Re: Copyright issues - The Superhighway Steamroller

Dan Hinckley ([email protected])
Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:31:04 -0700 (PDT)

Irregardless of the issue of whether someone can really copyright
Internet distributed text, quoting the article, even extensively "for the
purpose of critical review" is in fact fair use under copyright law. As
with all such juris, the key element is the idea of intent: if the intent
is to review and rebut, rather than redistribute, it is in the spirit of
critical review.

Dan Hinckley The EarthWeb Project
Executive Director voice: 303.642.7330
204 Divide View Drive fax: 303.642.7330
Golden, CO 80403 email:[email protected]

On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Mary Morris wrote:

> I have received several comments about my rebuttal
> and the lack of quoting. Here is one of them and
> my response. If I am reading the copyright incorrectly
> please enlighten me. I don't know much about this
> stuff right now.
>
> Also, am I violating the copyright by posting the
> copyright here? Is that considered part of the
> message itself?
>
> Mary Morris
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> >From marym Mon Jun 27 09:27 PDT 1994
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 09:27:03 +0800
> From: marym (Mary Morris)
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: The Superhighway Steamroller
> Cc: marym
>
>
> > Nice answer. But I think you did not need to delete "per copyright"
> > Hart's comments you were responding to. Wouldn't that fall under
> > "fair use"? One can always quote from a copyrighted passage in
> > order to review or discuss it. It made the letter harder to follow
> > for those like me who haven't seen the originial.
>
> The copyright says:
> THIS MESSAGE IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION, INTENDED ONLY TO BE
> READ BY THE PEOPLE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. RECIPIENTS OF
> THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE IT IN WHOLE OR IN
> PART WITHOUT MICHAEL HART'S WRITTEN PERMISSION, OTHER THAN
> TO REPLY.
>
> I read this to mean that since it didn't originally go
> to the www-talk alias, I would not be replying. I don't have
> full netnews up and running yet or I would have posted
> the rebuttal to the original news group. If you know how
> to post by mail I would appreciate that information.
>
> I can understand copyrighting work, but I think that
> this copyright went too far. Posting it to a newsgroup
> makes it available for an audience of close to 10 million
> or about half of the Internet community. Knowing who does
> or doesn't have the ability to be a "recipient" is a
> horribly gray area here.
>
> I have written him to ask for permission to include
> his text in my rebuttal.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mary Morris
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>