[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''



On Friday 26 April 2002 10:41, Roy Murphy wrote:
# 'Twas brillig when Ron Gustavson scrobe:
# >The question is what constitutes an "unauthorized copy of a 
# >work"...having distributed it on USENET she now can't claim that any 
# >copy is unauthorized. She might have a cause of action if someone were 
# >to pick up a bunch of stories from that newsgroup, including hers, and 
# >publish a book of them. But sending it out on USENET means that she is 
# >granting permission to make and distribute copies. Furthermore, in 
# >some sense using USENET forms a type of contract. In consideration for 
# >giving her distribution of her work at no cost to her, others used 
# >their servers, comm. lines, and time (moderators and system 
# >administrators) as consideration. Contract fulfilled.
# 
# I don't know that contract is the best way to describe this 
# transaction.  I think it's more likely that some form of implied, non-
# exclusive license is created by virtue of posting to Usenet.  But it 
# may not follow that the implied license extends to republishing Usenet 
# content on the web.

Posting to Usenet is like tagging: you're putting your "works" out to
the world without regard to who reads them using a medium that
you don't own or control.

Which raises an interesting question: isn't tagging automatically
copyrighted?  If so, then under the European creative-control
doctrine that is on its way to being imposed in the USA, doesn't
the tagger have rights over his creation, in particular rights against
unauthorized alteration?  Such as removal?

I'd love to see some inner-city gangs suing to prevent having some
of their "art" protected from the City and property owners.

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+