Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
Quoting Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. This implies the right to download, read, and do the normal sorts of things one does with a document -- but not to redistribute or create/distribute derivative works. Note: That copyright notice has been a NOOP since adoption of the Berne Convention on Copyrights, which among other things makes copyright title vest automatically in the creator of any covered creative work, at the moment it's put in fixed form. (Arguably, a copyright notice tends to remove people's assertion of ignorance, and is a good idea on general grounds, but it no longer has legal effect, otherwise. Prior to Berne, it was possible to lose copyright title by distributing instances without notices. No longer.) At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? That would be redistribution, which is one of the rights reserved to the copyright owner by default. So, you'd be committing technical copyright violation. Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? I can't see why you would be. What the owner has done is issue a second _instance_ of the work with different terms, i.e., the obligation to pay for access to it. You already pulled down your copy of the earlier instance, which was under a slightly difference licensing regime. But, per your hypothetical, neither instance came with a grant of the right to redistribute, so recipients may not lawfully do that. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. This implies the right to download, read, and do the normal sorts of things one does with a document -- but not to redistribute or create/distribute derivative works. Note: That copyright notice has been a NOOP since adoption of the Berne Convention on Copyrights, which among other things makes copyright title vest automatically in the creator of any covered creative work, at the moment it's put in fixed form. (Arguably, a copyright notice tends to remove people's assertion of ignorance, and is a good idea on general grounds, but it no longer has legal effect, otherwise. Prior to Berne, it was possible to lose copyright title by distributing instances without notices. No longer.) I recall reading once, a very long time ago, that the inclusion of the phrase, All Rights Reserved would in certain countries (not US) provide the author with additional rights that would otherwise be forfeited. Do you know more about this? ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I recall reading once, a very long time ago, that the inclusion of the phrase, All Rights Reserved would in certain countries (not US) provide the author with additional rights that would otherwise be forfeited. Do you know more about this? I was going to post my vague recollection of this, but decided to try to look it up, and found this: http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
[vox-tech] Copyright and license
Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? Pete -- The mathematics of physics has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's Fearful Symmetry GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
On Sunday 23 January 2005 13:02, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? Pete Lawyers will making bundles of money off questions like this. I'm not a lawyer, however. The answer to the second question seems clear. If a publisher gave away free copies of a book, they couldn't demand them back because they ran short and now could sell them. And publishers do often give away free copies. The first questions seems less certain. By the same analogy, if you gave your copy to a friend and deleted your own copy, that would be completely OK. If you keep your copy while giving a copy to a friend seems marginal. On the other hand, if it is just for his/her personal use, I wouldn't worry about it. Also, the publisher may well have added to the original when they made it a commercial product. Then you could argue that it is not the same document anyway. We see beta software stay in circulation even after the release version is out. Richard Harke ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
On Sunday 23 January 2005 13:02, Peter Jay Salzman flailed at a keyboard and produced this: Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? All I can figure is that that would be up to the creator of the document. You already own a copy of the document, having downloaded it for free, so it is now your document, to do with as you wish. You're not allowed to make money off of it or claim that it is your own (such is the nature of copyrights), and you probably shouldn't be distributing it either. Personally, I'd rather that such documents were spread with Creative Commons-style licenses, and that the people who release documents for free should realize that it's probably too late to make money off of them later on. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so take my answer with the biggest grain of salt you can find. As a writer, though, this is an issue which is important to me personally. -- Slainte, Richard S. Crawford (mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) AIM: Buffalo2K / http://www.mossroot.com You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus. -Mark Twain GPG Public Key located at: http://www.mossroot.com/rscrawford.asc pgp8OyXIzUdzj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
On Sun 23 Jan 05, 2:33 PM, Richard Harke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sunday 23 January 2005 13:02, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? Pete Lawyers will making bundles of money off questions like this. I'm not a lawyer, however. The answer to the second question seems clear. If a publisher gave away free copies of a book, they couldn't demand them back because they ran short and now could sell them. And publishers do often give away free copies. Hi Richard, Thanks for the two cents! One of the reasons why I didn't think the 2nd question was clear is because I have audio CD's that actually DO say something to the effect of this is a prerelease, and this CD must be surrendered if we ask for it. But then again, that can be considered a rudimentary license, whereas the OpenGL tutorial didn't have anything like that. The first questions seems less certain. By the same analogy, if you gave your copy to a friend and deleted your own copy, that would be completely OK. If you keep your copy while giving a copy to a friend seems marginal. On the other hand, if it is just for his/her personal use, I wouldn't worry about it. Also, the publisher may well have added to the original when they made it a commercial product. Then you could argue that it is not the same document anyway. Yeah, that's VERY true. I'm kinda curious though. I've actually read the US copyright bill, and it's very permissive when it comes to academic and personal use. The heavy restrictions come about via DMCA statutes. But the copyright bill itself (other than the insane amounts of time a person can hold a copyright these days) isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Pete -- The mathematics of physics has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's Fearful Symmetry GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
Peter Jay Salzman wrote: Suppose someone writes a useful document. They put a copyright notice onto the document, but no license. They put it on the web, for free, and it stays there for years. At some point I download a copy of that document. The *intention* (although not explicitly stated) is for people to download the document and play around with it (the document in question is an OpenGL programming tutorial). Now suppose they decide to make money off the document, so they set up a commerce site and charge for access to that document. Am I allowed to give my copy of the document, from when it was freely available off the web, to somebody? Am I now obligated to delete the document off my hard drive? Obviously, IANAL, but... To the latter question: /no/. If it was freely given, without stipulations, you needn't worry about it. As to the former; this is a little tricky. The copy you currently own is validly yours under whatever license (explicit or implicit) through which you originally obtained it. The same thing applies to software: if someone distributes GPL code, and then at some point stops distributing it under GPL but rather through some other (proprietary, say) license: he has a right to do that. But you also continue to have the right to use, modify, sell or distribute the GPL'd version you obtained. Of course, in this case, there is no explicit license, and while it seems clear that there is an implicit license for your copy, the right to redistribute it may not have been implied. If you can hunt through archives and find reason (from the author's writings) to believe this, you may be safe. Probably the very best practice would be to obtain *explicit* permission from the author to redistribute your copy. However, note that even if he explicitly tells you to throw out your copy, I don't believe that constitutes a legal obligation to do so, given that it was given to you without stipulation or restriction. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
Peter Jay Salzman wrote (in reply to Richard): Thanks for the two cents! One of the reasons why I didn't think the 2nd question was clear is because I have audio CD's that actually DO say something to the effect of this is a prerelease, and this CD must be surrendered if we ask for it. But then again, that can be considered a rudimentary license, whereas the OpenGL tutorial didn't have anything like that. I think that's exactly the case. There is an implied license in the OpenGL case. There are some things which I believe you can take as definitely implied--that is, they'd almost certainly hold up in court. I think there are other things which you might be able to support as being implied, but which might be less stable a case. ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Copyright and license
On Sun 23 Jan 05, 2:44 PM, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter Jay Salzman wrote (in reply to Richard): Thanks for the two cents! One of the reasons why I didn't think the 2nd question was clear is because I have audio CD's that actually DO say something to the effect of this is a prerelease, and this CD must be surrendered if we ask for it. But then again, that can be considered a rudimentary license, whereas the OpenGL tutorial didn't have anything like that. I think that's exactly the case. There is an implied license in the OpenGL case. There are some things which I believe you can take as definitely implied--that is, they'd almost certainly hold up in court. I think there are other things which you might be able to support as being implied, but which might be less stable a case. It's kind of a shame, because they were decent OpenGL tutorials. What made them special is that the guy had other people translate the tutorials into different windowing API's: Win32, SDL, GLUT, and some others. Too bad. The whole site where the the OpenGL tutorials were hosted appears to have gone semi-commercial. Pete -- The mathematics of physics has become ever more abstract, rather than more complicated. The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated. He also appears to like group theory. -- Tony Zee's Fearful Symmetry GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D ___ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
