Date:         Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:27:54 -0800
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         mholser@Adobe.COM (Malcolm Holser)
Subject:      Re: Copyright free for all

Well, I think VW opened with their position, and the copyrights do
apply, even if the book is out of print.  There are some loopholes,
though.

First, there is a test of monetary damages that Drew spoke of.  VW would have
a difficult time showing the damages from some small distribution, so the
triple damages would not amount to much should they get really nasty.

Secondly, the copyright laws permit certain kinds of copying as being in the
public interest.  Nobody can make claims against some of these uses (like
quoting from the document as part of a review).  Also, public libraries
are not really subject to all of the laws, either, and this is why they have
copy machines and let you copy articles from magazines, portions of books, etc.
Copying portions of works, so long as they don't consititute a "substantial"
portion is allowed even with wide distribution.

Both the US copyright law and the US patent law, which are the models for
most international law, are prefaced by the explanation of why we want
copyrights.  The laws get interpreted in light of these explanations, but
usually at the Supreme Court level, and you really don't want to get dragged
there for walking the fine-line.  Maybe ten years ago, a landmark and 
controversial Supreme Court ruling was made in the so-called "Betamax" case
where Sony had been sued for making (and encouraging) the recording of
television programs for later veiwing.  This is called "time-shifting"
among VCR users.  Sony won, and recording fully-copyrighted material so
that you can watch it later *is* legal.  It is a can of worms, but the 
court found it was in the interest of the public to do this, like they
have found that everybody's house should not be seized because they sing
"Happy Birthday" (a *vigorously* defended copyright).

Basically, the reason that we want copyrights is to encourage the writing
of books (and now other things).  Without protection under the law, it is
not worthwhile for somebody to spend time on artistic expression, only to have
others copy it.  This is the only motivation for such protection.  Nobody
has a right to "own" artistic material, except that it is in the public
interest to grant such rights to encourage writers.  Thus the courts find that
free access in public libraries is more in the public interest that protecting
somebody's right to make a buck, and copyright laws are really lax there.
Sometimes the courts will rule that free distribution is more important
for individual works than the copyright.  They can do this, because the laws
are not hard-and-fast, but a weighing of one public benefit against another.

I, too, am not a lawyer -- I write software, and copyrights are really gray
areas for software (patents are even worse!) so I have studied them.  I
think Derek would get nailed if he tried to copy and offer distribution of
the book.  But I think if an individual asked the owner of a copy to copy
the book, and offered to pay the copying expenses, that this would be on the
other side of the line -- and only because the book is unavailable.

Soon, many books will be available on the web for a fee -- you pay the
copyright owner a fee, download and print a copy of the book.  Currently,
the mechanism to collect fees this way is not well established, but several
very large companies and governments are workig towards this.  Perhaps the
person who contacted VW with the proposition that he be allowed to post this
to the web approach VW again and ask what copyright license fees VW would want
on a per-copy instance of full copies of the work.  VW could scan the book 
into a PDF document ad allow downloading of this on a pre-arranged basis
for printing.  I suspect, though, that VW has other concerns with its overall
document liability, and would categorically refuse.  I would in their place.

In any event, the whole work is probably not all that interesting.  There
are probably bits and pieces that are non-substantial which are.  Perhaps
a review of this book, quoting some of the interesting bits would be a lot 
safer.  And more towards what is legal and safe -- and of interest.  I recall
that it was certain tips and modifications for making VW's more robust that
were of interest here.

Also, a copyright only protects the single expression of a work, not the 
underlying information or ideas.  Thus, you can write a book about a girl
from Nebraska and her pet cat that get sucked up by a tornado into a magic
land...  Again, what is a "substantial" copy is quite gray, and long a
problem on computer software issues.  But writing your own guide to such 
modifications of VW's for robustness, even if you only used a single research 
source, such as the book in question is not a copyright violation, just so
long as it is your work, not a copy.  You can copy the tolerances from
the Bentley, and the sequences for working on a VW, re-written to make it
clear to a layman and publish it.  It is the artistic expression, not the ideas
or information that is copyrightable.  The writing, illustrations and layout,
not the informational content.

malcolm

malcolm

malcolm