>I am doing research on a similar subject: Copyright protection for
>works on the Internet. Some issues I am focusing on include:
>--can digitizing a public domain work give it copyright protection
>(for that work)?
This would be a feat. I fail to see where digitizing a work could possibly give it copyright protection. I would suggest that you (re)read Feist.
>--how will the current Copyright Act be applied in light of the Net?
>(I'm particulary looking for views besides those given in the NII Green
>Paper). How will reproduction, distribution,etc. rights be affected?
I refer you to my NII green paper comments (I can send them if you can't find them anywhere). But what worries me is that a vast multitude of "copies" are made when anything is done on the Net.
As a note here, the NII paper commented that loading a work into RAM fixed it sufficient for creation of a "copy". This was based on a fairly ambiguous comment in the CONTU report. Well, as luck will have it we have had at least one recent case so hold (MAI v. Peak).
The problem then is that when you move e-mail (news, etc.) across the Net, "copies" are made at each step/hop in the journey. Likewise, viewing an electronic work creates "copies".
The ramifications of this are not insignificant. For example, the Church of Scientology (CoS) recently sued NetCom (amoung others) for copyright infringement since NetCom allegedly allowed its network to be used to transmit what are allegedly copyrighted works. Netcom of course has no way of knowing what is or is not covered by copyrigbt or trade secret.
NetCom's position appears to be that they are a common carrier. But I am not sure how that helps them in terms of copyright infringement, except maybe as to innocent infringement.
Thus, the criticality of the question of how does the Net work (in a copyright sense). I had been a long time proponent of a theory of implied license, that one impliedly licenses providers such as NetCom to reproduce one's work as long as the reproduction was within the accepted standards of the medium.
But more recently I have been brought over to what I call the "Big Coper" theory, which is that the sender of e-mail/news, etc. essentially is the "copier", since most of copying at issue is automatic. I draw the line at the point where the act becomes volational. Thus, for an unmoderated news group, the poster would be the copier until putting the post on a news queue at my machine, then I would be the copier when reading off the news queue. (Note at least one gray area here - where you have a moderator involved, as you do here).
The difference for companies like NetCom is critical here. One cannot give a license of any type (implied or express) if you don't have ownership of a work. Thus, if the CoS stuff is truly copyright protected, and the "copies" are not covered (as claimed by the defendants) by fair use, then NetCom could be liable for (probably innocent) copyright infringement. Under the "Big Copier" theory, they probably would not be.
>--should the Copyright Act be changed so as to specifically cover
>Internet issues?
It may have to be, in particular to address the fixation issue. Also, note that you can legally back up the computer programs on your hard drive, but not anything else (unless in the public domain), since section 117 applies ONLY to software.
But I would probably be opposed to any sort of major rewrite or in particular some sort of sui generis approach (note the Semi-Conductor Chip act).
>--what is the role of licensing when works are on the Net?
>I would also be willing to send a synopsis of my results to anyone
>interested.
Sure
Copyright 1995 by Bruce E. Hayden, All Rights Reserved. This work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution, as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
Bruce E. Hayden 7604 Vail Valley Drive
bhayden[_at_]bga.com Austin, Texas 78749
bhayden[_at_]acm.org (512) 892-7915
Received on Sun Mar 05 1995 - 17:19:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:14 GMT