Re: Copyright issues - The Superhighway Steamroller

hallam@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip)
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:10:35 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406280843.AA15512@dxal18.cern.ch>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: hallam@dxal18.cern.ch
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: hallam@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Copyright issues - The Superhighway Steamroller
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

In article <7786@cernvm.cern.ch> you write:
|>Xref: CERN.ch cern.www.talk:3855
|>Newsgroups: cern.www.talk
|>Path: CERN.ch!cernvm!servus
|>From: marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris)
|>Subject: Re: Copyright issues - The Superhighway Steamroller
|>Message-ID: <7786@cernvm.cern.ch>
|>Sender: SERVUS@crnvma.cern.ch
|>Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
|>Distribution: cern
|>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 19:39:43 GMT-1:00
|>Expires: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 22:00:00 GMT
|>Lines: 58
|>
|>
|>I have received several comments about my rebuttal
|>and the lack of quoting. Here is one of them and
|>my response. If I am reading the copyright incorrectly
|>please enlighten me. I don't know much about this
|>stuff right now.
|>
|>Also, am I violating the copyright by posting the
|>copyright here? Is that considered part of the
|>message itself?
|>
|>Mary Morris
|>----- Begin Included Message -----
|>
|>>From marym Mon Jun 27 09:27 PDT 1994
|>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 09:27:03 +0800
|>From: marym (Mary Morris)
|>To: davis@DRI.cornell.edu
|>Subject: Re: The Superhighway Steamroller
|>Cc: marym
|>
|>
|>> Nice answer.  But I think you did not need to delete "per copyright"
|>> Hart's comments you were responding to.  Wouldn't that fall under
|>> "fair use"?  One can always quote from a copyrighted passage in
|>> order to review or discuss it.  It made the letter harder to follow
|>> for those like me who haven't seen the originial.
|>
|>The copyright says:
|>THIS MESSAGE IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION, INTENDED ONLY TO BE
|>READ BY THE PEOPLE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. RECIPIENTS OF
|>THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE IT IN WHOLE OR IN
|>PART WITHOUT MICHAEL HART'S WRITTEN PERMISSION, OTHER THAN
|>TO REPLY.
|>
|>I read this to mean that since it didn't originally go
|>to the www-talk alias, I would not be replying. I don't have
|>full netnews up and running yet or I would have posted
|>the rebuttal to the original news group. If you know how
|>to post by mail I would appreciate that information.
|>
|>I can understand copyrighting work, but I think that
|>this copyright went too far. Posting it to a newsgroup
|>makes it available for an audience of close to 10 million
|>or about half of the Internet community. Knowing who does
|>or doesn't have the ability to be a "recipient" is a
|>horribly gray area here.
|>
|>I have written him to ask for permission to include
|>his text in my rebuttal.

There is no absolute copyright in the sense Hart is claiming. The relevant
acts specificaly permit `fair use'. In the context of the internet annotation
of selected potions (not the whole work!) would almost certainly be considered
fair use, especially when posted to ten million people. You can't use the
copyright laws to prevent reviews

--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker

Not Speaking for anyone else.