[LINK] Misconceiving Copyright

[Chirgwin, Richard]

Well, yes, I should have sent the URL as well! How do you spell "D'oh!"?

http://adti.net/ysurvey/survey.php?s_id=3

The idea that work in an >>established<< field can be "clean room" is
completely absurd. I'm writing in English; therefore I'm reusing structures,
words and references which are hundreds (or in some cases on the plus side
of a thousand) years old. 

The old battle of Edison versus Tesla will be fought time and time again, I
suppose.

Thanks for the Groklaw pointer, Rick, I'll take a look...

RC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Welykochy [mailto:rick at praxis.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:46 AM
> To: Chirgwin, Richard
> Cc: 'link at anu.edu.au'
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Misconceiving Copyright
> 
> 
> Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> > Linkers,
> > 
> > As you know, I have taken some interest in the development 
> of the Alexis de
> > Tocqueville Institution's attempts to discredit Linux.
> > 
> > I considered downloading the review copy of the report, but 
> on the "request
> > a copy" page, we find this "I agree" button:
> > 
> > 
> >>"By clicking here, I indicate that I will respect the copyright on 
> >>"Samizdat." I will not redistribute or republish it, or 
> make it available 
> >>for viewing, in part or whole, to any other individual or 
> institution."
> > 
> > 
> > Now. This is a deliberate misconstruction of copyright: if 
> I obtain a
> > physical book in the ordinary fashion, there is neither a 
> legal or moral
> > restriction preventing me from giving that book to another 
> individual. The
> > AdTI is not, as it pretends, asking me to request its 
> copyright, but is
> > instead imposing ultra-copyright restrictions in the form 
> of a license. 
> > 
> > IMO, the reference to copyright is deliberately misleading...
> 
> IMHO, (IANAL) click-through "agreements" are not enforceable. 
> Did you find
> an actual LICENCE posted with the content?
> 
> Richard, don't you think you'd be fine under current laws 
> that allow you
> as a journalist to quote small parts of said copyright work 
> for the purposes
> of review, regardless of what they say on the web site?
> 
> Do you have a URL for us to investigate further? I too am 
> most interested
> in what these shonks have to say.
> 
> An interesting read in case you've missed it:
> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
> 
> "The history of UNIX and its various children and 
> grandchildren has been
>   in the news recently as a result of a book from the Alexis 
> de Tocqueville
>   Institution. Since I was involved in part of this history, 
> I feel I have
>   an obligation to set the record straight and correct some extremely
>   serious errors. But first some background information."
> 
> Very good read on the subject ... rips Brown's 'research' to shreds.
> 
> As always, a bit of levity helps maintain one's poise and grace in the
> face of unmitigated idiocy:
> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040607153801202>
> "It's hard to imagine that Ken Brown could have launched 
> Samizdat without
>   directly using earlier book-writing work, according to a 
> report that has
>   been unnoticed even before it was written."
> 
> cheers
> rickw
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> _________________________________
> Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
> 
> Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations 
> problems.
>       -- Bruce Schneier
> 
> 
>