Re: Copyright and the 'Net (2

["Arlen P. Walker" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>]

      For illustration purposes, the Copyright Law applies to published
      material, in both printed <book> form and compact disk <either book or
      music>. The Copyright Law allows for something called "first use rights,"
      which applies to the purchaser of a copyrighted work. If I wanted to copy
      a song from a CR to casette tape, the Copyright Law allows me to do this,
      so long as I receive no compesnation for doing so <as in selling the tape
      upon which the copyrighted song appears>.

Here's where we have a difference in understanding about Copyright. As I
understand what you've just written, it means that as long as my closest 10,000
friends don't pay me for it, they can each hand me a tape and I can copy a CD
onto it for them, without breaking the law, as I'm receiving no compensation for
it.

That doesn't quite square with my understanding of the law, which is that I'm
entitled to make a copy of anything I own, "for archival purposes," but cannot
pass that copy to anyone else. Any compsation I receive plays into damages the
copyright holder can recover, but copying something for free and passing it on
to a friend is still a violation of the law, even if I receive no compensation
for it.

   If the message proves to libelous, both the
   sender and the forwarder may be held libelous, but the sender won't be
   able to collect any damages for copyright infringement.

The copyright law carries with it a provision for penalties of up to $50,000 in
fines per infraction, so you can still be liable, even when you don't make money
on the infraction. That's the basis of many of the SPA's lawsuits. In few of the
cases were the defendants making any money from the illegal copies. They were,
however, making copies and distributing them.

But I'm still unclear where email fits in to the copyright law. There was some
talk about raising email to the status of regular correspondance in the debate
surrounding ECPA, but I'm not sure if it ever happened.

Incidentally, your points about libel are well taken. It frankly hadn't occurred
to me that anyone had posted potentially libelous remarks. If they had,
collecting them and publishing them would indeed also come in for libel
concerns, as well as copyright.

   P. S. Do I have to get the sender's permission to "print" <as in dupliicate,
   make a "hard" copy of> an e-mail message for my own personal use? No,
   because the Copyright Law allows such "fair use" <the author is not
   "cheated" out of any royalties> and it doesn't violate any libel laws for
   my copying in no way defames the sender.

Right, that's "fair use" and is also specifically allowed "for archival
purposes." Printing 100's of copies of a collection of replies, binding them in
book form, and distributing them isn't "fair use"(which is the contention that
started this thread).

   Like Paul said his audience "I've got a clear conscience." Am I off-base
   in discerning between copyright issues and libel issues???

Not at all. But if you're contending that libel issues and copyright issues
can't *both* apply to the situation being discussed, I think you are.


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 24

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------