Digital rights and mailing lists

I'm no lawyer, and I'm far from an expert on copyright, cyberspace
(there must be a better word than that...), and fair use. I've watched
as things developed over the last ten years, and I've tried to pay
attention to the trends as well as to the areas I've participated in
as well.

It doesn't take a lot of searching to find material such as the following:

"While authors of list messages implicitly agree to share their
intellectual property through the list and its archive, the writers
retain all the copyright privileges of their messages." [from the
public policy statement of a mailing list]

There must be no shortage of opinions (legal and otherwise), both
foreign and domestic, on all sides of the issue. One of the
organizations I have always looked to for leadership in this area is
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/). Their
masthead mission statement/description is to the point:

"EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people — lawyers, volunteers,
and visionaries — working to protect your digital rights."

I think most people in this discussion will already be familiar with
them. One may or may not agree with one or more of their viewpoints or
agendas, but in an area that is hardly settled, they have a long track
record of very effective action.

So I note that on their very own public mailing list, ACTION (I forget
the acronym), they include the following in the terms of agreement as
you join the list:

"You own your own words. Subject to a vote altering these provisions
(e.g. allowing full archival of list traffic or some such), all
postings are to be considered copyrighted by their posters (unless
otherwise noted). Neither EFF nor anyone else has any rights to your
content, nor to the content as a "collective work".

It is presumed that posts marked "press release", "please distribute",
"announcement", "news" or otherwise indicative that distribution is
allowed, or having the character of an announcement of some sort, are
in fact redistributable unless otherwise noted (e.g. "discussion
draft, please do not repost" means what it says.) It is presumed that
anything indicating specifically that it is for this list only is not
to be forwarded to others, and that all other posts, incl. those not
marked, are OK to forward to other individuals with instructions not
to repost, but may not be forwarded to other forums or otherwise
publicly reposted."

I believe the above is proper and just.

Regards,
Jon

Hi Jon,

> "You own your own words. Subject to a vote altering these provisions
> (e.g. allowing full archival of list traffic or some such), all
> postings are to be considered copyrighted by their posters (unless
> otherwise noted). Neither EFF nor anyone else has any rights to your
> content, nor to the content as a "collective work".

> It is presumed that posts marked "press release", "please distribute",
> "announcement", "news" or otherwise indicative that distribution is
> allowed, or having the character of an announcement of some sort, are
> in fact redistributable unless otherwise noted (e.g. "discussion
> draft, please do not repost" means what it says.) It is presumed that
> anything indicating specifically that it is for this list only is not
> to be forwarded to others, and that all other posts, incl. those not
> marked, are OK to forward to other individuals with instructions not
> to repost, but may not be forwarded to other forums or otherwise
> publicly reposted."

That sounds right to me! Nice to have such a clear statement of it.

I'm sure it has to be opt in - unless someone feels like
paying a lawyer to investigate it professionally.
Anyway even if it were legally okay there is the
matter that you treat with consideration the
views of people you respect about their own
copyright material.

There will be plenty of interesting material
in the archive as it is - all of Margo Schulter's
posts for one. Also all of Paul Erlich's
and many others.

Also something else to note. The archives
will be searchable in google - I made that
clear that it was public when asking
for permission. Each page will have
a header that links to a page
where you can opt into the list
by sending me an e-mail. So anyone
active in the field of tuning is likely
to come across it once it gets properly
indexed in google. So even if they have
left the list long ago, so long as they
are still alive and active in tuning
theory or practice, there is a good chance
they will find out about it in time
and can ask to have their posts added back
in. So maybe gaps will gradually get
filled in that way too.

Also another thing. I've felt all along
that this archive is only an interim
thing and that hopefully once in this
form some incentive may arise for people
to rework their posts in some other
format. If anyone wants to be sent
an archive in the same format but
consisting of just their own posts so
that they can rework them
all then I can do that - and it doesn't
matter if they have opted in or not.
It is understandable that members
who haven't opted in may want to
be sent their posts so that they
can rework them into something they
find acceptable for future archiving
in some other format later.

Manuel and I had plans to make the
archive available on CD. It will
also be uploaded as one enourmous
zip file so that visitors can
download that and read it off-line.
The zip is a lot smaller than
100 Mb because the html has a lot of
repetition and compresses
dramatically - I can't remember exactly
but it was sort of more like the size
of a large mp3.

Robert

> I'm no lawyer, and I'm far from an expert on copyright,

I can tell.

> cyberspace (there must be a better word than that...),

The EFF uses it, it must be right.

> It doesn't take a lot of searching to find material such
> as the following:
>
> "While authors of list messages implicitly agree to share

That's how they run their list, and it's pretty standard
practice, but I'm not aware of it being challenged in
court. But copyright does not usually extend to exclusion
from libraries, for example. Authors don't have to opt in
to get their books in libraries, and they have a vested
interest in their material, unlike posters to a message
board.

> I believe the above is proper and just.

That's just your opinion, Jon.

-Carl

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > I'm no lawyer, and I'm far from an expert on copyright,
>
> I can tell.

Well, that wasn't necessary.

> > cyberspace (there must be a better word than that...),
>
> The EFF uses it, it must be right.

I've gotten tired of it, and since politicos and no-nothings use it in
place of "the Internet", I figure there must be an occasional synonym
that would fit.

> That's how they run their list, and it's pretty standard
> practice, but I'm not aware of it being challenged in
> court.

WTF? I'm just citing it as a fairly high-profile example to follow.

> But copyright does not usually extend to exclusion
> from libraries, for example. Authors don't have to opt in
> to get their books in libraries, and they have a vested
> interest in their material, unlike posters to a message
> board.

Tough. You're extrapolating and wandering far afield.

> > I believe the above is proper and just.
>
> That's just your opinion, Jon.

Read your own url, Carl.

Jon

Rbt,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:
> That sounds right to me! Nice to have such a clear statement of it.

Yes, and better by learned and hard-working people like Mitch Kapor
and John Perry Barlowe than little me.

> I'm sure it has to be opt in - unless someone feels like
> paying a lawyer to investigate it professionally.

You know, we're among collegues, friends, hanger-outers, supporters -
it *has* to be opt in if you value at all the people that contributed.
I know it leaves holes, but that was never thought about up-front.
Otherwise it's just "let me suck out your knowledge and the hell to
you afterwards".

> Anyway even if it were legally okay there is the
> matter that you treat with consideration the
> views of people you respect about their own
> copyright material.

Well put.

> There will be plenty of interesting material
> in the archive as it is - all of Margo Schulter's
> posts for one. Also all of Paul Erlich's
> and many others.

Indeed, assuming yours will be represented as well.

Cheers,
Jon

Ok, that's two posts deleted in nearly as many hours.
My appologies to e-mail subscribers. I'm going to go
take a cold shower.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> it *has* to be opt in if you value at all the people that contributed.
> I know it leaves holes, but that was never thought about up-front.
> Otherwise it's just "let me suck out your knowledge and the hell to
> you afterwards".

Let's try that in academia. If you want to cite a theorem, you need to
ask permission. If you want to review someone else's work, you must
first ask permission. "Let me suck out your knowledge and the hell to
you afterwards" describes the ideal situation, if you happen to care
about knowledge. You should ask permission for certain kinds of use,
but hardly for putting publically posted material in an archive.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Let's try that in academia.

Go do it. This isn't academia, thank God. I go there when I want and
need to.

> but hardly for putting publically posted material in an archive.

Not everyone agrees with that.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I'm no lawyer, and I'm far from an expert on copyright,
> cyberspace (there must be a better word than that...),
> and fair use. <etc. ... snip>

Jon's post made me think right away of the violations
to American citizens's which are built into the
USA PATRIOT Act ... in particular, these two sections
which open "TITLE II — ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES":

>> Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and
>> electronic communications relating to terrorism.
>>
>> Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and
>> electronic communications relating to computer fraud
>> and abuse offenses.

this is a good one too:

>> Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications
>> to protect life and limb.

so i thought that anyone who hasn't read it yet might
appreciate a link to download the text of it. there
are several sources, here's one:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/patriotact.pdf

unfortunately, the way American laws are written,
most of them are simply amendments and changes to
existing laws, so you have to dig out the whole history
of a law in order to understand it. this is exactly
the case with all the sections i cited above.

I'd bet that many others are (or will be) as surprised
as i was to find out that the name of this thing is an
acronym:

Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
...
Act of 2001

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > it *has* to be opt in if you value at all the people
> > that contributed. I know it leaves holes, but that was
> > never thought about up-front. Otherwise it's just
> > "let me suck out your knowledge and the hell to
> > you afterwards".
>
> Let's try that in academia. If you want to cite a theorem,
> you need to ask permission. If you want to review someone
> else's work, you must first ask permission. "Let me suck
> out your knowledge and the hell to you afterwards" describes
> the ideal situation, if you happen to care about knowledge.
> You should ask permission for certain kinds of use,
> but hardly for putting publically posted material in an
> archive.

i had wanted to stay out of this one, but i'm compelled
to agree with Gene.

if we were talking about private emails between one
individual and another, that's a different story. but
everyone who posts to internet lists does so in the full
knowledge that what they post may be copied and saved
by anyone who reads it.

it's ridiculous to say *afterwards*, "oh, i don't want
that archived". you knew when you posted it, of the
possibility that it would become a part of recorded
history.

i do admire Robert's consideration, and i would have
made the same kind of effort if i had undertaken the
job of making an archive, simply because i think that
that consideration is good ethics.

but i still disagree with those who withdraw their
posts from the archive, and think they're doing the
wrong thing. the glaring example is Dr. Daniel Wolf,
whose posts i always found extremely informative and
would love to study over and over, but who opted out.

-monz