response 75 of 168:

Nov 9 17:18 UTC 2001

re #73:  That is not an entirely true assertion.  You would be more
correct to say that the author of an original work used in a subsequent
derivative work may have cause for action.  Prior restraint, which you
assert, is rarely allowed under U.S. law.

response 79 of 168:

Nov 9 23:41 UTC 2001

I believe Phil is in agreement with my statements, although he apparently
has yet to recognize said concurrence, and chooses to overlook the 
exceptions.

re #78:  Your example falls under "fair use" and is legal to do, although
it would fail to receive copyright protection.  That is my nonlegal opinion.

If anyone else would like to join the "Who Wants To Be A Copyright Expert?"
game, there is a searchable listing of 17 USC at http://uscode.house.gov
and at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode.  Title 17 covers federal
copyright law.

response 81 of 168:

Nov 10 00:25 UTC 2001

Ken, I just got around to reading the handout you gave everyone
at the last board meeting.  You obviously spent a lot of time on it.
Would you want to enter it here or place a pointer to a file? 

Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

response 83 of 168:

Nov 10 01:08 UTC 2001

Generally, copyright law applies to distribution/publication/*copying*
of material, not what you do with it yourself.  Hence, you certainly
have the right to make derivative works -- you *are* making a derivative
work (of a sort) merely in listening to it, as the pattern of nerve
impulses is related in an obvious but not completely accurate fashion to
the material that was impressed upon them, and leaves behind a permament
derived work that continues to change inside the brain.  You are also
allowed to take your copy of "gone with the wind", to chop it up with a
pair of scissors, and paste the bits over the crack in your bedroom
window.

These are generally covered under "fair use", although copyright owners
have been busy eroding just what "fair use" means over the past 40
years, especially in the last 10 with regards to digital copies of
material.

response 85 of 168:

Nov 11 04:03 UTC 2001

Actually, I consider #65 a huge improvement over the status quo.

We already have to make the same judgment calls.  Marcus just deleted some
text from Agora because someone asked that it be deleted.  It was text
imported from elsewhere, not text originally posted on Grex, but aside from
that little detail, the judgement call was the same - was the complaint from
the legitimate copyright holder?  Was the posting on Grex fair use?

None of the options - delete command logging to a readable file, working
delete command, no delete command - protect the staff from having to make
these kinds of judgements sometimes.  99% of the time though, they aren't such
hard calls to make.

However, if the user doesn't have a delete command or only has a pretend
delete command, then staff gets to deal with *all* of these instances.  If
the user can delete his own postings, then many copyright complaints can be
resolved by the poster all by himself without staff assistance.  This is not
possible otherwise.

Furthermore, it absolves Grex from having to get it's users to agree to any
special terms to use Grex.  We recognize the author's full rights over his
text.  We don't need any irrevocable license to anything, so we don't need
anything more than the implied license the user makes when posting the item.
We treat our users with maximum respect and trust that they won't abuse there
privileges.  Fits right in with the Grex philosophy, if you ask me.

Avoiding the need for such an agreement avoids the need to deal with the
question of how to make it retroactive.  Since we probably can't, any kind
of user agreement would mean Grex operating under two sets of rules, one
for old responses, one for new ones.  But with the solution proposed here,
we'd be resolving the issue by giving the users more rights, specifically
rights that many users already think they have, not by taking them away.
How much saner can you get?

response 87 of 168:

Nov 13 13:17 UTC 2001

Would that wording mean that if I'd entered a response in an item started by
somebody else, they could remove my text by removing "their" item?

response 91 of 168:

Nov 13 14:55 UTC 2001

Re #87: Wouldn't the item text ("response 0") just show up 
as "<expurgated and scribbled>", and the item header and all the other 
responses remain?

response 93 of 168:

Nov 13 16:17 UTC 2001

Shouldn't the author be allowed to likewise remove whatever title he
or she gave the item?  Afterall, he or she owns those words.

response 95 of 168:

Nov 13 16:25 UTC 2001

Revised revision:

    Grex conference users shall be able to withdraw the 
    responses they have entered from further public view.
 
    Users are currently able to remove text they have posted from the
    conferencing system, but a copy is saved in a particular file which is
    readable by everyone.  This proposal will be implemented by making that
    file readable only by the Grex staff. 

response 99 of 168:

Nov 13 18:05 UTC 2001

Correct, that was the major change I made in the first sentence
from the original wording.  
 
Issues about text posted by someone other than the author get pushed
into the still evolving copyright discussion.