>> The belief put forward by Robert Turk, IMHO, is not only wrong - it's
>> dangerous to the growth of the online media.
> This is a first! I've got to save this one for posterity...
It's just your ideas that dangerous, Robert, not you *grin*
>> There is also a significant
>> difference between "copyrighted material" and "proprietary information"
>> (although Mr. Turk attempts to equate the two as one and the same.)
> Hello? This is not what I wrote at all.
Let me quote you directly then:
> All your copyrighted materials or intellectual property should be behind
> some kind of authentication or security barrier, beyond which a traverser
> agrees to certain terms of non-disclosure before getting access to the
> information. Then if you need to hold someone accountable for doing
> something inappropriate with your sensitive information
Sounds to me still like you define "copyrighted materials" and "intellectual
property" with "sensitive information" ... copyrighted material, in general,
is not "sensitive information" ... it's a work with an author who has rights
in that creation.
>> I dare Mr. Turk to use his VCR to record _Star Wars_ from cable and make
>> significant clips from that available on the Internet - after all, if
it's
>> broadcast on TV, it's not copyrighted anymore, right? Just because media
is
>> transmitted does not cause it to lose it's protections under these laws.
> I dare you to find a statement of mine advocating video piracy.
You don't advocate video piracy, but your belief seems to be that
"copyrighted material" should require some kind of agreement up front ...
like sign your T.V. guide before watching a program. Ties back to the idea
that, in general, authors want their copyrighted works to be viewed, just
not ripped off. Which leads us to ....
> Documents on the web are _already_ there for the taking...that's the
> nature of the media.
Just as television shows are "there for the taking", and newspapers are
"there for the taking"? I'd argue that "documents on the web are there for
the viewing" ... that's different than taking those works and using them in
derivative works or collections (which is, in my mind, the key issue
regarding copyrights and the Internet Archive robot.)
> BTW, it's nice to be able to share ideas and questions with persons of a
"like mind" but > try not to take _too much liberty with what your fellows
write. And don't forget Polonius' > advice to Laertes re: lawyers...
Please don't take my love of copyrights as any endorsement of lawyers :) I'm
not a lawyer either (but I sure hope I can trust the advice I paid so much
$$$ for from our intellectual property rights attorney.)
To expand the discussion just a little, let me offer a proposal on how I'd
handle the Internet Archive robot's position. In the same way that books
request signed release forms to print screenshots or elements from a website
in a book about the web, perhaps the IArobot should email a stock agreement
to webmasters ... and not actually make the images retrieved available to
the public until such an agreement is return. This would at least support
the spirit of copyright protection by requesting use from the author. A
procedureal nightmare, to be sure, but probably immune from much complaint
by authors.
Brian
-------- REPLY, End of original message --------