RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:11 PM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
> 
> 
> 
> > > There's a big different though.  The paper is "free" 
> financially, but
> > > probably not copyright wise.  I would be willing to bet 
> they put up
> > > copyright notices on the paper.
> > > 
> > > Your post, published on a mailing list, likely isn't considered
> > > protected.  By definition, when you post something to the 
> public without
> > > attaching a copyright notice, you lose protection.  You 
> know the list is
> > > available to the public through the web archives.  I 
> would say google
> > > Groups has no problem archiving millions of usenet 
> conversations for this
> > > very reason.  
> > 
> > Unfortunately, in order to comply with the Berne 
> Convention, it is no
> > longer required to make any claim of copyright in order to 
> be protected by
> > copyright.
> > 
> > Just another way we've hung ourselves.
> > 
> Yes, but how does that realistically apply?  Let's say I own the
> copyright because I wrote it, and I'm protected by default.  
> Still if I
> post something that I know if going to a public forum, I am implicitly
> giving permission (under my copyright control) for that item to be
> published.  The difference is subtle (no protection rights vs
> having and waiving them.)

Not quite.  You are not giving permission for that item to be
published -- you are publishing that item.  But any publication
has limits.  The limits of "dvd-discuss" may be rather broad,
and may even shift around from time to time, but they are in
essence defined by the machinery behind the propogation of the
messages.  It is an algorithmic definition, but a definition
all the same.  Where the law has been getting lost is in all
the copies that are made in the execution of that algorithm, 
claiming that each (potentiall) requires a separate explicit
act of permission.  Which is where the model view comes into
play.  It is one act of publication to "dvd-discuss".  Any
republication must be negotiated separately.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!