Lineland (fwd)

[Dale L. Larson]

> I'm a member of the list, though don't want to identify myself.  I received the 

Hi, Bruce.  May I ask why you don't want to identify yourself?

> following email message yesterday.  It may interest some of you.  Jules Siegel 

As stated in the email I sent, I planned to make an announcement to the whole
list soon.  Since I was preempted, I guess I should comment now (and I'll
post a press release later). 

I think you're all going to love the book.  It's funny and it's touching, and
the group at Pynchon-L come off as a bunch of lovable characters, at least
that's what I got from reading it. Among other things the book does, I think
it will really help people who aren't online to understand the human side of
the Internet.

> interchanges he provoked on Pynchon-L.  I've always assumed list posts are 
> protected by the same common-law copyright provisions that apply to one's own 
> manuscripts.  Beyond that assumption, which is open to practical question on the

Perhaps one of the benefits of the book will be to create some awareness and
to overcome some poor assumptions.  All net citizens should have a basic
understanding of the issues. 

There are several legal issues involved.  One is the very open question as to
whether posting material to the Internet effectively waives copyright.  There
are cases being considered in this area, and it looks like the courts could
find that even posts which include an explicit copyright notice might not be
protected.  Essentially, you're making public speech, the technology requires
that many (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of copies are going to be made all
over the world, archives are going to be created, etc.  How widely can you
distribute something and still claim to have a right to control it? It's an
interesting issue, and there are arguments to be made on both sides.

As someone on Pynchon-L once said (paraphrased) "Don't post anything you
wouldn't want to read on the evening news." 

Others have brought up what archives like Deja News (and the archive Andrew
maintains of Pynchon-L) mean to all net citizens -- when you're looking for a
job someday, those crazy college posts you made in a newsgroup of the alt.sex
hierarchy (or to Pynchon-L) may become part of what perspective employeers
consider (same for banks, potential dates, etc.). 

To the extent that copyright law may apply, another consideration of law is
the fair use doctrine in copyright.  Fair use is complicated and involved,
but the gist of it is that it is OK to make use of someone else's copyrighted
material under various condititions.  For example, where that use doesn't
significantly reduce the commercial value of that material, where the use is
for reporting, education, etc. and so forth. Without fair use, it'd be near
impossible to do many kinds of reporting, essay writing, reviews, etc.  Since
Jules is reporting on events that took place, using quotes to establish
context, and the like, and since the postings involved have little or no
commercial value anyway, Lineland clearly falls well within the bounds of the
legal doctrine of fair use in copyright.

> the surname), the publisher of Intangible Assets Manufacturing, should profit 
> from our casually written messages.  The text of Larson's message follows.

It remains to be seen whether we'll profit, but we are hopeful that the book
will do wonderfully in the marketplace. We think that most of Pynchon-L will
be proud to have been a part of it and will appreciate the literary
contribution that the book makes. 

Any profit to be made from the book will come from the months of work
invested in creating the book and the money invested in producing the book,
not from the value of "casually written messages." 

Philisophically, I suppose you could just as well ask the question of why
anyone should be paid for any work.  I mean, heck, my tax dollars probably
helped pay for your education, for the defense of the country, and so forth. 
Why shouldn't we just have communal ownership of everything and let no one
profit above anyone else? 

Why does a magazine or newspaper reporter get paid to interview me on the
phone and use quotes from me?  Shouldn't I get paid, too? Should TV stations
have to pay OJ for the ratings they got when they ran live footage of the
Bronco chase?  Should Campbell's soup have received a royalty when Andy
Warhol made "art" out of the cans?  Some people didn't think much of Warhol
as an artist, and each is entitled to his or her own opinion on such matters. 

They are all interesting questions, but at some point those of us not
employeed by philosophy departments just stop debating them and get on with
our work. 

Whether you agree with us or not, I think it is important to realize that we
at IAM didn't just ignore these issues. We carefully considered the issues
involved from a "netiquette" standpoint and from the other standpoints. We
consulted various experts and long-time net users to get their opinions of
the situation. Our conclusion was that it was not necessary or practical to
notify the list sooner. In fact, there were good arguments made that from a
journalistic and artistic integrity standpoint, contact with the list should
not have been made sooner. 

We hope that those of you who appear in the book will take us up on our offer
for a copy, and we think that all of you, once you see the book, will really
appreciate the art that it represents.  It is a beautiful and interesting
book, and you should be proud to be part of it, whatever else you may feel. 

dale