Re: Copyright & the net: more thoughts

[Mike Pope <mikep -at- ASYMETRIX -dot- COM>]

How about this:

     you post information voluntarily, therefore for free. No
          one asked you to, so you cannot ask for
          compensation in return.

     you can take information for free, and even disperse
          it elsewhere for free, all without the
          original poster's permission.

     you may NOT disperse any postings for money, period, whether
          for profit or otherwise. If you want to distribute for
          money, you must contact the original poster of each
          message you intend to include and negotiate an
          arrangement with them. Anyone else who gets your
          message (off another list, for example) has to follow
          the same rules.

Basically, if it's for your own use, it's free. If it's for commercial use,
you
gotta pay.

Is that too simplistic?

 -- Mike
mikep -at- asymetrix -dot- com


 ----------
>From: TECHWR-L
>To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
>Subject: Copyright & the net: more thoughts
>Date: Thursday, April 14, 1994 10:18AM

>This discussion is interesting, and seems to have polarized into two camps:
>the free-spirit thinkers who suggest that information posted is free for
>all, and the word-as-property thinkers who adhere to strict interpretations
>of copyright laws. (But how do such laws apply to electronic media?)

>There is merit on both sides, and I am struck by the tone of an article
>in the April issue of CompuServe magazine, which describes a case of how
>one person helped another on CompuServe. It seems one person wanted some
>advice on how to trim a fruit tree. Another person gave that advice, using
>her time and professional knowledge, and giving both for free. (The method
>used is fascinating detail, but not relevant here.)

>This is not an isolated incident. Thousands of people are giving advice,
>counselling, direction, and more on bulletin boards, online services, and
>the Internet. If these same services were offered face to face, they would
>cost the receiver, usually by the hour. Why are people willing to give
>freely of themselves here?

>I'm a writer. I expect to get paid for what I write. I've also done
>technical support, and been paid for that. Yet I offer solutions over
>networks, and don't ask for anything in return. Am I stupid? Or, as the
>CompuServe article suggests, is this electronic society somehow different
>from the regular workaday society. Is this a society where somehow more
>civility, tolerance, and freedom are expressed without being taken
advantage
>of?

>As a writer, I can be--and have been--quite possessive of my work. One
>other contributor has objected strenuously to the use of contributions,
>at least without explicit permission. Is such a rigid adherence to the
>rules of that outside workaday society contrary to the openness and
>freedom of this one? The answer probably is: it depends on who you ask.
>But this society has set up few rules, and the few rules there are seems
>to be based on tolerance, respect, and freedom. If we impose the rigid
>rules here of that outside world, will we stifle the desire to freely
>give of ourselves, poisoning the so-far carefree atmosphere that exists
here?

>I think these questions have no good answers, or at least no answers that
>will satisfy everyone. But it seems that this dichotomy of two separate
>worlds is real, and perhaps to function well in this one, we may have to
>re-think how we deal with a number of issues, including that of copyright.

>Chuck Martin
>Information Developer, IBM
>techwriter -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
>techwriter -at- aol -dot- com
>74170,2462 -at- compuserve -dot- com