as we speak!) modifying
: his "wwwboard.pl" for one of my clients. In the body of the script, I
: have carefully noted all my modifications (mostly for my own sake, but
: just in case anyone who inherits it has a question too). I am keeping
: all the header info intact (Matt's (C) notice, etc). Is this sufficient?
:
: I freely use other people's scripts, and I also contribute my own scripts
: to various listservs gratis. All I ask for is my name and e-mail attached
: to the script.
:
: I'm wondering if there are some guidelines for this that I may (as well
: as many others, in all likelihood) may be missing?
:
: Any pointers would be appreciated.
Just keep my name in the script and leave my copyright in there. That is
cool.. And don't sell the thing. You are allowed to modify it any other
way pretty much. As a web developer though, you are allowed to charge
for any time it takes you to modify and/or install the thing. You have
to earn a living somehow!
Sorry for the confusion,
Matt.
--
Russell Alexander
"Whether it is true or not I cannot say, but if you think about it you can
see that it is so."
-- American Indian Saying
-- Otherwise, unknown source, credits, origins.
Hmm.. I think the simple point is getting missed in all the discussion.
I could have led you to believe that I authored the above saying, or I
could have attempted to give proper intellectual credit for it.
I showed good faith in attempting to describe the actual owners.
Then there are those who did not show good faith in attempting to do the same.
Did your name appear on the listings ??
or did someone elses name appear on it ?
In article <whisper-1904...@192.0.2.1>, whi...@zoom.com says...
Carl Oppedahl
cho...@dbasic.com (Craig David Horton) wrote:
>Posts in the newsgroups are public
>domain. This however, doesn't mean
>that I can go out and sell the postings
>within the newsgroup. And I
>haven't done that. I have put the htmlZine
>online in the same manner
>as DejaNews operates but under a different
>format. I am perfectly
>within my legal boundaries in doing this. See
><URL:http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen>
>for information on Web Law
>by Oppedahl & Larson.
>
>I didn't have to state the author's name and
>link them to their email
>addresses. I could've reprinted the
>articles without recognitition to
>the original authors.
Posts in newsgroups are not public domain.
Carl Oppedahl
Oppedahl & Larson
DBasics Software Company
laws by "quoting" my article(s) in your threads. Now isn't this a tad
petty. No more petty when you start comparing that to someone that
redistributed someone else's cgi code under a different author.
Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
idiot to not have used the proper terminology in my meaning. It
didn't take long for several of you to jump on that one.
Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said? Is
this not that a violation in copyright? Is every poster who quotes an
article in a thread a thief as some would like to make everyone think
here.
This thread reminds of that game where someone whispers a story into
the ear of one, then on to another, then another and finally the
original story became so distorted that it causes everyone to break
out laughing. :-)
Craig David Horton
DBasics Software Company
http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
Andrew Gideon
>Okay sea lawyers. Then each one of you are in violation of copyright
>laws by "quoting" my article(s) in your threads. Now isn't this a tad
>petty. No more petty when you start comparing that to someone that
>redistributed someone else's cgi code under a different author.
>
I do not believe that you are correct. See below.
>Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
>idiot to not have used the proper terminology in my meaning. It
>didn't take long for several of you to jump on that one.
>
Okay, so you admit your error. Everyone makes mistakes, and it
raises my opinion of you that you admit yours (although you could
be a bit less sullen about it).
>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
>
Ah, but here you've managed to lose me again.
I've just in this session of USENETing read Mr. Wright's posting where he
described himself as a "17-year-old ... self taught programmer." I
was impressed, both by the skills he has amassed with little help
and little time, and by the 'feel' of his posting. Had he not mentioned
it, I would have given no thought to his age. Him I view as a
contemporary, despite the (all to depressing, to me {8^) age difference.
You, Mr. Horton, do not show the same finesse.
Despite this, I will provide for you the answer that you seek. It
may be summed up by the term "fair use." When we quote, it is
typically for the purpose of commentary.
>Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
>newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said?
This is an interesting point, and I once did wonder it myself.
The solution, as I see it, is that quoting permits us
to indicate that portion of the previous article to which a
specific comment is directed. If you'll note my style, you'll
see that this presentation provides information not available
merely through use of the header of this message (which references
the article that I am (selectively) quoting).
Frankly, it also simplifies things. It saves having to "bounce"
between messages, attempting to recreate the context of the author
when reading that author's work.
> Is
>this not that a violation in copyright? Is every poster who quotes an
>article in a thread a thief as some would like to make everyone think
>here.
>
No. Quoting, in my opinion, falls under the "fair use" doctrine.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one in real life. So, if
you choose to do so, you may refrain from quoting USENET posts in the
future.
>This thread reminds of that game where someone whispers a story into
>the ear of one, then on to another, then another and finally the
>original story became so distorted that it causes everyone to break
>out laughing. :-)
>
Heh. This could be said of many a USENET thread.
- Andrew
Chris Gray
Matt,
(probably you've already been through this but ...)
The way in which you'd like to see your scripts used reminds me very much
of the GNU Public License. Have you ever considered distributing them
under the GPL?
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray Chris...@bcs.org.uk Compuserve: 100065,2102
__________________________________________________________________________
DBasics Software Company
>When I read the above I got mad and wanted to start a flame war, because
>frankly, you two are wrong. But a flame war isn't going to teach anyone
>about copyright law. So, I'm going to take a deep breath and then CITE
>SOURCES AND LAWS, both U.S. and International, that make Craig David
>Horton's reproduction of posts in his htmlZine illegal.
When did you become a lawyer capable of making a determination that
our "quoting" articles are illegal? You did a good job of cutting and
pasting snippets within the Copyright Act, but you presented only
those sections that seems to prove your point.
In the htmlZine we do the same thing. We take snippets of usenet
articles and reproduce them to make a point. But let's not confuse
your taking snippets of the Copyright Act to "prove" your point and
our taking snippets from the usenet regarding HTML.
>From Information Week, March 25, 1996, page 46:
Information Week? This is a magazine and quoting them is not basis in
making any legal decisions.
>From The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
>Congress is empowered to "promote the progress of science and useful arts
>by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the *exclusive*
>right to their respective writing and discoveries."
So? You have taken a part of the Constitution and tried to prove a
point with it. You should further your research by defining "limited
times".
>From The Copyright FAQ:
Again something that is not considered as legal fact but is an opinion
like the Web Law FAQ by Oppedahl & Larson. Nothing but opinions.
"As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of
each case, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for
advice of competent counsel." - Web Law FAQ by Oppedahl & Larson
>From The Copyright Act Of 1976:
>(http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html)
>Subject to sections 107 through 120 [17 USCS 107-120], the owner of
>copyright under this title [17 USCS 101 et seq.] has the *exclusive*
>rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
Bingo! Notice the first phrase of your quote? "Subject to sections
...." Well here's what you left out.
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS
§§ 106, 106A] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
>From Ten Myths About Copyright:
Another reference that is merely an opinionated translation of the law
and holds no legal authority.
>From the Graphic Artists Guild Handbook, page 17:
We aren't talking about Graphic Arts here!
>From NWU vs. The New York Times (1993):
Court cases do set precedence in legal matters but your quote of this
case has no reference on your trying to prove we are in violation of
copyright law. The court case above is almost entirely, if not
completely, different then the case you are trying to prove about the
use of newsgroup articles in a non-commercial educational environment.
>Finally, I would like to note that I was not opposed to being in
>htmlZine. I think htmlZine is a damn fine resource. It just totally blew
>my mind to see them so crassly violating the laws above when it was in
>their interest and then demanding the same laws be upheld when it was in
>their interest. And I was not asked permission, nor was I even informed
>that my post was included, so I was unable to ask it be removed or
>maintained.
So "crassly violating the laws"? Again as I stated, are you a lawyer?
Are you studying law? When making your "learned" decision we are
violating the law, did you even read the Subject to sections 107
through 120 [17 USCS 107-120] or did you just see that word
*exclusive* and decide it applied.
Thanks to you we are removing any usenet article quotes from the
htmlZine this week. Not because we are violating copyright law.
According to my lawyer, we are in the bounds of "fair use". No the
reason we are removing the "quotes" is because we don't want to be
open to "unfounded" accusations by people like you.
You wrote me a private email saying that you lost hundreds of dollars
in revenue because of our including the above mentioned usenet article
from you. Would you like to pursue this in a public forum?
Personally I think you are flat out lying in trying to make a point.
Just as you quoted "snippets" of the above references to make your
point that we are "violating copyright law".
But I do thank you for pointing out the location of the U.S. COPYRIGHT
ACT, AS AMENDED on the Internet. I will be replacing the WEB LAW FAQ
by Oppedahl & Larson with it. The WEB LAW FAQ by Oppedahl & Larson is
nothing more than an opinion.
Craig David Horton
DBasics htmlZine
http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
DBasics Software Company
>In article s...@news2.cais.com, dba...@pacificnet.net (DBasics Software Company) writes:
>>Okay sea lawyers. Then each one of you are in violation of copyright
>>laws by "quoting" my article(s) in your threads. Now isn't this a tad
>>petty. No more petty when you start comparing that to someone that
>>redistributed someone else's cgi code under a different author.
>>
>I do not believe that you are correct. See below.
Thanks! I am familiar with "fair use" and it's a shame no one
considered applying it to our case. But that's what gave birth to
the term "sea lawyer"
>>Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
>>idiot to not have used the proper terminology in my meaning. It
>>didn't take long for several of you to jump on that one.
>>
>Okay, so you admit your error. Everyone makes mistakes, and it
>raises my opinion of you that you admit yours (although you could
>be a bit less sullen about it).
What I meant by "public domain" is "fair use". I used terminology out
of context and improperly and now we all know that I meant "fair use"
and not "public domain". As a shareware software developer (yes I
have a "real" job), the term "public domain" has the same meaning to
ME as "fair use" has to copyright issues. It was a slip of the tongue
that I am so glad was arrogantly pointed out by others.
Sorry, but I do sullen well and don't intend on changing my attitude.
My arrogance in pointing out my mistake was in the same tone as those
who pointed the mistake out publicly.
>>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
>>
>Ah, but here you've managed to lose me again.
Both are covered under "fair use".
>I've just in this session of USENETing read Mr. Wright's posting where he
>described himself as a "17-year-old ... self taught programmer." I
>was impressed, both by the skills he has amassed with little help
>and little time, and by the 'feel' of his posting. Had he not mentioned
>it, I would have given no thought to his age. Him I view as a
>contemporary, despite the (all to depressing, to me {8^) age difference.
>You, Mr. Horton, do not show the same finesse.
So? I am a "self-taught" programmer also. So? I know alot of adults
who could learn a bit of civility from teenagers. So? To make a
statement about the differences between the way Matt presents himself
and the way we present ourselves is completely irrelevant to the
issues. We are being falsely accussed of violating copyright laws and
Matt isn't.
We exposed someone who was committing fraud by copying and
redistributing Matt's code on the Internet. Next thing is that we are
being accussed of violating copyright law by a couple of smucks named
Andrew Boyd and James (aka I R A Aggie).
See right there I violated "civility" by callling Andrew and James a
couple of smucks. Is this any worse than them saying we have violated
copyright law publicly when in fact WE ARE NOT violating copyright law
but are operating within the confines of "fair use".
>Despite this, I will provide for you the answer that you seek. It
>may be summed up by the term "fair use." When we quote, it is
>typically for the purpose of commentary.
Thank You! And so do we!
>>Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
>>newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said?
>This is an interesting point, and I once did wonder it myself.
>The solution, as I see it, is that quoting permits us
>to indicate that portion of the previous article to which a
>specific comment is directed. If you'll note my style, you'll
>see that this presentation provides information not available
>merely through use of the header of this message (which references
>the article that I am (selectively) quoting).
As we reference those we quote also. There is no difference between
the article statements quoted in the htmlZine and quoting a phrase in
response to a usenet article. Both are covered under the following:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS
§§ 106, 106A] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED (1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html
Jerry Kindall
>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
The latter is fair use, e.g. incorporating someone's copyrighted work for
purposes of criticism or comment.
>Craig David Horton
>DBasics Software Company
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
PALINDROME #22 IN A SERIES: Collect 'em all!
Ahem, ahem! A king is a god, a dog, a sign - I, Kamehameha!
I R A Aggie
+ We exposed someone who was committing fraud by copying and
+ redistributing Matt's code on the Internet. Next thing is that we are
+ being accussed of violating copyright law by a couple of smucks named
+ Andrew Boyd and James (aka I R A Aggie).
Andrew Boyd made the accusation. I merely wondered aloud if you would
be applying the same brand of "web justice" you so wonderfully espoused
in this forum.
Instead of doing research into your potential violation, you reacted
in a rather childish way. Your words to me (in email) summarized: shut
the fuck up.
+ See right there I violated "civility" by callling Andrew and James a
+ couple of smucks.
I've been called worse by better.
+ Is this any worse than them saying we have violated
+ copyright law publicly when in fact WE ARE NOT violating copyright law
+ but are operating within the confines of "fair use".
Well, your accusations against me certainly holds as much water...and
I believe that I mentioned that you would be protected under the
Fair Use Clause.
As a software writer, tho, you should be better aware of what the
term "public domain" means.
James
DBasics Software Company
>In article <4ledgo$s...@news2.cais.com>, dba...@pacificnet.net wrote:
>>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
>The latter is fair use, e.g. incorporating someone's copyrighted work for
>purposes of criticism or comment.
As I said .... explain to me the difference?
Your above quote is correct except you didn't complete your "quote" of
what fair use covers. Shall I pick up where you left off .....
"....., news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright." - COPYRIGHT ACT - 17 USCS § 107.
Of course there are various factors that apply such as .....
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. - COPYRIGHT ACT - 17 USCS § 107.
I have been informed by a "real" lawyer that in fact the htmlZine is
operating under "fair use" when posting snippets of usenet articles.
The htmlZine is a non-commerical entity. The htmlZine is a teaching
resource for nonprofit educational purposes.
Any "real" lawyers out there wishing to debate this with my "real"
lawyer may do so by emailing me and I'll forward my "real" lawyers
phone number. Only "real" lawyers need reply. "Sea Lawyers" can
continue trying to debate their cases here. :-)
Now to make the esteemed team of "sea" laywers participating in this
discussion happy, we have decided NOT to include any further snippets
of usenet articles within the htmlZine. Not that we have to, but
because we don't wish to step on anyone's claws (as in vultures).
As to .......
>The latter is fair use, e.g. incorporating someone's copyrighted work for
>purposes of criticism or comment.
..... I am told that Chef htmlZine is going to bake up some good dish
pies in the very near future.
Finally I have been informed that I improperly addressed two esteemed
newsgroup collegues by addressing them ....
" smucks don't exist... shmucks do. And thank you for pointing out two
fine examples.." - Anonymous
So to stri...@met.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) and whi...@zoom.com
(Anthony Boyd), I apologize. You're shmucks and not smucks. :-)
Andrew Smith
I am very glad to see that the issue of copyright is being so
heavily discussed. I too stand to profit when people realize just
how powerful and complex copyright laws are. However, some things
are being misunderstood in the heat of battle.
[snip]
> Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
> idiot to not have used the proper terminology in my meaning. It
> didn't take long for several of you to jump on that one.
> Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
> difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
> htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?[snip]
There is a whopping huge difference. The newsgroup articles are the
location that the author has placed his or her work. References and
quotes within criticism or replies is where the author expects his or
her material to appear. This is the implied license that an author
gives when appending to a newsgroup. Indeed, this type of use is
mentioned in statutes and cases concerning copyright and fair use.
As I write this now, I do not intend to give anyone the right to use
my words for what might be considered a commercial use. You must take
the time to understand that a commercial use does not mean a direct
sale. The WebCan incident is a type of misuse. Placing my intellectual
property in a WebZine is potentially another type of misuse. I would
certainly not consider this misuse as vile, but it does not mean that
it is ok.
Why are my rights to the material I place in the newsgroups any less
important that the rights of Matt and his scripts? They aren't. We
hopefully all have the same importance when it comes to our rights.
You are being slightly unethical in assuming you have rights, that you
actually probably don't. Perhaps I have some strange belief and I
wish to control exactly how and where my material appears. Maybe I
only want to appear in minority publications. This is my right as an
author if I so choose. Be it silly, or be it offensive, as an author
I am the only one who can choose what can or can not be done with my
ideas. I've chosen to place my ideas in this newsgroup. The only thing
I have chosen by doing this, is to allow use of my material in the
newsgroups.
Now, all that having been said. I consider your WebZine a commercial
use of my (read that MY) effort and time. Without prior permission
this is not appropriate. The reason I consider this inappropriate is
that you will profit from my work, as WebCan would have profitted from
Matt's scripts. I don't care whether you attribute me or not. Your
webzine represents publicity and marketing on behalf of your company.
Now, Im not sure I could really sue for damages, but willful copyright
violation is very strongly punished within the united states if you
can get the authorities interested.
I would advise spending much more time ensuring that you are on the
right side of the fence, especially considering how this whole topic
was started. Take the time to get the permission of the authors that
you are using for your promotional publication. It is the only ethical
way to operate. I too would certainly be willing to grant permission
if I was asked in advance.
The reason my knickers are in a knot, is that I have hundreds if not
thousands of commercial domains hitting on my site, without a single
word of thanks or payment of the entire dollar which we request from
commercial users. I personally am tired of all the people who think
that because they can steal something they should. The whole darn
world needs a refresher course in ethics.
It is really unfortunate that things are this way. We have great great
opportunity with the internet to promote a completly new way of
doing things. We can freely distribute information for non-commercial
use, such as education, which should be available to all, and at the
same time, if ethics weren't so scarce, make a living from the exact
same material when it is used for commercial use. Imagine, everyone
with a good idea being able to get rewarded for expressing themselves.
Instead, people who can't generate ideas of their own are stealing the
efforts of others, passing it off as their own, or otherwise using it
to make a profit without sharing the profit with the person doing the
work. This is unconscionable. At the same time I agree with the
student who felt that the web is about freely distributing information.
It is! All the crap on our site is free... for students, if they are
using it for educational purposes.
However, I still get berated by people, for getting upset when they
take software or other goodies. What are these people thinking? Do I
deserve no payment for my time and energy? If they are able to make a
profit by using my work, why are they not willing to share a single
dollar? How on earth did we ever come to this? What has happened to
ethics and honesty? What has happened to living better than the bare
minimum required by law? Its disgusting.
Saddened,
Andrew Smith
Custom Innovative Solutions
http://www.cisc.com/
Bruce Baugh
>When did you become a lawyer capable of making a determination that
>our "quoting" articles are illegal?
He doesn't have to be - he can consult the real lawyers. Brad Templeton,
owner of ClariNet, has being doing this for years, and routinely posts
the results in his common-myths-of-copyright FAQ on news.answers and
elsewhere. Since Mr Templeton has spent years dealing with some of the
biggest names in syndicated journalism and a vastly complex legal
market, we are naturally inclined to take his views over yours.
Particularly since Mr Templeton's support includes case law.
If you truly need a clue fix fast, try e-mailing br...@clarinet.com and
asking him about it. He's extremely gracious.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
DBasics Software Company
>In article <4lg82c$d...@news2.cais.com>, dba...@pacificnet.net wrote:
>>When did you become a lawyer capable of making a determination that
>>our "quoting" articles are illegal?
>He doesn't have to be - he can consult the real lawyers.
I appreciate the referral but I have my own attorneys. Unfortunately
you haven't read subsequent postings in this thread in which I have
stated I have consulted legal advice and our use of articles within
the htmlZine are "fair use" as covered under COPYRIGHT ACT - 17 USCS
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use.
There has only been one exception to this in which someone (one of the
shmuck brothers) claims to have lost hundreds of dollars in a "book
deal" because we quoted his one paragraph from one article from the
html newsgroup.
Frankly his contribution wasn't that good and has since been removed.
He's yet to respond to my inquiries and frankly I think he's full of
.. poop! My lawyer worded his claim much more colorfully :-)
At this point this issue is closed as far as we are concerned unless a
"real" lawyer out there wishes to further the debate. If this is the
case, email me privately and I will refer you to my attorney's office.
Otherwise, we appreciate not being "enlightened" further by the
learned masses who have responded so graciously within this thread.
Oh, by the way ..... does WebCan ring a bell?
DBasics Software Company
>Hmm.. I think the simple point is getting missed in all the discussion.
My sentiments exactly!
>Did your name appear on the listings ??
> or did someone elses name appear on it ?
Yes, Boyd's full name was listed and was linked via email. I say
"was" because when we know someone disapproves, we'll be sure their
articles are not included or are taken out. Frankly, in his case ....
it did not take away the value of the discussion when it was removed.
If we were to quote an article from the newsgroups without giving full
credit to the author it would be outright unethical. Now although I
can be one of the most arrogant, self-righteous, self-centered,
egotistical people on the Internet .... I do conduct my business
ethically and within the confines of the law.
But yes, we have gotten side tracked here with the discussion as to
the legality of our publishing these articles. And no matter how many
times one tries to defend his actions .... there are those that just
can't get the wax out of their eyes.
DBasics Software Company
>As I write this now, I do not intend to give anyone the right to use
>my words for what might be considered a commercial use.
And that should be respected.
>You must take the time to understand that a commercial use
>does not mean a direct sale.
Or indirect sales or for profit ventures or .... etc; We do not apply
to any of those in presenting the htmlZine.
>The WebCan incident is a type of misuse. Placing my intellectual
>property in a WebZine is potentially another type of misuse.
Potentially Yes, but there are conditions and frankly I could place
this article in the htmlZine if I cared too.
>I would certainly not consider this misuse as vile, but it does not mean that
>it is ok.
Says who? Are you presenting a fact or an opinion?
<BLAH BLAH BLAH>
>Now, all that having been said. I consider your WebZine a commercial
>use of my (read that MY) effort and time. Without prior permission
>this is not appropriate. The reason I consider this inappropriate is
>that you will profit from my work, as WebCan would have profitted from
>Matt's scripts.
You made a statement here! "I will profit" ..... where do you have
the right to assume what I am doing as an entity and post it publicly.
Read my lips! We do not, nor have, or will ever make a dime with the
htmlZine. It is placed online solely as an instructional instrument
and nothing more. What part of this statement do you not understand?
>I don't care whether you attribute me or not. Your
>webzine represents publicity and marketing on behalf of your company.
You're full of shit!
>Now, Im not sure I could really sue for damages, but willful copyright
>violation is very strongly punished within the united states if you
>can get the authorities interested.
Well you best start callling the "authorities" because you're about to
have your stupidity quoted in the htmlZine. I'll define your
stupidity further down.
>I would advise spending much more time ensuring that you are on the
>right side of the fence, especially considering how this whole topic
>was started. Take the time to get the permission of the authors that
>you are using for your promotional publication. It is the only ethical
>way to operate. I too would certainly be willing to grant permission
>if I was asked in advance.
By law I don't have to get your permission. I suggest you spend more
time figuring out which side of the fence your on. I just paid some
good bucks to know what side we are on.
>The reason my knickers are in a knot, is that I have hundreds if not
>thousands of commercial domains hitting on my site, without a single
>word of thanks or payment of the entire dollar which we request from
>commercial users. I personally am tired of all the people who think
>that because they can steal something they should. The whole darn
>world needs a refresher course in ethics.
Steal? I suggest you take your anxiety out on the free-loaders and
not us. You are barking up the wrong tree Smith.
<SNIP>
Frankly I'm tired of your whining. You made some serious accusations
you best start backing up. You have problems with not presenting an
item worth buying online, don't take it out on us. Welcome to the
Internet. We have spent hundreds of dollars of putting the htmlZine
online for educational and instructional purposes with no financial
support. That's the way we intended on it being and that's the way
it's going to be.
Again! We don't make a dime! The htmlZine has been distributed
without royalties to colleges and secondary schools throughout the
United States since it's origin. It's been honored in Netscape's
Off-The-Net publication plus a few other places we are proud to have
been listed. NO WHERE is there any commercial involvements in the
htmlZine. The htmlZine hosts this newsgroup's FAQ and is nothing but
an unofficial extension of the FAQ.
When have you visited the url of the htmlZine? You haven't, yet you
have no problem in taking your problems out on us.
>Saddened,
More like Disillusioned!
Bruce Baugh
- it's br...@clari.net, not br...@clarinet.com - sorry about that.) Most
particularly note point #3: nothing is in the public domain unless
explicitly released there.
=-=-=-=-=
expires: Sun, 12 May 1996 08:00:12 GMT
supersedes: <Doyzo...@deshaw.com>
followup-to: misc.int-property
reply-to: publ...@clari.net
newsgroups:
news.announce.newusers,news.admin.misc,misc.legal,misc.legal.
computing,misc.int-property,misc.answers,news.answers
Original-author: br...@clari.net (Brad Templeton)
Archive-name: law/copyright/myths/part1
Last-change: 16 Oct 1995 by netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Changes-posted-to: news.misc,news.answers
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
By Brad Templeton
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major
nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example,
in the USA, almost everything created privately after April 1,
1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or
not.
The default you should assume for other people's works is that
they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks
copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to
pictures,
too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them
to the net, and if you come upon something unknown,
you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>"
You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)"
has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights
Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now
not needed.
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
court, but that's essentially the only difference. It's still a
violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
property.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very
much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store
and
forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement
of material into the public domain. Furthermore it is very
difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all
the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting someting
into the public domain, and there are some fine points on
this issue regarder older copyright law versions. However, none
of this applies to an original article posted to USENET.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete
abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for
non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even
modify one byte and put their name on it.
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
the following in mind:
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow
things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
education about copyrighted works without the permission of the
author. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the
work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an
article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you
couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your
readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the
story or buy a copy of the paper? The former is probably fair
use, the latter probably aren't.
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is
necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the
commercial value of the work (which is another reason why
reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)
Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for
commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial
value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it
is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The
court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright
on an indidvidual basis in each case. There have been cases
that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general
they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
It's a risky defence to attempt.
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it."
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
explicitly given away. You may be thinking of trade marks,
which
can be weakened or lost if not defended.
6) "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
You can't "copyright a name," or anything short like that.
Titles usually don't qualify -- but I doubt you may write a
song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
me and my monkey." (J.Lennon/P.McCartney)
You can't copyright words, but you can trademark them,
generally by using them to refer to your brand of a
generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple"
computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to
computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple
Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the
word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't
mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on
this law for details.
You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
like "mtv." :-)
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful
rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright
you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in
copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or
jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based
on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even
be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
violation involving more than 10 copies and value over
$2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get
the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't
think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting
your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do than
that. This is a fairly new, untested statute.
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past,
ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some
person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or
owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail
you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless
previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly *report* on
what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can
even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody
who sues over an ordinary message might well get no damages,
because the message has no commercial value, but if you want
to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the
other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.
----------------- In Summary ---------------------------
These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they
are written, and no copyright notice is required.
Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not,
only damages are affected by that.
Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
*perhaps* the sort of copying the poster might have expected
in the ordinary flow of the net.
Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable
social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what
you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it
in your own words.
Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is
also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name
copyrighted.
Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights
of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply.
Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright
violation into the criminal realm.
Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder;
often it's not that hard to ask permission.
Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing
facts from E-mail isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail,
nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to freely copy this
document in electronic form, or to print for
personal use. If you had not seen a notice
like this on the document, you would have to
assume you did not have permission to copy it.
This document is still protected by you-know-
what even though it has no copyright notice.
It should be noted that the author, as publisher of an
electronic newspaper on the net, makes his living by
publishing copyrighted material in electronic form and has
the associated biases. However, DO NOT E-MAIL HIM FOR LEGAL
ADVICE; for that use other resources or consult a lawyer.
Also note that while most of these principles are universal
in Berne copyright signatory nations, some are derived from
Canadian and U.S. law. This document is provided to clear
up some common misconceptions about intellectual property
law that are often seen on the net. It is not intended to
be a complete treatise on all the nuances of the subject. A
more detailed copyright FAQ, covering other issues including
compilation copyright and more intricacies of fair use is
available in the same places you found this note, or for FTP
on rtfm.mit.edu in
pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/law/copyright/faq.
Also consider gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright for
actual statutes. Another useful document is
http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer
This FAQ can be found at
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
=-=-=-=-=
Jerry Kindall
>Yes, Boyd's full name was listed and was linked via email. I say
>"was" because when we know someone disapproves, we'll be sure their
>articles are not included or are taken out. Frankly, in his case ....
>it did not take away the value of the discussion when it was removed.
You're not above adding insult to injury, I see.
Frankly, it would not take from away the value of the discussion on this
newsgroup if I were to place your e-mail address in my killfile.
>Craig David Horton
>DBasics htmlZine
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com)
Manual Labor: We Wrote The Book!
http://www.manual.com/home/
PALINDROME #15 IN A SERIES: Collect 'em all!
Sore was I ere I saw Eros.
DBasics Software Company
>You're not above adding insult to injury, I see.
Not at all. I'm probably one of the most arrogant, self-righteous,
egotistical, self-centered people you would ever have the unfortunate
honor to deal with. I'm also not above seeing reality as it is, which
holds true for me also. And if someone calls me a jerk, well hey, I
have no qualms about that. I know I am. I'm not going to sugar-coat
responses that are nothing more than repetitiious bashing.
But our work as far as the htmlZine is a different story. There's
been a few here, Boyd included, who seem to think that the htmlZine is
nothing but a compilation of copyrighted material and this couldn't be
further from the truth. Only a very small portion contains quotes
within the newsgroups and we are currently having them all removed.
I can assure the loss of the articles won't affect the popularity of
the htmlZine which has seen over a 1,000 unique visitors in just the
last week. Many of which have bookmarked it. (Yes, we have ways to
track this which is one of the reasons the htmlZine is popular - It
goes beyond just the basics and offers web site management resources)
A vast majority of the htmlZine is my own personal work, including
complex cgi scripting for web page color coding, page developing
scripts, visitor tracking scripts, etc. I take great offense to those
who seemingly "know" the law. We understand and have obtained legal
consul concerning the htmlZine's content. Anyone wishing to sue,
that's their right. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Strange though that
NO ONE whose article appears in the htmlZine has complained or
requested their material to be removed .... even Boyd. So if there
are no complaints .... what's all this htmlZine bashing for? Because
we expposed WebCan for blantantly distributing Matt's Script under a
different authorship without Matt's permission?
Maybe this is why I have no troubles in pointing out a few I consider
to be real schmucks for bashing something that is utilized by colleges
and secondary schools and has no commercial value to it.
Let me point out something to all those who think DBasics Software
Company is this big commercial company. "I" am DBasics Software
Company! No Employees, No Revenue, etc. I published clipper database
software for many years. DBasics Software came about only to make a
client of mine happy when it came to their bookkeeping. The name
stuck and I have been using it since. So this "commercial" labeling
is totally bogus. I have a "real" job that is outside the htmlZine.
The htmlZine is nothing more than a hobby and a personal project that
I take great pride in putting online. Nothing more and nothing less.
>Frankly, it would not take from away the value of the discussion on this
>newsgroup if I were to place your e-mail address in my killfile.
To each his own. While you're add it, add the following email
addresses also:
cho...@dbasic.com
wze...@dbasic.com
dba...@pacificnet.net
Laurel Halbany
>Anthony, this is a different issue. When you publish on the net, if I
>give you proper attribution to your work and republish it, am I doing
>anything more than a "compilation" of work issued to the public domain. I
>haven't taken ownership of the work, just pulled it together into a
>cohesive form. If I add original work to it, then I can take credit for
>the work as a whole, but not the individual parts that made it up.
Editing a bunch of work is still using other people's work. You need
their permission.
>This is a sticky issue, and it has been one in publishing for any number
>of years. The question, as I remember it being put, was what was the
>compensation for the authors of the original work or the compiled work. I
>am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in this case I seem to
>rememeber that compensation was the issue, not the ability to reprint as
>attribution had been kept.
Compensation is not the issue. Copyright is. You can forward these
posts via normal Usenet channels, but compiling and publishing them is
not OK.
>Matt created something for people to use, and gave it away for free. That
>doesn't give anyone the right to use that work to make money from it
>without giving Matt his fair share, or permit someone to take ownership
>for the work of another.
Giving it away for free is irrelevant. If I take the latest Stephen
King novel, run off 5,000 copies at Kinko's on my credit card, and
hand them out on a street corner, would that be OK? No, because it
would be reproducing an author's work without permission.
"Fair use" has become quite restricted these days.
Myles Edmonds
>laws by "quoting" my article(s) in your threads. Now isn't this a
tad
>petty. No more petty when you start comparing that to someone that
>redistributed someone else's cgi code under a different author.
No. Quoting is "fair use", when discussing a copyrighted work. For
instance, since I am discussing your article, I am within rights to
quote the above section so that I can comment on it. This exception
is necessary for free speech to work. And it's the law!
If you want to _discuss_ someone's CGI code, you can quote the
relevant parts of it. This is fair use. But stealing it so you can
run it yourself, without reimbursing the author, is not fair use.
>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me
the
>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
It all boils down to "fair use". If you are creating your own article
in htmlZine, with your own content, about a Usenet thread, you can
quote relevant parts of Usenet articles. But only as much as is
relevant to the topic under discussion.
But if you are just reprinting each article, in total, without
comment, then you are just trying to gain readership by stealing the
intellectual efforts of others, without reimbursing them.
>Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
>newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said? Is
>this not that a violation in copyright? Is every poster who quotes
an
>article in a thread a thief as some would like to make everyone think
>here.
One of my previous ISPs expired articles every 24hrs. Without quotes
I'd never have been able to follow a thread.
>This thread reminds of that game where someone whispers a story into
>the ear of one, then on to another, then another and finally the
>original story became so distorted that it causes everyone to break
>out laughing. :-)
Agreed. Sometimes these threads drift awfully far off topic.
--
<URL:mailto:medm...@netaccess.on.ca>
<URL:mailto:myl...@teleride.on.ca>
<URL:http://www.netaccess.on.ca/~medmonds>
REALITY.SYS Corrupted! Reboot universe (Y/N)?
The Great Grendel-Khan
>It's a good thing the original creators of the web - tcp/ip, html, etc..
>were not as worried about "intellectual property" as Craig.
>
>I thought HTML was about making information available in a standard form
>for all to see, use, and in turn share again.
I sort of agree. If someone thinks the way I designed a page is cool,
go ahead, rip off the source (I stole it from Lemay anyway), but I do
not agree if I come across one of my photos, poems, stories on your site
and you never asked to use it.
If you are fostering my work off as your own, then you...well you suck.
But if you just copy some buttons or bullets or something, who cares. I
do have some things on my pages that I worked hard on, and I figure if
you like them, come look at them on my page, that's why I made them. I
didn't do it to decorate your page.
The least that can be done is ask. Usually I am flattered and so far
have never refused anyone a request.
chris
--
What do you mean I can't read alt.sex | arg...@iastate.edu
or rec.arts.erotica? Can I have my money back? | <The Great Grendel-Khan>
| since '91
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~argent/grendel.html
DBasics Software Company
>"Fair use" has become quite restricted these days.
Says who? I don't mean to doubt your words, but it appears there's
alot being "copyrighted" in this thread that actually does apply to
"fair use".
Just because I have a thought written down doesn't give me absolute
copyright distribution rights. Each case is different depending on
many factors and although copyright does have assumption in
precedence, it is not the basis in court decisions but an assumption.
I think everyone should read The Report of the Working Group on
Intellectual Property Rights by Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary
of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the
Information Infrastructure Task Force, Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of
Commerce located at
<URL:http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/nii-report-sept95..txt>
which outlines various court case decisions and usage of the "fair
use" clause within the Copyright Act.
DBasics Software Company
>Quoting is "fair use", when discussing a copyrighted work. For
>instance, since I am discussing your article, I am within rights to
>quote the above section so that I can comment on it. This exception
>is necessary for free speech to work. And it's the law!
And that's exactly what the htmlZine does. And I should note that
only a few quotes were ever used. A great majority (over 95%) of the
htmlZine is my original work.
>If you want to _discuss_ someone's CGI code, you can quote the
>relevant parts of it. This is fair use. But stealing it so you can
>run it yourself, without reimbursing the author, is not fair use.
Which was the original topic here with what WebCan was doing with
Matt's Script. As far as the htmlZine, Matt Wright supports and has
linked the htmlZine in several areas of Matt's Script due to
modifications of his script we have made and given credit where credit
is due ..... Matt's Script and Us.
>It all boils down to "fair use". If you are creating your own article
>in htmlZine, with your own content, about a Usenet thread, you can
>quote relevant parts of Usenet articles. But only as much as is
>relevant to the topic under discussion.
Thank You !!!! Where were you 200 threads ago? :-)
>But if you are just reprinting each article, in total, without
>comment, then you are just trying to gain readership by stealing the
>intellectual efforts of others, without reimbursing them.
Which we don't !!!
>Agreed. Sometimes these threads drift awfully far off topic.
Which this thread has. Not that I really mind because it's been a
definite learning experience. If only the schmuck brothers hadn't
started their "personal" crusade and kept on track with the original
thought, we would still be discussing "fraud" and not "copyright".
Copyright is an important issue and I am very sensitive to it. The
subject of copyright law should be discussed here. Copyright
discussion is nothing more than opinions. Only the courts can decide
what is or isn't copyrighted. What applies in one instance
(redistributing usenet articles) may not apply in another instance and
can only be determined in a court of law. Granted there are specific
guidelines concerning copyrights, but these are only guidelines and
there are exclusions for every rule of the Copyright Act. This was
done to allow the courts to judge on a case-by-case basis.
Henry Davis
of many messages here.
2. the person who violated Matt's copyright was also wrong.
3. remember what your parents surely taught you: "two wrongs don't make
a right."
You can make your magazine "clean" by asking permission to include the
messages. When I ask permission for use, I clip the portion I'm
interested in and privately e-mail for approval. It's a trivial
exercise and the vast majority of people are happy to grant usage
rights. It's also the right thing to do.
Henry
Bruce Baugh
<snip>
Well, you've established to my satisfaction that you neither have a clue nor
realize the lack thereof. I will make sure to disrecommend htmlZine, if it comes
up in conversation.
*plonk*
DBasics Software Company
>Well, you've established to my satisfaction that you neither have a clue nor
>realize the lack thereof. I will make sure to disrecommend htmlZine, if it comes
>up in conversation.
Shucks. Does this mean you aren't sending us a christmas card?
Craig D. Horton
DBasics Software Company
George Stripling Jr.
>> Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>> difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>> htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?[snip]
>
>There is a whopping huge difference. The newsgroup articles are the
>location that the author has placed his or her work. References and
>quotes within criticism or replies is where the author expects his or
>her material to appear. This is the implied license that an author
>gives when appending to a newsgroup. Indeed, this type of use is
>mentioned in statutes and cases concerning copyright and fair use.
Finally! I guess there is intelligent life on earth after all!
Mr. Horton's pathetic struggle to save face on this issue is growing tiresome.
--
George Stripling Jr. <gds...@edge.net> / PGP Key ID F6A2CA2D
http://edge.edge.net/~gdstrip
"miles cable claws driller killer ripping holes tattered cloth stained" - Nivek Ogre
DBasics Software Company
>Finally! I guess there is intelligent life on earth after all!
Intelligent life .... Andrew Smith?
>Mr. Horton's pathetic struggle to save face on this issue is growing tiresome.
My pathetic struggle was a vain attempt at educating that "intelligent
life" you admire. Nothing more .... and nothing less.
And in that "pathetic struggle" I turned to outside resources for
advice. It put a dent in the ol' checkbook, but it was worth it
knowing that I would accept any challenges in a court of law.
You visited the htmlZine on April 10th and on the 19th. You viewed
NONE of the articles in question. The only article you viewed was the
one concerning this thread. So it appears you are making a judgement
without "all" the facts. But that's okay. Do me a favor and don't
revisit the site.
I balance knowledge with my arrogance, both of which have been
mastered quite well.
Bruce Baugh
>You can make your magazine "clean" by asking permission to include the
>messages. When I ask permission for use, I clip the portion I'm
>interested in and privately e-mail for approval. It's a trivial
>exercise and the vast majority of people are happy to grant usage
>rights. It's also the right thing to do.
Exactly. Ask, and then include a link back to the original poster or full info
or something. That's how I've handled posts from my mailing list. It's very easy
to do.
I R A Aggie
+ I balance knowledge with my arrogance, both of which have been
+ mastered quite well.
Now, if you could only do something with your temper...
Andrew Smith
Excuse me 'O fountain of knowledge, but if you are tired of having
people drag your name through the mud I'd suggest not throwing insults
at them when they are attempting to let the matter rest...
By the way, your lawyer is not the only lawyer with insight into how
to interpret what constitutes fair use. If lawyers were as important
as you seem to think, we would have no reason for judges at all. Sheesh,
a lawyers opinion is just another opinion, and it can be wrong. Due to
my background I personally know a lot about copyright too, even though
I am not a lawyer.
Regardless, lets take a step back, take a deep breath, and relax. The
Internet is not a private playground, and we are ALL entitled to our
own opinions. If you don't like what people are saying, then perhaps if
a little bit less sand was being thrown around?
Regards,
Andrew Smith
Custom Innovative Solutions
http://www.cisc.com/
DBasics Software Company wrote:
>
> >gds...@edge.net (George Stripling Jr.) wrote:
> >Finally! I guess there is intelligent life on earth after all!
>
> Intelligent life .... Andrew Smith?
>
> >Mr. Horton's pathetic struggle to save face on this issue is growing tiresome.
[snip]
> I balance knowledge with my arrogance, both of which have been
Bill Alsbury
Well I guess that if one wanted to get really petty about it one could
probably say that by posting a message here one is implying permission
for someone to treat in such a way as would be regarded as usual. i.e
including it as a quote in replies to clarify the reply. However
everything that is written is copyright and any further usage I would
imagine requires permission. But I am no lawyer.
dba...@pacificnet.net (DBasics Software Company) wrote:
>Okay sea lawyers. Then each one of you are in violation of copyright
>laws by "quoting" my article(s) in your threads. Now isn't this a tad
>petty. No more petty when you start comparing that to someone that
>redistributed someone else's cgi code under a different author.
>
>Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
>idiot to not have used the proper terminology in my meaning. It
>didn't take long for several of you to jump on that one.
>
>Okay so now we have changed the subject now. Kewl! Explain to me the
>difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
>htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
>
>Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
>newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said? Is
>this not that a violation in copyright? Is every poster who quotes an
>article in a thread a thief as some would like to make everyone think
>here.
>
>This thread reminds of that game where someone whispers a story into
>the ear of one, then on to another, then another and finally the
>original story became so distorted that it causes everyone to break
>out laughing. :-)
>
>Craig David Horton
>DBasics Software Company
>http://www.dbasic.com/users_group/html/
>
***************************************************************
* Bill Alsbury bi...@avel.com *
* Internet Support http://www.avel.com *
* Avel Group / Avel PiP ph +44(0)1872-262236 *
* Heron Way, Newham Ind. Estate fx +44(0)1872-262246 *
* Truro *
* Cornwall. TR1 2ST *
***************************************************************
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Craig David Horton wrote:
> Posts in the newsgroups are public domain.
I would advise you to talk to your lawyer before making such an
assumption. Or at the very least, read the usenet copyright FAQ.
> This however, doesn't mean
> that I can go out and sell the postings within the newsgroup.
Which is one piece of evidence that they _aren't_ public domain.
> haven't done that. I have put the htmlZine online in the same manner
> as DejaNews operates but under a different format. I am perfectly
> within my legal boundaries in doing this. See
> <URL:http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen> for information on Web Law
> by Oppedahl & Larson.
So they say that usenet postings are public domain, do they?
I find that hard to swallow. This is quite impossible under the
Bern convention. Where are those magic words "I place this work into
the public domain" (or equivalent) in every posting?
What you are actually _doing_ might be ok. But your grasp of
principles is askew, I am certain, even though I am no lawyer
(and this is not legal advice).
Richard Haynal
dba...@pacificnet.net (Craig David Horton) wrote:
*--snip
>The issue that is in question is the right to take original author's
>name off the work and replacing it with someone else's. We have not
>taken any newsgroup article clippings and put our name on them as
>being the author.
That's not the issue. The issue as I see it is someone lifting
someone elses work without permission. If YOU put out the htmlZine
then you are putting your name on it.
*----snip
>So going back. How does comparing an apple to an orange derive the
>same ethical value? Except maybe they are both fruits? That's a
>vague comparision which is what is happening in this thread.
Your mind works in strange ways. Just because many steal does not
make it right.
just my .02
Alan J. Flavell
[hmmm. So this article (just arrived) is the one that you
accused me of failing to read before I posted my followup
several days ago. I thought you understood how usenet worked?]
On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, DBasics Software Company wrote:
> Of course newsgroup postings aren't public domain and I was a real
> idiot to not have used the proper terminology
OK, implied apology accepted. [I hope all the other people who
misunderstood the meaning of "public domain" are taking note, and
maybe they'll toddle off to news.announce.newusers where they can
check out the Copyright Myths FAQ.]
> Explain to me the
> difference between our placing snippets of newsgroup articles in the
> htmlZine and you quoting someone's article when replying? Huh?
I see at least two differences. (Reminder: I am not a lawyer, and
this is not legal advice).
1. Under the fair usage provisions, one is allowed to quote extracts
from a copyright work for the purposes of comment and discussion.
This seems to cover "proper" usenet quoting.
2. All usenauts read the new user FAQs before posting (right?), so
they know that netiquette requires a neat extract of the posting
to be quoted in order to extablish context.
Therefore, when they post on usenet they are aware of the usual
customs, and may be deemed to have accepted that their posting
will be handled in a similar way. I'd call that "implied licence";
you might call it "implied license".
> Newsgroup articles are properly threaded and referenced with most
> newsgroup software. Why do you "repeat" exactly what was said?
But you don't repeat the whole article (unless you are a clueless
newbie). The whole point of extracting the relevant point is to
show the subsequent reader what the relevant point was, to save
them having to trawl through the entire article trying to work it
out for themselves. I rather imagine that this is one of the
things that the fair use provisions were intended to cover.
Just because a derivative work is not sold, does not relieve its
author of the need to honour the provisions of copyright law.
AFAIK, of course.
best regards
DBasics Software Company
ia...@hgea.org (Richard Haynal) wrote:
>dba...@pacificnet.net (Craig David Horton) wrote:
>*--snip
>>The issue that is in question is the right to take original author's
>>name off the work and replacing it with someone else's. We have not
>>taken any newsgroup article clippings and put our name on them as
>>being the author.
>That's not the issue. The issue as I see it is someone lifting
>someone elses work without permission. If YOU put out the htmlZine
>then you are putting your name on it.
First we don't put out the htmlZine. Your choice of wording shows you
are making a statement without knowing all the facts .... meaning you
haven't seen the articles referenced in the htmlZine.
Well then you haven't a clue as to what we did. We "had" given the
authors of the work full name credit and linked them via email. And
someone putting someone elses work on something doesn't mean they are
putting their name on it. When you read a book that is compiled
from works by others .... and at the end you see a section called
"references" .... what do you think this means. Duh!
>*----snip
>>So going back. How does comparing an apple to an orange derive the
>>same ethical value? Except maybe they are both fruits? That's a
>>vague comparision which is what is happening in this thread.
>Your mind works in strange ways. Just because many steal does not
>make it right.
Many don't steal. Maybe that's the impression you have of the web,
but your mind is the one working in mysterious ways if that's the
case. If you had read the original article of this thread, you would
be able to see the differences between outright stealing someone's CGI
script ... and referencing someone in a newsgroup article. This is
apples and oranges.
>just my .02
You overpaid!
Craig David Horton
DBasics htmlZine
http://www.dbasic.com/htmlzine/
Sonya M. Chappelear
Hi, I have just a few remarks:
1) Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
2) Our government, technically speaking, is for the people, by the
people. I believe this is considered a sign of a civilized people.
3) Cynicism is nothing more than egoes efforts to propel itself and it
usually meets with failure except in the eyes of fellow cynics.
4) Two wrongs don't make anything right.
5) By definition Ignorance is due to a lack of knowledge and/or
experience. Stupidity is due to a lack of intellegence, and does not
necessarily have anything do with choice.
6) "A spade is a spade..." would only be true in a black & white world,
so this statement is merely a slur and nothing more and only stands to
reflect thusly upon those that would utter such a thing.
7) Because a guilty person says,"I am sorry." they are no less guilty.
This stands to be true within the actual letter of the law and within
truth whether deemed just or not. The law is also suppose to be governed
with compassion.
8) Apples do not equal oranges except on a very basic atomic scale.
Lastly I wonder, why does an individual that has nothing to do with the
events that took place feel the need to put forth so much persecution
rather than just expressing his or her feelings. I see this repeatedly
throughout this particular newsgroup. Someone feels threatened by
anothers actions and they immeditately lash out in anger, regardless
of whether the action was directed at the person feeling threatened or
not. It is okay to feel threatened by another person, but people, please
take responsibility for your own feelings and actions, for they are YOUR
own. There is truely great reward in doing so, for it will give you
power over your own life and help you elimate why you feel threatened.
In doing so you will find yourself living a less stressful exisitance
which is good for everyone.
Sincerely,
Sonya Chappelear
"In treating others decent we show ourselves to be decent. This is a
prudent practice as one day you may walk in that other persons shoes."