From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:24:02 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
Message-ID: <199702130430.WAA03048@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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