From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:16:55 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199702130430.WAA03048@einstein>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970213000609.1043N-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information
should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent.

For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write
myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent
hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts
to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to
recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for
broad fair use rights as well.) 

"De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now.

-Declan



On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks
> 
> > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or
> > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. 
> > 
> > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of
> > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."
> > 
> > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now.
> 
> Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those
> stories, to distribute them elsewhere?
> 
> If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing
> acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also
> simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere.
> 
> In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a
> copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those
> rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your
> 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about
> every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one.
> 
> Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about,
> 
> "Implied a priori contracts should die now"
> 
> Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the
> thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win
> a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However,
> it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic
> crypto-icon.
> 
> 
>                                                  Jim Choate
>                                                  CyberTects
>                                                  ravage@ssz.com
> 
>