[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Advertising Creepiness
> From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness
>
> Something that came across our Reuters feed over the weekend is a lawsuit
> by the whitehouse.com folks -- they're pissed that a new version of
> Netscape has some "intelligent" guessing features that, when someone types
> in "whitehouse," automatically take 'em to whitehouse.gov.
>
> Which interferes with the rights of the whitehouse.com porn site, or so the
> argument goes.
At least it doesn't cost $40 million to get porn from whitehouse.com.
Sounds like a pro-consumer move to me. ;-)
> At 12:59 PM 11-8-98 -0500, Information Security wrote:
> > > From [email protected] Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998
> > > From: Robert Hettinga <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now
> > > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news list.
> >
> >Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles?
> >
> >I would.
> >
> > > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent...
> >
> >"Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore.
> >
> >Would you like Information Security to cough up more
> >color on his netcopping move?
> From [email protected] Sun Nov 8 20:15:48 1998
>
> Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue
> that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full.
>
> Willfully redistributing copyrighted material in violation of fair use
> principles is, depending on the value, also a federal crime. Redistributing
> a $1 article to thousands of people would be a felony. (Note I don't
> endorse this law, but it's useful to know what the law is.)
I guess that qualifies as a request for more color.
In the local Panix Usenet groups, I've reposted quite a few whole articles,
often from the IP list.
Finally, a couple people made a stink, and officially complained to Panix.
Carl Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 11 Sep 1998 23:54:58 GMT, Information Security <[email protected]> wrote:
: Okay, I've been tolerating this for a long time, but: this is a
: violation of both Federal and international law. Post URLs, not articles.
My inelegant response:
Eat me.
The local posters kept applying pressure:
: But beyond whatever legal consequences this may entail for you
: personally, I wonder what consequences it could conceivably entail for
: panix. Posting copyrighted material to general Usenet newsgroups is
: one thing -- panix's staff could reasonably claim that they cannot
: monitor or filter every Usenet newsgroup. But they could not
: reasonably make that argument about the local panix newsgroups.
The thread grew full of legal claims, and Panix consulted with lawyers.
In the following post by the owner of Panix, the references
to "sections 1,3,4" are from the IP list's fair use declaration
URL http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
# Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
# From: [email protected] (Alexis Rosen)
# Newsgroups: panix.announce,panix.policy,panix.chat,panix.questions
# Subject: Determination on copyright issue
# Date: 17 Sep 1998 11:28:27 GMT
# Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
#
#
# This message is in response to the discussion/flamewar in several groups
# over the posting of copyrighted material by [email protected]. Please read it,
# think about it, read it again, and think again before posting in response.
# This is a pretty nasty subject.
#
# In the wake of the postings and complaints to staff about guy's postings,
# I consulted with two lawyers about this issue. One was a BLM, and the other
# is a BLM and RIPE too. (Those are extremely technical acronyms for Brilliant
# Legal Mind and Recognized Intellectual Property Expert. :-)
#
# [snip]
#
# I'm not going to go into the details much, because IANAL. But in short,
# here's the answer: Fair use is a VERY fuzzily-defined concept, not in
# principle where it's stated clearly in the law (as quoted here several
# times recently), but in practice, where the courts try to interpret it.
# Guy's claim for fair use could easily be correct, according to the BLMs,
# because it may well qualify under sections 1, 3, and 4. I didn't think
# so, but then again, I'm not a BLM, much less a RIPE. It would be a truly
# terrible idea for us to take action, given the reasonable possibility that
# there is no violation.
#
# It was also pointed out to me that Panix can not act against Guy's posts
# without threatening its own position in any future case that might hinge
# on whether Panix were an Editor of panix group contents. This might or
# might not be the case were someone to start posting large quantities of
# commercial software, but the two cases aren't similar, since guy's
# postings aren't obvious and uncontestable violations.
#
# In any event, the BLMs' opinion was that I should very definitely leave
# guy alone. This ruling extends to the one or two others that occasionally
# post copyrighted material of similar nature, including one of Panix's staff.
#
# Of course, were the volume of such posts to rise substantially, things might
# be different. So this should not be seen as an invitation for all Panixians
# to start posting their favorite copyrighted material here on a regular
# basis.
#
# Lastly: In an ideal world, everyone would learn from this and leave the
# topic, wiser if sadder. In this less-than-ideal world, if you really want
# to post a followup, I suggest that you consult a lawyer. If I hadn't, I'd
# surely have stuck my foot in my mouth all the way up to my knee the first
# time I posted about this topic.
#
# /a
So, I was allowed to continue posting whole articles.
That's what the lawyers advised.
Then, the Digital Copyright Massive Federal Interference Act...
> Fair Use vs. Intellectual Property: The U.S. Congress
> passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a bill designed to
> distinguish between fair use and protected intellectual property
> in cyberspace.
>
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01146:>
I chose the IP list as the next-level test case...
---guy
snipped source: http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-981106-144532.html
Suspicious Object Found On Capitol Mall Was Not A Bomb
ST. PAUL, Updated 8:35 p.m. November 6, 1998 -- Police hauled away a package
with the words "Impeach Clinton Now" and signed by "the Mad Bomber" from the
state Capitol on Friday, but temporarily lost when it flew out of a bomb
squad trailer.
A KSTP-TV helicopter was following the bomb squad van as it drove off
towing a trailer containing the suspicious package. The station was
taping as the package flew out of the open trailer in the wind and
at least three cars ran over it.
It took police about an hour to find the remains in the highway median.
Some 200 employees, including Gov.-elect Jesse Ventura, were forced to leave
the Capitol...