[1386] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Oct 5 16:38:24 1992
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:09:41 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
6 Messages, 199 Lines
*-----
Moderator's Note: I join what I hope is the majority of readers who
think enough has been posted on PACS-L on this subject. The following
messages will be the final postings on this subject. On to other topics!
Thank you for your cooperation. --Dana
*-----
From: jahb@Lehigh.EDU (JENNIFER A. HEISE)
Subject: Re: Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter
Arrgghhh! Will you people calm down about M. Hart's disclaimer?
I think that some disclaimer fo this kind is necessary, because CERTAIN PEOPLE
seem to have taken liberties: i.e. widely disseminating messages that were
obviously intended as quick comments in the context of a collegial discussion
on the listserv. This, in my opinion, is very much like gossip: "... and you
know what SHE said?" and is often misleading when taken out of the context of
the discussion.
I react very strongly to this. Almost a year ago, I posted describing my own
and other experiences with the internet at SU as a graduate student,
unfortunately using somewhat immoderate language. This message, out of c
ontext, was forwarded to someone in authority at SU, who was greatly
distressed.
We act, in general, as if this was a community of colleagues, in large part
because it sounds like it is. However, there are both loud and lurking
"sneaks" and people who seem impervious to the idea that you should ask
someone before quoting them to the universe.
Perhaps the idea is that the net has now become a publishing medium, and so
remarks made on the net are published, and don't require permission to be
quoted; i.e., the newsletter model. I prefer the idea of PACS-L as a
conference room or conference call in which people discuss their ideas and
problems informally. In such a setting, one should feel obligated to contact
a person before quoting them widely ("May I quote you on that?"). But I guess
we are going to be internet settlers, and PACSL will become another serious
point for the politicking of academia. Too bad.
** Don't disseminate this over another listserv, quote it in print, or shout
it to the world without asking me, okay?****
Jennifer Heise Net: jahb@lehigh.edu
Reference Dept., Phone: (215) 758-3072
Fairchild-Martindale Libraries #8A, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015
My opinions are my own. No one else would HAVE them anyway.
"What I need is a strong drink and a peer group." -- Ford Prefect
*-----
From: Neal_McBurnett@ATT.COM (Neal McBurnett)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE messages
> "Michael S. Hart" writes:
> <THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE, CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,
> AND, IS INTENDED TO BE READ ONLY BY THE PEOPLE TO WHOM IT IS
> ADDRESSED. RECIPIENTS MAY NOT COPY, CHANGE, DISTRIBUTE, USE
> OR DISCLOSE IT IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT MICHAEL S. HART'S
> WRITTEN PERMISSION. Copyright [1992] Michael S. Hart>
> ...
> Please allow me the right to choose when and where my words would
> appear. . .that way I don't have to write everything as "Crossing
> the Internet Threshold" recommends. . .as though it were going to
> be printed in the New York Times.
I don't like the tone of this, and I am very suspicious of the
legality of it. You injure the positive perceptions I
have of the Gutenberg project by claiming these things, since
you are so closely associated with it.
Copyright prevents me from copying something. It says nothing about
who should be able to read it - a trade secret would be good for that,
but you couldn't defend it if you published it like this.
What if I decide to give my copy of your message to someone else, and
not retain it myself. How can you prevent me from doing that? If
PACS-L maintains an archive which "non-addressees" read later on, is
the act of reading the message (which inevitably involves copying the
data) an act you would try to prosecute? Who - PACS-L? The reader?
Neal_McBurnett@ATT.COM (Neal McBurnett) 303-538-4852 AT&T Bell Labs, Denver
*-----
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter
Copyright is copyright. Adding additional restrictions to the
[optional] copyright notice has no legal effect. Furthermore,
under the Berne treaty there is no legal difference between
published and unpublished work, so the question of whether net
submission is publication need not arise. (U.S. courts still
tend to give extra protection to unpublished works, but I don't
think they would do so in this case.)
> From: <KINGH@SNYSYRV1>
> I believe you can quote anything from a public forum, just as you can quote
> from a book.
There are limits on such copying, of course. Fair use does not
usually permit copying the full text, even when reporting "This
is what he said: ..."
My own take on Michael Hart's notice is that he is trying to set
up a contractual obligation to respect his wishes, but has not
met the legal requirements of contractual law. It's a "shrink
wrap" license, the sort of thing which U.S. courts have always
ruled invalid. I think we should ignore Michael's notice and
treat the messages just as we would any other. (All of the
messages are copyrighted, with implicit permission for customary
transmission and use by net readers. No publisher has the
right to compile Michael's messages into a book or public
database, other than the list archive.)
Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
-- Ken
*-----
From: "Michael S. Hart" <HART@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter
First. . .the Gutenberg Newsletter is NOT the Newsletter2.
Let's at least refer to them correctly.
Second. . .speech's can be copyrighted. . .re: "I Have A Dream"
Third. . .Newsletter2 is my own private creation. . .for my own private thots.
Forth. . .I am not terribly hostile about all these comments.
Thank you for your interest,
Michael S. Hart, Professor of Electronic Text
Executive Director of Project Gutenberg Etext
Illinois Benedictine College, Lisle, IL 60532
No official connection to U of Illinois--UIUC
hart @uiucvmd.bitnet or hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
*-----
From: Sanjay_Chadha@library.tmc.edu
Subject: CopyRight & Other Stuff...
Well, after sitting on the sidelines on this one (& many others), I have
decided to throw my two cents in. I agree with all contentions Prof.
hart has made, ie. having a right to know of where he appears (in person
or by proxy), case in point, Prime Minister of India (now deceased),
Rajiv Gandhi, once did an indepth interview, which showed up in
PENTHOUSE! Needless to say, that is not the place he wanted it to
appear, and tried his best to stop it. The interview printed, because,
no matter how Mr. Gandhi felt about it, PENTHOUSE did not have to honor
his wishes (they did go to court), and since the interview was given
willingly, and no contention was made that it will NOT appear in
Penthouse, it was his loss. (I don't know what representation, if any
the reporter made to get the interview).
So if Prof Hart wants to beta test his thoughts, as someone pointed out,
he could choose to write letters to 4000 or so of PACS-L subscribers,
but he choses to use the electronic media, with unknown destinations,
practically making them public domain. This is not to say, that others
can copy his work (and claim it as theirs?), that is something CopyRight
will protect, but I don't see how anyone can make a case against copying
with properrly attributing the source in this case. Those interested
can look up something called "REPORTER's PRIVILEGE" for rationale behind
this. Also, Prof Hart is well aware (knows or should have known) that
PACS-L is archived (one copy), is mirrored on several other lists (X
Copies..), archived at several FTP cites, printed by users (will 2 print
outs violate it??) and so on..., and thus is willingly condoning making
copies (of course, his point is, that he does not mind, so long as one
of those copies does not show up where he doesn't want it to show up,
a'la Rajiv Gandhi), so I don't see how he can hope to exercise control
on it.
For that reason, MOST BULLETIN BOARDS PROHIBIT UPLOADING COPYRIGHTABLE
material, without explicit permissions. CopyRight is a property law, it
tries to protect your property interest in what you have produced, just
like you cannot prohibit people from looking at your house if you build
it on a main road, you can't prohibit people from looking at your work
or passing it on if you choose a public forum, as you can never
demonstrate how that one (or many) persons violated your property right.
If took his notes and posted them on "PSYCHOPATHS UNLIMITED" BBS (does
it exist?? :-) ), how have I done any damage? All of it's members can
become members of PACS-L and receive the same information! (This logic
would not work, if PACS-L was a proprietary, fee based, exclusive
network)
Sanjay R. Chadha
sanjayc@library.tmc.edu
HAM-TMC Library
*-----
From: Howard Pasternack <BLIPS15@BROWNVM>
Subject: Re: Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter
>From: "Michael S. Hart" <HART@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
>I would like to be able to post editorial and subjective comments
>without having them spread all over before I can polish them up--
>for hopeful release to the general public.
>
Come off it. You spend heavens knows how much time playing games
with your text so that all the lines are right aligned.
Howard Pasternack
Brown University
