Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

(brainpan) RE: x 4 Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

by brainpan (Monk)
on Nov 14, 2000 at 15:19 UTC ( #41552=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
in thread Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

As I agree with what tye said in this node I don't want to belabor the legal issues here, but I think that your point still needs to be addressed. If I'm understanding you, the subtext of your reply is "how can I get the permission of someone who's dead?". In the cases you site it's relevant to know that copyright protection lasts "for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years." If the copyright is allowed to expire then the work goes into the public domain.

And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.


Comment on (brainpan) RE: x 4 Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
RE (tilly) 5: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
by tilly (Archbishop) on Nov 14, 2000 at 17:37 UTC
    In point of fact the length of protection of copyright changes over time. And for a good part of the last century the period has been extending faster than time goes by.

    Should this continue then pro-copyright pressure groups shall truly circumvent the US Constitution's statement that copyright shall be for limited terms by making the term of protection "forever minus a day".

    An interesting question for the lawyers therefore arises if you borrow code examples from this site. Legally the copyright is clear, you need permission to use it in your own code. But practically...people wouldn't post if they were going to object to your using it!

      I once heard that the copyright duration gets extended each time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain.
        Yep. It's coming up. I know music in the States because public after 75 years.

        Also, the RSA patent on their public key encryption scheme has entered public domain. It did so in September.



        FouRPlaY
        Learning Perl or Going To Die Trying
RE: (brainpan) RE: RE: RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
by jepri (Parson) on Nov 14, 2000 at 18:08 UTC
    We're back to the lawyers already. I'm not being smart here, I honestly think you either missed what I was trying to get across, or you are being overly finicky on the details.

    The sub-sub text of my post was that these people didn't need lawyers. They added to the body of knowledge and didn't bitch when someone else quoted them. And they definately did get quoted.

    Please see my new discussion item for more detail.

      They added to the body of knowledge and didn't bitch when someone else quoted them. And they definately did get quoted.
      But I bet they didn't have a transcript of what they said at Joe's Bar and Grill published in the paper.

      There are certain expectations of privacy established through custom. I'm not talking about the "right to republish" here. Copyright law covers that.

      I'm talking about courtesy and decency. While a newspaper reporter probably has a right to republish something he overheard in a pub, chances are that his editor would require a fact-finding mission first to verify the truth of what was said before publishing it, especially if it was embarassing or damaging.

      We have certain privacy expecations in society. Yes, legally, there appears to be no difference between the CB and a node. I'm not interested in arguing this along that axis. I'm just talking about expectations.

      I expect that my CB chat will be transitory, viewed by the audience that I expect is there (as seen by a glance to "other users") and then disappear into the ether. So I treat it like I would a pub-style conversation, where I get loose sometimes and don't always think about my facts or opinions... I'm just chatting, I can fix it back up in a minute or two if someone disagrees.

      On the other hand, I expect that a node is more permanent (like a Usenet message or a column I write), so I think carefully about what I write, make sure it'll make sense in the context presented, and usually reserve opinion and controversy unless I'm responding to something I strongly disagree with. In other words, I write what I expect will be quoted and my name attached to it.

      Some people here (perhaps you) are requesting me to change my expectation about the CB (pub to me), to presume that there's not only the temporal attendees, but a microphone connected to a loudspeaker outside the building. I'm sorry, but if that were to happen to me explicitly in a pub, I'd probably stop talking. And if it happened to me implicitly in a pub, I'd raise bloody hell as I did here, because it violates what I consider to be the scope of my audience.

      So that's why I feel violated when the transcript was quoted. I thought I was talking in a pub, and someone published a pub chat in a newspaper. Further, I thought we had already agreed not to do that, but as I've seen now, that's not the case.

      I'm glad we're getting a chance to discuss it now. What I'd like to see is a resolution (soon) that codifies the expectation. Either:

      1. We agree that CB is transitory (like a pub), and agree not to publicly log it (or get permission before reposting a log), or
      2. We agree that there is no difference between a node and the CB, and that conventional quoting rules apply, or
      3. We agree to something else.
      My mistake for presuming #1 was already in place.

      So can we get this resolved soon? Leaving it ambiguous as it appears to be now really doesn't work for me.

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

        Well said merlyn. I'll ++ this node as soon as I'm allocated my next round of votes. A few thoughts, in no particular order: perhaps there had been a general understanding that the chatterbox is everything you say it is in option #1. Just as your extensive knowledge of perl is not necessarily known by us peons, so it is with your knowledge of monastery politics. You've been around here considerably longer than many (most?) of us, and some people don't pick up on unspoken rules no matter how much exposure they have to them.

        You mention that the Chatterbox is like a pub. Conversations there are off the cuff, relaxed, unguarded, transitory, and somewhat private. I'll grant you all but the last one, as I discussed over here. Like it or not, people browsing this site as Anonymous Monk can read what is going on in the chatterbox. Or to borrow your analogy (without asking permission no less :)) this is like someone put "a microphone connected to a loudspeaker outside the building." Pardon my saying so, but if you s/loudspeaker/scrolling hypertext/; and s/building/manastery walls/; this describes the present system exactly, and you knew this, if only for reading this thread. I propose a modification to this is my aforementioned post, but right now we're still in the raising bloody he|| phase of the operation.

        Please understand, I mean no disrespect to merlyn or anyone else in posting this, and as a participant/ maker of noise in the thread that sparked this discussion, I both understand and sympathize with your indignation over having an informal conversation introduced into the permanent public record. Unlike you, I was logged in when it was mentioned that the conversation was going to be posted to a node. I remained silent, implicitly giving my permission, (whatever that was worth) and I assumed that the poster would go through the unspoken formalities before publishing said content. Evidently that did not take place, and a much needed discussion was started. Started, I might point out, by a trivial intra-monastery misunderstanding, not by Anonymous Monk's "Unguarded Wisdom of the Wizard" book appearing on the NY Times bestsellers list. From the alge filled end of the pool it looks like this has been a good thing for the monastery.

        And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.
        Some people here (perhaps you) are requesting me to change my expectation about the CB (pub to me), to presume that there's not only the temporal attendees, but a microphone connected to a loudspeaker outside the building. I'm sorry, but if that were to happen to me explicitly in a pub, I'd probably stop talking. And if it happened to me implicitly in a pub, I'd raise bloody hell as I did here, because it violates what I consider to be the scope of my audience.

        I always viewed the chatbox as more like a street corner, but I do appreciate your point. You thought you were surrounded by friends and/or companions and someone did something that you consider quite unfriendly. But how do you scope your audience? You and I haven't even talked to each other up to now, but you had that whole conversation in front of me.

        So that's why I feel violated when the transcript was quoted. I thought I was talking in a pub, and someone published a pub chat in a newspaper. Further, I thought we had already agreed not to do that, but as I've seen now, that's not the case.

        I just had a quick look through the site FAQs - I can't find it anywhere. It's a bit late here so maybe I'm missing it.

        I'm glad we're getting a chance to discuss it now. What I'd like to see is a resolution (soon) that codifies the expectation.

        How should we resolve this? I feel you should have provided some mechanisms for this, rather than just throwing the question out - that makes it seem rhetorical. We could do a quick poll, or a vote or something. But it seems that the way you handled it worked quite well. (I guess)You contacted the person responsible, said something, they changed their mind and all was OK again.

        If you are worried in particular about my hard line post, then I assure you that I won't print a transcript of any conversation you engage in here, without your explicit permission. Believe it or not, I agree with you. It wasn't the politest thing for someone to do. I'm just strongly against rules. Courtesy, sure. Enforced, I'd rather not.

        I'm sorry if this is a little incoherent, it's late but I think you wanted a response sooner rather than later.

        ____________________
        Jeremy

        Responding to merlyn's expectations of the status of CB content, "I expect that my CB chat will be transitory, viewed by the audience that I expect is there (as seen by a glance to "other users") and then disappear into the ether."

        If you happen to be chatterboxing when google spiders perlmonks your words will be immortalized in google's cache.

        Update: Updated the cache link since pages in google's cache eventually expire, point still being that CB comments may persist outside of perlmonks and be accessible to the wide world for some time.
      Two quick things:

      (1) My post was intended to be taken as an extension to what little said in the post immediately above mine in the thread, not as a free standing node. <tongue in cheek>but my lawyer wasn't able to get through to him to authorize including the full text of his post in my node.</tongue in cheek>

      (2) I may well have missed what you meant &/or been too picky about the details. I guess that's yet another reason not to respond to a discussion while low on sleep and trying to finish the final exam for philosophy class. :)

      And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://41552]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-31 01:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (244 votes), past polls