On 23 Jan 2003 13:38:30 -0800, ptaugerspamtrap@cox.net (Paul Tauger) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:

<3e3009a8.5095753@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

><snip>

>

>> I don't know if that is possible, given the very public

>> nature of this forum, and the fact that much of it is

>> archived as a matter of course by many (including me),

>> under the assumption that public postings of this sort

>> cannot be reserved from duplication, just as the public

>> statements of a curbside minister, politician, etc.

>> probably cannot be copyrighted. I could easily be very

>> wrong on this. Does Paul Tauger have an opinion?;-)

>Yup.

>

>Believe it or not, Usenet postings are protected by copyright at the

>time they are fixed in a tangible medium, i.e. when you hit the send

>button and a copy is sent to the hard drive of a news server.

>Fixation is the key difference between what we do here, and what

>curbside ministers and politicians do -- if it's an impromptu speech,

>it's not protected (unless it's simultaneously recorded, but that's

>another issue altogether). Martin Luther King wrote his speeches down

>before he gave them, which is why the "I Have a Dream" speech is

>protected under copyright, a copyright which the King estate is quick

>to enforce.

>

>There is, however, a happy solution to the question of quoting other

>people's posts (as I have done with yours). It almost certainly would

>be deemed a "fair use" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, which

>provideds a complete defense to infringement. I suppose it's possible

>to quibble over the amount of the original that is quoted, as well as

>the context in which it is used. However, I feel comfortable quoting

>other posts and, if ever sued, would rely on fair use doctrine for my

>defense.

Thanks for the opinion.

As with many such, I'm not sure exactly where that

leaves us (here in Usenet ;-), but the information

is appreciated. It is often not practical to snip

posts one is responding to, or to split them, and

I wonder if doing such can look "too intentional",

and perhaps therefore not offer much protection...;-)

It seems to me, though, that anyone entering the

very public discussions here would be foolish to

attempt suit over copyright infringement for having

a post copied (what would be the injury or financial

loss?), and if someone did, and was successful, it

would likely end these Usenet and web-page discussions,

hardly a desireable outcome (though I know law is not

necessarily logical, or designed to produce the

best outcome...;-).