On 1/22/00, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/15/00, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Under current U.S. law if I subscribe to a print newsletter, I
> > > cannot photocopy it and redistribute it within the company,
> > > though I can route the printed newsletter to as many people
> > > as I want.
> > >
> > > But a pdf file is not print. It makes little sense to distort
> > > the technologly so much by requiring deletion of the copy from
> > > one computer when the pdf file is sent to another computer -- as
> > > opposed to simply making multiple copies and redistributing it all
> > > at once. It also makes little sense not to allow me to post it to
> > > a company bulletin board or webpage for others to come and read --
> > > just as if this were done with hardcopies in a company meeting room
> > > or lunchroom or bulletin board, etc -- even though copies will be
> > > made as people access that webpage or bulletin board.
> >
> > Why does it make little sense?
>
> Because the technology online is quite different from that of print and
> this should be recognized by everyone involved - and licenses should be
> crafted and pricing set accordingly.
I don't see how you've answered my question. A broad statement about technology doesn't do it.
> > How is removing a copy of the .pdf file from the subscriber's computer
> > distorting the technology?
>
> See above answer.
Heh, see above response.
> > One could say the same thing about a transfer of a copy of software.
>
> Yes, but newsletters are different from applications, aren't they. And
> works of art and games and data files and so on all have differences
> which may justify treating them differently from one another -- and
> different from somewhat analogous hard copy material.
Yes, but you haven't explained how or why.
> Just as posting something on the web should be construed as allowing
> people to look at it and make at least transitory copies, and, I would
> argue, cache copies, and even personal copies for their own use -- if
> you don't want this, require payment and limited access schemes and
> licenses which explicitly and intelligibly negate it -- within normal
> limits of the modes of operation of the browsers and such.
Positive law isn't what we're discussing, and you're mixing in many different issues and veering away from the one at hand.
> > And posting a copy to the Intranet is *not* the same as putting the
> > magazine in the lunch room.
>
> Who said it was "the same as"? My point is that the differences in
> technology justify differences in treatment and expectations of use
> and that the law and the conduct of people should reflect this.
Again positive law. A discussion that has merit but.
> As I understood the query, and I possibly misunderstood it, the question
> was not as to what could or could not be included in the license, but
> what would be the default set of rights.
Exactly, and I don't see how under current law, absent a license permitting it, you've justified putting the .pdf file on the Intranet for all to access and see and print. There's a fundamental difference between transient copies and real copies floating around. The former is impossible to avoid on a computer whereas the latter has nothing or almost nothing to do with technology and a lot to do with infringement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT