Re: TotalNEWS & Derivative Works

Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Phil Stripling <philip[_at_]crl.com> replied:
> >
> > I think that's the nub of the argument.
>
> Yes but not for the reasons you think.

I'm always glad to be informed.

> > Who's talking about copying? I don't understand my argument to be about
> > copying.
>
> Mark has correctly recognized that whether you talk about copying or
> display does not actually matter.
>
> > SNIPped my stuff about display not copy
>
> Who causes the copying or the display? TotalNews or the user?
> TotalNews is not displaying anything. They are merely providing a
> reference to something which the user can display, or a computer
> program which, when the user runs it, will display the work.
> TotalNews might be said to be authorizing or inducing both the
> copying and the display but they do not cause the framed page to
> be displayed on any particular screen. That is what is necessary
> for direct infringement - a particular display or copy.

Sorry, I'm not buying that either. Go to a copyshop and read the signs on the wall about unauthorized use of the copy machines (at least in the US). Nobody has sued Xerox or whoever made the copy machines, but people have sued copy shops and won for unauthorized copying (again, in the US).

I also don't buy that TotalNews is not displaying anything. Are their advertisers paying for ether? Electrons? If they're not displaying anything, somebody's making an awful lot of money for nothin'. I read an interview with a convict in prison for murder. His comment was he didn't belong in jail because it was his right hand that pulled the trigger; he suggested cutting off his hand and letting him go. TotalNews isn't displaying anything? Merely providing a reference? Inducing the copying and displaying but not causing it? No, sorry. The editors at TotalNews have marked up some text so that the result is the display of the works of others. "But your honor, I didn't shoot the victim, my right hand did" becomes "I didn't display the page, the HTML I wrote induced the public display of that page by someone else."

> Whether you go after them for copying or display it doesn't actually
> matter. The issues are identical. Mark correctly states that some
> form of indirect infringement is the category under which TotalNews
> are most at risk, but authorising something already permitted under
> a licence is not a breach (probably ;-).

I agree that the issues are identical, but don't say that TotalNews is not copying my work if I'm not saying they're copying my work -- they're displaying my copyrighted pages. My understanding was that I was out of luck, according to Mark, because my work wasn't "copied." Not my position. Copying isn't necessary to infringe.

Phil Stripling
philip[_at_]crl.com Received on Thu Jun 05 1997 - 18:02:39 GMT