I hate to chime in here, because this subject has been beaten to death on
three different mailing lists I am subscribed to, but...
> > Just because something is publicly available for free doesn't mean anyone can
> > start making and distributing copies on their own.
EXACTLY
> > Content has to be explicitly
> > placed into the public domain for that behavior to be legal, and making
> > something available over the net for free does *not* place it into the
> > public domain.
EXACTLY
> I don't think that applies here. This is more like a newsgroup.
WRONG. Think about the word copyright. *The right to make a copy.* The owner
always reserves the right to make a copy, whether or not that is stated,
per the Berne convention agreement of 1920-something, subject to revision
by the 1996 copyright convention. Unless this int'l convention actually changed
something, ONLY the copyright holder has the right to decide when a copy of
the work gets made. S/he makes the first set of copies by placing into a *pre-
defined distribution stream*. Any use of the work outside of this distribution
stream, whether it is a mailing list or a newsgroup, must be checked with
the authors of the work, unless it is a small enough section of the work to
be considered fair use. (I think that a copy cached on one's own hard drive
for personal use only should also count as "fair use," although there is no
case law that I know of.)
public forum != public domain
Nothing is public domain (free to use; the public has the right to copy at any
time) unless the author explicitly places it there.
HINT: The key phrase here is *pre-defined distribution stream*. For my
mailing lists, that is a set of human beings reading the messages for their
own entertainment and/or enlightenment.
Bonnie Scott
Prodigy, Inc.
Not a lawyer, but I do know a little bit about this.
And yes, I know I left out the part about works-for-hire. It's not
relevant here.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
