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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Me too...the graffiti is more entertaining than the ads!

On 28 Apr 2002 at 13:07, D. C. Sessions wrote:

From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
Organization:   	***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
Date sent:      	Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:07:27 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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> ----------+
>