20 Mar
2007
20 Mar
'07
10:31 a.m.
Billy Pettit wrote:
If I send manuals to be scanned and put on a web site,
is that breaking the
law? Here returns all the arguments about copyright law that have ensnarled
this list before. Generally the answer is yes. But as one member
responded, many copyright owners give a "wink and a nod" without officially
blessing the activity.
Copyright law's murky at best and varies wildly from country to country. It's
another reason I'd aim for a distributed archive as even if one particular
corner's hit by copyright problems it *shouldn't* take out the entire archive
(with all the content that *is* OK to distribute).
Now mirroring though, ugh - I'm not sure where the responsibility lies there.
I'm not even sure how to collectively cover our butts with that one. It
wouldn't surprise me if some countries have laws where the "fault" is with
the
person downloading the content for mirroring, even if the person who
actually supplies the content suggests that there isn't a copyright problem.
Maybe a "suck it and see" approach is needed, but we build something into the
archive to easily flag specific files for removal (along with a reason, such
as copyright violation).
In no way am I advocating blatant copyright violation - I'm just being a
realist and thinking that at some point there *will* be problemsbecause
something will sneak through that somebody later objects to. It seems that the
lack of a defined way of dealing with such problems when they happen is what's
caused a lot of trouble with these so-called "file sharing" networks, *not*
that they happened in the first place per se.
And he makes no effort to preserve the older
unsaleable software. So the
dilemma is how to save all this old software for the future? The method a
few of us use is to make copies, put them in private archives and
specifically prevent them from being accessed on the web. There may a very
small private distribution to individuals known to have an interest in the
software and willing to follow the owner's rules.
Hmmm, so do you think that one way of publishing content might be "available
to mirror, but not for public distribution"? That way the data would still get
mirrored, but wouldn't be accessible by the public. I wonder how the lawyers
of the world view such things? (it seems acceptable to *me* - but the data
*is* still being illegally distributed, just on a very small scale)
There doesn't seem to be any understanding that
not everyone wants wide
distribution of the software archives. Nor does he understand that what he
wants to do could set off the wrath of IP owners against the current public
archives. We survive at the whim of these IP owners. And many of them,
like the RIAA, are in a bad temper.
I suppose it does come down to a question of scale in the case of
distribution; how much is too much? I mean all sorts of copyright laws get
broken every day with things like people recording TV shows to VCR, or lending
their friends their music CDs etc. and nobody gets in trouble for that.
What a few of us are doing is ensuring multiple copies
are archived without
shouting it to the world. It achieves the goals of a lasting archive. And
it keeps the Eye of Sauron away from us.
But it's still breaking the law, surely? Just because it's not so visible
doesn't make it legal. So at some point there has to be a line, and that line
is different depending on who objects to it and what country they happen to be
in. So perhaps it does just boil down to being sensible about it: seek
permission where possible, and provide mechanisms to remove data that is
legally objected to.
cheers
Jules