..Can A Writer Quote a Usenet Post?

[Jason Stephenson]

In article <94211.18...@psuvm.psu.edu>
D.W. Moore <DW...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>
>Has it been legally established whether postings on usenet newsgroups are
>public such that they can be quoted in a book or magazine without the
>writer's permission? Or is this still an open issue?

This is still a somewhat open issue. The NII working group has asked Congress
to amend the Copyright Law to cover Usenet and other electronic media, but
this is still pening.

There is also the question of what rights a poster has granted in making a
post to Usenet in the event that the Copyright Law applies. It is best to
assume that the Copyright Law applies, since this appears to be the most
obvious and likely scenario (given that all written works are created from
their inception).--Of course, this runs counter to the traditional Usenet
assumptions of copyright and there have been many debates lately in many
newsgroups on the topic. (I've passively watched copyright violations on the
'net for the last five years and realize that as the Internet goes more and
more mainstream these violations will have to be pointed out and corrected
before the perpetrators go to jail.)

Now, having stated that the Copyright Law does stop at the frontier of Cyber-
Land (tm, don't even dream about it, Disney) or even at the three mile limit,
it is time to mention fair use. I won't give you the full definition of fair
use as described in the law, but it essentially boils down to the following:
you may quote short excerpts without the author's permission provided those
excerpts are duely documented as to origin and author (which can sometimes
be tricky on the 'net) and so long as your purpose is educational or for
commentary. Thus in an article for a print magazine about the vagaries of
on-line communication, you could quote a line or two from a post that is
longer than a line or two and that complains about how easily people are
misunderstood on the 'net without the author's permission provided you
give credit to your source. (Best to use their full name and the date,
and don't disclose their e-mail address, that would be very rude and could
get you in trouble.) Using a whole message without the author's permission
is definitely a no-no, and if I ever find one of my posts reproduced on CNN
I'm suing.

Please note, this is a departure from my stance of a few months ago. At the
time, I was fully aware how copyright works and how it supposedly worked in
conjunction with the 'net. However, there have been no cases involving
copyright infringement and the 'net so there are no precedents upon which to
base an assertion. A judge or jury could make all kinds of weird decisions
concerning copyright, particularly if they are ignorant of how the 'net works.
There has always been the question of implicit permissions and public domain
and just how these would be interpreted under the current law. Since that
time, I have learned of the NII's recommendation for amendment to the Copy-
right Law to extend protection over the digital media. If this proposal
passes, then the state of copyright on the 'net will be clear and in accord
with current Federal law. Naturally, this only applies to the USA, though all
Berne-member nations will either follow suit or already have provisions to
cover the 'net or their laws are already sufficient.

+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Jason Stephenson | "Curiouser and curiouser," |
| jjst...@ukcc.uky.edu | said Alice. |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+

[Bret Parker]

D.W. Moore <DW...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Has it been legally established whether postings on usenet newsgroups are
>public such that they can be quoted in a book or magazine without the
>writer's permission? Or is this still an open issue?

While the responses to your posting addressed copyright and fair use,
I have been wondering about another issue related to the quoting of
messages on usenet newsgroups -- are they "on the record"; are they
for attribution; are they background info.

I guess it's not crystal clear that a comment on a newsgroup has been made in
a forum that has a sufficiently public nature that when someone
posts a message that they should assume that they have essentially been
speaker to a reporter or writer who quote them.

I'm not sure how I would feel if I expressed an opinion here and then
read it on the front page of the New York Times the next day without
the reporter checking with me.