Articles

• What is a copyright
• All Aboard?
• International BBS Week
• Zone Echomail Coordinator Duties
• Finding Your Lost Regional Echo Coordinator
• Region 17 (Zone 1) now has a web page!

What is a copyright?

A copyright gives the owner of a creative work the right to keep others from using the work without the owner's permission. The key to understanding copyright law is to understand the difference between an idea and the expression of the idea. Copyright applies only to a particular expression, not to the ideas or facts underlying the expression. For instance, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars.

More specifically, a creative work (often referred to as a "work of authorship") must meet all of these three criteria to be protected by copyright:

• It must be original. In other words, the author must have created rather than copied it.
• It must be fixed in a tangible (concrete) medium of expression. For example, it might be expressed on paper, audio or video tape, computer disk, clay or canvas.
• It must have at least some creativity--that is, it must be produced by an exercise of human intellect. There is no hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. To give an example, it must go beyond the creativity found in the telephone white pages, which involve a non-discretionary alphabetic listing of telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings.

How long does a copyright last?

For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years. However, if the work is a work for hire (that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 75 and 100 years, depending on the date the work is published.

If the work was published before 1978 and the copyright has been properly renewed, the copyright expires 75 years after date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years. However, even if the author died over 50 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before 2003, the copyright lasts until December 31, 2027.

International Copyright Protection.

Copyright protection rules are fairly similar worldwide, due to several international copyright treaties, the most important of which is the Berne Convention. Under this treaty, all member countries --and there are more than 100, including virtually all industrialized nations--must afford copyright protection to authors who are nationals of any member country. This protection must last for at least the life of the author plus 50 years, and must be automatic without the need for the author to take any legal steps to preserve the copyright.

In addition to the Berne Convention, the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) treaty contains a number of provisions that affect copyright protection in signatory countries. Together, the Berne Copyright Convention and the GATT treaty allow U.S. authors to enforce their copyrights in most industrialized nations, and allow the nationals of those nations to enforce their copyrights in the U.S.

With one important exception, you should assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a copyright notice ((c)) to make this determination, because a notice is not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not affect the validity of the copyright.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public. For example, scholars must be free to quote from their research resources in order to comment on the material.

Copyright (c)1995, The Trustees of California State University.

When Copying Is OK: The 'Fair Use' Rule
by Stephen Fishman Copyright (c) Nolo Press

Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase what others have written. For example:

• Andy, putting together a newsletter on his home computer, reprints an editorial he likes from a daily newspaper. Phil, a biographer and historian, quotes from several unpublished letters and diaries written by his subject.
• Regina, a freelance writer, closely paraphrases two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article she's writing.
• Sylvia, a poet, quotes a line from a poem by T.S. Eliot in one of her own poems.
• Donnie, a comedian, writes a parody of the famous song "Blue Moon" he performs in his comedy act.

Assuming the material quoted in these examples is protected by copyright, do Phil, Regina, Sylvia, Andy and Donnie need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."

Under the "fair use" rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights. If you write or publish, you need a basic understanding of what is and is not fair use.

Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses.

Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses: Criticism and comment--for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.

• News reporting--for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
• Research and scholarship--for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific or technical work for illustration or clarifi- cation of the author's observations.
• Nonprofit educational uses--for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
• Parody--that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.

In most other situations, copying is not legally a fair use. Without an author's permission, such a use violates the author's copyright.

Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use. For example, using the Bob Dylan line "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" in a poem published in a small literary journal would probably be a fair use; using the same line in an advertisement for raincoats probably would not be.

A commercial motive doesn't always disqualify someone from claiming a fair use. A use that benefits the public can qualify as a fair use, even if it makes money for the user.

For example, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer was permitted in its advertising to quote from a Consumer Reports article comparing vacuum cleaners. Why? The ad significantly increased the number of people exposed to the Consumers Union's evaluations and thereby disseminated helpful consumer information. The same rationale probably applies to the widespread practice of quoting from favorable reviews in advertisements for books, films and plays.

Copying From Unpublished Materials.

When it comes to fair use, unpublished works are inherently different from published works. Publishing an author's unpublished work before he or she has authorized it infringes upon the author's right to decide when and whether the work will be made public. Some courts have held that fair use never applies to unpublished material.

As you might expect, publishers, authors' groups, biographers and historians were highly critical of this view. They got Congress to amend the fair use provision in the Copyright Act to make clear that the fact that a work is unpublished weighs against fair use, but is not determinative in and of itself. If the other fair use factors favor fair use, it can be permissible to use part of an unpublished work without permission. This is particularly likely where the use benefits the public by furthering the fundamental purpose of the copyright laws--the advancement of human knowledge. For example, a court held that it was a fair use for a biographer to use a modest amount of material from unpublished letters and journals by the author Richard Wright. (Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991).)

When Is a Use a 'Fair Use'?

There are five basic rules to keep in mind when deciding whether or not a particular use of an author's work is a fair use:

• Rule 1: Are You Just Copying or Creating Something New? The purpose and character of your intended use of the material involved is the single most important factor in determining whether a use is a fair use.
  The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work verbatim or instead using it to help create something new. The Supreme Court calls such a new work "transformative." The more transformative your work, the more likely your use is a fair use.
• Rule 2: Don't Compete With the Source You're Copying From. Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work. Thus, if you want to use an author's protected expression in a work of your own that is similar to the prior work and aimed at the same market, your intended use isn't likely a fair use.
  For example, say Nick, a golf pro, writes a book on how to play golf. Not a good putter himself, he copies several brilliant paragraphs on putting from a book by Lee Trevino, one of the greatest putters in golf history. Because Nick intends his book to compete with and hopefully supplant Trevino's, this use could not be a fair use. In effect, Nick is trying to use Trevino's protected expression to eat into the sales of Trevino's own book.
  An interesting example is when a teacher copies parts of books for students to use. In one recent case, a group of seven major publishers went to court and stopped a duplicating business from copying excerpts from books without permission, compiling them into "course packets" and selling them to college students.
• Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook. Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.
• Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be. The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. However, to preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, scientific works, etc.) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems and plays. This is true especially where it's necessary to use extensive quotations to ensure the accuracy of the information conveyed.
  As a general rule, never quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, or take more than one chart or diagram. It is never proper to include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission. Don't quote more than one or two lines from a poem.
  Many publishers require their authors to obtain permission from an author to quote more then a specified number of words, ranging from about 100 to 1000 words.
  Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, it is not always okay to take one paragraph or less than 200 words. Copying 12 words from a 14-word haiku poem wouldn't be fair use. Nor would copying 200 words from a work of 300 words likely qualify as a fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair.
  It all depends on the circumstances.
• Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity.
  The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use.
  In one famous case, The Nation magazine obtained a copy of Gerald Ford's memoirs before their publication. In the magazine's article about the memoirs, only 300 words from Ford's 200,000-word manuscript were quoted verbatim. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a fair use because the material quoted (dealing with the Nixon pardon) was the "heart of the book ...the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript," and that pre-publication disclosure of this material would cut into value or sales of the book.

Determining whether your intended use of another author's protected work constitutes a fair use is usually not difficult. It's really just a matter of common sense. There is no more commonsensical definition of fair use than the golden rule: Take from someone else only what you wouldn't mind someone taking from you.

All Aboard?
By Andrea Santos, 1:135/382, asantos@santronics.com

We're quickly closing in on the one year mark since a node physically located in Malaysia was nodelisted in Zone 1's, Region 12, specifically, Net 163. Though the node in question is no longer in Fidonet, the ensuing problems which caused him to seek a node assignment outside of his Zone are, and nor are these problems limited to Zone 6.

Anyone got a few rafts?

Upon learning of the above geographic abnormality, many expressed concern. Was this a blatant shirking of the suspect P4 geographic boundaries clause by Net 163, or was there a serious breakdown underway which required attention? After contacting a few nodes in that Zone, I concluded the latter and was vocal in my comments in various administrative echos for the need to resolve the problems, beginning with the Zone Coordinator. Both NCs and RCs in that Region had disappeared without notice, and either grunt nodes were finding it impossible to obtain a local nodelisting, or NCs had no uplink to submit updated Nodelist segments.

With so much discussion going on at the time about this nodelisting, I remained cautiouly optimistic that the "powers that be" would get involved. Surely, it was not in the best interests of a sysop located half way around the world to have to seek out a node assignment here. More importantly, the longer term viability of an entire Zone seemed questionable.

My optimism ended after being copied a Netmail this past June from an NC in Zone 1 who had been contacted about nodelisting a Sysop from India. Upon receiving this mail, I contacted the NC of the India Net to see if the sysop in question could be nodelisted in his geographically assigned Net. This was done in quick fashion, however, you won't find this nodelisting in your currently compiled Nodelist, nor will you locate about 16 others in the same Net which have been added in the last year or so. Not much you can do when there is no uplink to send nodelist segments. Yet 3-4 more months have gone by and nothing has changed.

Recently reviewing the Malaysian Net, this segment is identical today to what I have on file back in February of this year, yet it was relayed by a Zone 3 sysop, somewhere around the same time, that the Malaysia NC was no longer running a Mailer and the Net no longer existed. Any reason why this Net still appears in our Nodelist?

To my chagrin, and almost a year after Net 163 took it upon themselves to provide a nodelisting to a sysop interested in being a part of Fidonet, subjecting themselves to Policy action, it would appear little has changed and it isn't for lack of active members in that Zone trying. Just this week, yet another sysop in Zone 6 (this time Indonesia) has put out a call for help and has provided the usual non-response as the reason why.

Need another raft!

Though it's a remote possibility, my concern does not lie with nodes elsewhere potentially CRASH mailing a down node l/d, or even the mere nodelisting of inactive grunt nodes.

What should be of concern to everyone is that there are sysops running viable boards who are not appropriately accounted for in our Network. Anyone interested in routing mail to these network members can't. Sysops who would like to be a part of Zone 6 Fidonet are ill-served by our inaccurate "address book" and are not likely to join our organization after following protocol and trying to directly connect with several long distance *C's, to no avail. In other words we, as a Network, are doing our best to discourage sysops from becoming a members of Fidonet.

In early August, a Sysop posted that a prospective node I had previously communicated with had sent mail to RC15 (Zone 1) to apply for an RIN nodelisting, as his geographic area was not covered by any existing Net. Since it had only been 2 weeks, and summer to boot, I wrote back to the sysop and said to give it another week and offered my assistance. Also made a note of this communication.

At the end of the month, I reviewed my notes, checked the nodelist, saw the prospective sysop was not there, and mailed him. He had heard nothing from anyone about his application, but expressed he was still interested in joining Fidonet.

I'm intentionally leaving out some details from this point on but, suffice it to say, despite the efforts of myself and my RC, the window of opportunity to get this sysop a node number when it was most convenient for him, and not an unresponsive member of Fidonet, has passed. Commitments outside of this network, which weren't an issue a month or even a 2 weeks ago, now are. Whether that changes in the future is anyone's guess.

The days are long gone where Fidonet had the luxury of turning away interested sysops. The problems which prevented this sysop from getting a "properly" assigned node number were not addressed in time because of that chain around our collective necks otherwise known as the Geographic Boundaries clause.

In another time and place, geographic assignment made alot of sense. In working Nets, Regions and Zones, it still does, per routed mail and enhancement of local online communities. But if a Net, Region or Zone is known not to be working, the boundary clause serves as a nothing but a deterrent to any prospective node who can't get a reply, and as an ongoing threat, in the form of a PC, to any Coordinator who would do the needful and assign a node number.

My question to our International Coordinator is when will Coordinators be permitted to assign out of area node numbers in non-response situations, and quickly, to encourage the growth of our network, without being subjected to complaint action?

The Ship's got plenty of room for the rafters. Let's get them aboard and share it!

International BBS Week

As Fidonetters know, the week of 14 Sep 1998 thru 20 Sep 98 was supposed to mark "International BBS Week," a promotional event to highlight the BBS community.

So what happened last week? Absolutely nothing. International BBS Week was a dead duck. Even the participants in its Fido newsgroup didn't mention it.

International BBS Week was suggested nearly two years ago by a group of New Zealand sysops, and was later touted by some sysops in the Minneapolis area. But although those sysops talked a good game, their failure to organize in any meaningful way meant that International BBS Week was doomed from the start. Nary a peep has been heard from COCA, ICON, or any other group that claims to promote BBS sysops. None exercised any leadership to make International BBS Week meaningful and the event fizzled out like a wet firecracker.

Meanwhile, the number of BBS systems continues to drop sharply.

The idea of having an International BBS Week is good. It should be discussed during the October 2-4 SysCon'98 conference in Las Vegas, and BBS sysops should band together to plan a meaningful international event in the near future, perhaps within the next 90 days. If we continue to do nothing, the BBS community will continue to shrivel and die.

So, these questions as we move forward:

1. Are BBS systems relevant anymore in a Webbed world? If so, what is their role? If not, why not?
2. Since the term "BBS" has become burdensome baggage, is there a better term we can use to describe these systems?
3. Where does the low-budget BBS computer hobbyist fit into an online world that is dominated by deep-pocketed Web players?
4. What technical and content issues prevent BBS systems from being a viable alternative online destination and how do we address them?
5. What is the most effective way to promote BBS systems in the future?

Our time is short. Your ideas and comments, please.

Pat Clawson
TeleGrafix Communications Inc.
Winchester, VA

Zone Echomail Coordinator Duties

In an article last week related to the upcoming ZEC election, I had touched on the duties of this office. A more definitive listing was posted in Z1_ELECTION last year by the then-elected ZEC, Bob Kohl. This is presented here in it's entirety for your information.

Recent feedback from some of the REC's is that the sysops in their region do not want a sysop-level election. As far as I know, only Region 13 still supports this concept. Though the Regional Echo Coordinator's Council has not made any official announcement yet, the REC's posting in the echo ZEC seem to favor selection of the ZEC by the RECC.

I'll continue to submit information related to the selection of the ZEC to Fidonews. Even if the one-time practice of electing the ZEC at the sysop level is rescinded, sysops may still attempt to make their opinion known through their Regional Echo Coordinator.

---- begin quoted echomail ----
Area : Z1_ELECTION
Date : Nov 21 '97, 02:41
From : Bob Kohl 1:102/861
To : All
Subj : Re: ZEC duties Rev. 21934575-86721569-35d
----------------------------------

Feel free to crosspost at will:

At the pleasure of the Z1C, the duties for the Z1EC shall be:

1. Coordination between the Z1 echomail distribution systems
2. Coordination of the RECC and with the Zone 1 RECs.
   The ZEC is the chairperson of the RECC. He or she shall bring ideas to the RECC and moderate the discussion of ideas. He or she shall also act as a tie breaker in the event of a tie vote. The RECC may overturn a ZEC proposed action or idea with a 2/3rds vote of the RECC.
   If the RECC concludes that the ZEC is not active, ineffective in his or her job or not taking care his or her responsibilities per this list; they may take a vote of no-confidence. If the vote of no- confidence passes with 2/3rds majority, the RECC will refer this issue to the Z1C for mediation or action as the Z1C sees fit.
   The ZEC shall be allowed to take issue with RECs that are not participating or doing their job, by taking the matter up with with the host RC of the REC's region and the Z1C for mediation or action.
   These two actions shall NOT be taken lightly without all due consideration of possible extenuating circumstances.
3. Coordination with the other ZECs.
4. Central repository of information for the various Z1 distribution systems.
5. Mediation of Zone 1 echomail issues/disputes.
6. Upper level mediation between Moderators, Fidonet distribution systems on related echomail issues.
7. Coordination with the Echolist Keeper.
8. Help in the formation and implementation of a Zone/Fido-wide Echomail policy. The ZEC shall work in conjunction with the RECC on this issue, so that the REC's can take this information to their respective regions for feedback.
9. Term(s) of no more than 2 years. No limit on number of terms
10. Codify, with the RECC, the procedure for future ZEC elections. All future elections are subject to review by the Z1C..
11. Provide for an interim Z1EC, should anything happen to currently seated Z1EC to prevent him/her from fulfilling these duties. The single duty of the interim Z1EC shall be to expedite an election and the smooth transition to the next Z1EC. The interim ZEC shall refer to the Z1C for help with problems if the RECC cannot resolve said issue(s).

BK

-!- DB A3000sl/001347
! Origin: Conniption BBS * One fit at a time * (1:102/861)

---- end quoted echomail ----

--
| Fidonet: Douglas Myers 1:270/720@fidonet.org
| Internet: doug@mdtnbbs.com
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| From Mdtn_BBS @mdtnbbs.com [ In the Heart of Three Mile Island ]

Finding Your Lost REC

Your Regional Echo Coordinator has been trying to find you. He's been charged with the mission of finding out how you would like to select a new Zone Echo Coordinator to coordinate the Council of REC's (RECC). If you've missed his call in your own regional echos, and you don't know how to find him in the nodelist... and if you're interested in offering your opinion... then this list may help.

To netmail your REC, all you need is his node number. To find that on the list below, you need to know your NET number. That's the part of your node number between the ":" and the "/". Once you've determined your NET number, then find your REC in the list below. Netmail him with your opinion.

If you're node number indicates that you're in a single-digit net, then you're a zone independant and should already know everything :)

If you're node number indicates that you're in a two-digit net, then you're a regional independant and can just select from the second column of the list.

If you're in nets 100 to 199, abandon all hope of finding the information from this list. Those net numbers are spread between regions indiscriminately - you'll have to examine the full nodelist to determine your region.

If your net number is anywhere between 400 and 999, you're not in Zone 1 and don't have to worry about this selection. Similiarly for net numbers above 4000. If your net number is between 1000 and 1999, you probably don't exist.

REC 10 Blynn Mueller       1:10/1  Nets 200 to 219, 2000 to 2199
REC 11 Keith Wineka        1:11/1  Nets 220 to 239, 2200 to 2399
REC 12 Ken Wilson          1:12/1  Nets 240 to 259, 2400 to 2599
REC 13 David Calafrancesco 1:13/1  Nets 260 to 279, 2600 to 2799
REC 14 John Bodoni         1:1/214 Nets 280 to 299, 2800 to 2999
REC 15 Brandon Carnahan    1:15/5  Nets 300 to 319, 3000 to 3199
REC 16 Brian Bonfietti     1:16/1  Nets 320 to 339, 3200 to 3399
REC 17 Bob Seaborn         1:17/1  Nets 340 to 359, 3400 to 3599
REC 18 Jerry Gause         1:18/1  Nets 360 to 379, 3600 to 3799
REC 19 Ben Hamilton        1:19/1  Nets 380 to 399, 3800 to 3999

--
| Fidonet: Douglas Myers 1:270/720@fidonet.org
| Internet: doug@mdtnbbs.com
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| From Mdtn_BBS @mdtnbbs.com [ In the Heart of Three Mile Island ]

Region 17 (Zone 1) now has a web page!
by Dallas Hinton (1:153/715)

Thanks to the hard work of webmaster Kevin Klement, and space courtesy of nwstar.com, Region 17 now has a very nice web page where those interested may find FidoNet information, links, and how-to files on a number of topics.

We're still looking for more of our history, and like most web pages ours will be undoubtedly be in a permanent state of construction, but we think it looks very nice!

Please drop by and say hello:

http://www.nwstar.com/~region17/

-30-