Following are all the posts made to the WinHlp-L list during the incident regarding the Terms of Service for a new "community". This situation was spread out over several months.
|
Subject: Re: WARNING on latest BS WinHelp2000 version Sent: 10/15/99 11:54:05 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rory Quinn ------------------------------------------------------------------- I just took a look at the eHelp site and noticed the following in the Terms of Service: "You acknowledge that eHelp does not pre-screen Content, but that eHelp and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, eHelp and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable." I think we should rewrite this for them. Here's my version: "You can post stuff about BS products being crap but if you blink it will disappear!" |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/19/1999 4:57:32 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Liske ----------------------------------------------------------------- I just read #7 in the eHelp Terms Of Service. It does say exactly what Bill says it does. I won't be using eHelp. David Liske Microsoft HTML Help MVP 1999 http://www.vbexplorer.com/htmlhelp.asp > -----Original Message----- |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/19/1999 5:36:15 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Knopf ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Liske wrote: | I just read #7 in the eHelp Terms Of Service. It does say | exactly what Bill | says it does. I won't be using eHelp. Nor will I, for all the reasons that have already been cited. David Knopf Knopf Online Tel: 415-550-8367 E-mail: mailto:david@knopf.com Web: http://www.knopf.com Certified RoboHELP Instructor & Consultant WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/19/1999 6:06:59 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Sharon Burton-Hardin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed. It does seem to read that way. I spoke to Jerry Wednesday and he said that is not the case but it sure reads like that. Do we have any attorneys who reads these lists? Be good to get a legal reading... I will not be using it for anything. I do get the lists in e-mail and read them but I will be responding privately. I doubt I have anything interesting enough to say to want to lose these rights to but it makes me uncomfortable. sharon Sharon Burton-Hardin President of the Inland Empire chapter of the STC www.iestc.org Anthrobytes Consulting www.anthrobytes.com Check out www.WinHelp.net! See www.sharonburton.com! |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/19/1999 9:23:06 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Linda Urban ----------------------------------------------------------------- Well, this thread has given me lots to chew on, and prodded me to reread the Terms of Service on B-S's site more closely, and decide not to contribute further to the eHelp forums. Thanks to all who were so forthcoming about their stance on this. It also prompted me to write a long letter to Jerry McCorkle, Julia Haas (B-S Mgr of Tech Support), and Matt Brookshier (B-S Product Manager for eHelp), about my decision, and about my wish for a) modified terms of service <<well, I can *ask*, can't I?>> and b) the RoboList to continue, and c) the RoboList to continue to be open for new members. (And I just received 6 "test" messages from the RoboList feed, so maybe the server is coming back to life, and it's really a) and c) that need fighting for.) And as for Pete's query: "Or do we all need to write to B-S and voice our opinions as we did when MS halted the MVP program?" I say....Yes, yes! It's worked before with Blue-Sky. They turned around on a decision to charge subscription members for manuals, after lots of customer input. It's worth a try. Linda ----------------------------------- Linda Urban Communication Services email: lurban@earthlink.net |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/19/1999 8:17:03 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Sharon Burton-Hardin ---------------------------------------------------------------- You forgot the Jackson Dean incident and the fact that BS has registered URLs for competitor product names if the names are misspelled. Just thought I would help... sharon Sharon Burton-Hardin President of the Inland Empire chapter of the STC www.iestc.org Anthrobytes Consulting www.anthrobytes.com Check out www.WinHelp.net! See www.sharonburton.com! |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/22/1999 11:13:51 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Pete Mentele --------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Linda, Do you have those e-mail addresses handy? I'd be happy to write to them... And thanks for your efforts in this. I think B-S has some pretty reasonable products. They provide a *lot* of good solutions in these hectic times, but the marketing side makes me wonder about their ethics. I can't recommend a company that engages in what seems to be bait-and-switch tactics as well as other unseemly business practices. Maybe Jerry & Julia are just waiting for ammunition to discontinue that line of marketing. Or maybe Jackson Dean was promoted to the upper echelons for his earlier stance...yikes! Or maybe I'll just stop offering my opinion (not likely). ;-) Thanks! Pete |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Death of RoboLIST? Sent: 11/22/1999 10:43:11 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of cary scarborough --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon, et al, >the fact that BS has registered URLs for competitor product names if the names are misspelled. Apparently, that is not entirely an uncommon practice on the Internet. Over this past weekend, I was explaining to a computer newbie how she may have reached a "wrong number" with an errant mouse click or a keyboard dance. (She had complained to me about the "cheekiness" and "persistence" of an unintended destination URL.) She now knows that if she ever wants to declare allegiance to our Commander in Chief she MUST go to whitehouse.GOV and NOT misspell to whitehouse.COM. The fact that other folks are doing it is no excuse... though I guess it's a free-market thing. opines Cary Scarborough |
|
Subject: Who's pickin' sides anyway? Sent: 1/11/2000 3:17:27 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rosenfeld Walter-W1865C ------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it me ... or has anyone else noticed the abscence of any BS input since the eHelp shinola hit the fan? It appears that - Either yore with 'em or yore agin 'em, and if ya' t'ain't using their platform, yore agin em. //walter |
|
Subject: Re: Who's pickin' sides anyway? Sent: 1/11/2000 3:21:46 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Allison, Nancy --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter, I don't get your meaning. Do you mean that since we said we weren't going to use eHelp, they've stopped participating in the list? They took their ball and went home? That sort of thing? You're right, it is odd, no one from BS has taken part recently. |
|
Subject: Re: Who's pickin' sides anyway? Sent: 1/11/2000 3:39:55 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rosenfeld Walter-W1865C ------------------------------------------------------------- Somethin' like that. My thought is that they don't want to give "credibility" to any other platform by adding official BS participation. I mean, why do eHelp if you can get the same thing elsewhere? I understand the thinking. But ... I'm assuming eHelp is still the same flawed venue with all the issues in the Terms of Service regarding ownership of content (for one) that led to so many valued contributors on this list declining to *ever* participate in such a forum. At least I haven't noticed any change since Jerry's placating emails of a few months ago, and I'd think that they'd have announced any change had it taken place. Just pitchin' pennies ... //walter |
|
Subject: A short update on eHelp's "Help Community" web site Sent: 5/1/2000 4:04:15 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Knopf ------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a short update for those of you who may be interested ... For the past several months, I have been serving as a volunteer member of the “RoboHELP Community Advisory Board.” The advisory board gives advice and counsel to eHelp (formerly Blue Sky Software) to help improve the quality and effectiveness of the Help Community web site at www.helpcommunity.com. When eHelp introduced the Help Community web site, many RoboHELP users expressed concerns--here on this list and elsewhere--about the “terms of service” (TOS) for the web site. Many people, myself among them, were concerned enough about the TOS that they chose not to become active participants in the Help Community. After much back-and-forth between eHelp and the RoboHELP Community Advisory Board, the TOS for the Help Community web site have been modified. The new TOS have been posted; you can review them by clicking the Terms of Service link at the bottom of any page on the Help Community web site. The revised terms of service address the issues raised by the Advisory Board and I think address the issues that were raised by some members of this list. For my part, I am comfortable enough with the new TOS that I will from time to time be participating in the discussions on the Help Community web site. I will not, however, be leaving WINHLP-L, as this has always been one of my favorite online communities. Regards, D. David Knopf Knopf Online Tel: 415.550.8367 E-mail: mailto:david@knopf.com Web: http://www.knopf.com Certified RoboHELP Instructor & Consultant RoboHELP Community Advisory Board WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer |
|
Subject: BS ToS Sent: 5/2/2000 12:46:30 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rosenfeld Walter-W1865C --------------------------------------------------------------- Ok - hot on the heals of my "let's be more T msg" :) - I scooted over to BS "community" to check out David's endorsement of the new ToS. Absolutely no offense to D. Knopf for whom I have nothing but true respect for (no, *really* - I mean that). But - I don't see any significant improvement to the TOS. Below are a few troubling areas that I picked up on in the ToS. Note: this material has been snipped from the ToS. I feel that I've done a good job of keeping things in context, but I encourage any and all to look at the ToS forthemselves to verify that my snippage hasn't accidentally distorted material. This is all my opinion and I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. My comments are marked with a //w in front of them & represent my opinion only. ************************************************** Help Community and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable. //w - Gee, do ya' think that maybe something negative about ol' BS, Jackson Dean, or RH wouldn't make it onto the list. :) It's my understanding that BS trained trainers aren't trained on the bugs in RH. So I wouldn't suppose that any info re: bugs would make it on the list either. ************************************************** 7. PUBLIC CONTENT POSTED TO Help Community For all Content you elect to post to the Service or otherwise submit for display on the site: (a) Help Community receives rights to the Content - You hereby grant to Help Community and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content within the Help Community. //w - i.e., u post it, they own it. This is the same as b4 afict. (d) You retain all other rights to your Content - Subject to the foregoing, the owner of such Content placed on Help Community retains any and all rights that may exist in such Content. //w - What rights r left to retain after item (a)? ************************************************** all materials on the Help Community web site are protected by Federal copyright and under applicable treaty provisions and worldwide copyright laws. Materials contained in any part of the Help Community web site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded without the express permission of the copyright owner. Except as expressly stated in the Limited License provision in these Terms of Service(//w - excerpt of the Limited License is below), Help Community does not grant any express or implied permission to you to use, reproduce, copy, edit, publish, transmit or upload any copyrighted or other proprietary information of Help Community or any of its affiliates. //w - again, u post it they own it & don't even *think* of using it. So - if u're in a discussion on the list about how to do or say something in a manual or some such ... u had better not use the info from this "community". It's owned by BS & according to copyright law BS has certain privileges over the use of that material. 18. LIMITED LICENSE Help Community provides the materials on this site for the personal use of viewers, visitors, members and/or potential members of Help Community. Users of Help Community are granted the license to download for personal use only materials published on the Help Community Web site. Users of Help Community may not: (i) modify any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site; (ii) use any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site for any sale or rental; //w - So - BS owns all that is on their "community", right? so - theoretically - not only can u not verbatim use material discussed on the "community", but u can't even alter it slightly as modifying it would constitute a breach of the ToS. Additionally, (ii) points out that if u were to use the material from eHelp to make a profit by it in either ur own company or consultancy - u've just breached the ToS _again_. For example, sold in a user's guide, or -maybe- even as a consultant/writer's ability _e.g., I didn't know how to do something b4, but now i can because i got this info on how to do it off of eHelp_ I think that that would be hard to *prove* but how many consultants can afford the legal bills that a lawsuit would ring up, oh btw, there's this: From BS's ToS: 8. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold Help Community, and each of its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by <snip> your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any intellectual property or other rights of another. //w - so -in my understanding of this- if they sue u for breach of ToS -they r contending that u cannot sue them for the cost of defending urself, or - should they lose - they free themselves from the fear of having to pay your legal fees. ************************************************** //w - Again, no disrespect to David. But - I wouldn't post or subscribe or even read anything on BSs "community". In fact, the only practical non-conflict of interest use that I can see for this "community" is to post OT msgs to it. :) I know that ppl will say they've used this thing & it's fine for them, but u better think about what u're signing away not just for urself but for ur company. There's another part in there under User Conduct that sez "You agree to not use the Service to:" ************************************************** (e) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements); (f) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any person or entity; ************************************************** //w - So - if u post it, u r saying that u own it to the degree that it is, essentially, not owned i.e., is public domain *and* is no longer public domain since BS is now putting a claim to it. Better not talk about anything but the most generic thing about ur company. I can see this being a great resource for someone to post a very succinct question: "How do I do this?" But ... I see it as a dangerous resource to post a reply of anything but the most generic sense. I can see it being problematic to have any lengthy discussion re: topics, number of topics, how topics are structured. Don't post any snippets of ur own material or of macros that have worked for you; those macros r now BS property & ur continued use would seem problematic to me should BS want to cause a stink. Just pitchin' pennies ... //walter //walter |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/2/2000 10:42:50 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>(a) Help Community receives rights to the Content - You hereby grant to Help Community and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content within the Help Community. //w - i.e., u post it, they own it. This is the same as b4 afict. (d) You retain all other rights to your Content - Subject to the foregoing, the owner of such Content placed on Help Community retains any and all rights that may exist in such Content. //w - What rights r left to retain after item (a)?<< Well for starters, you are still the copyright holder, and they don't claim *exclusive* rights. Receiving rights is *not* the same as receiving ownnership. This means you can still do whatever you want with your own material. It also means that they can use the material as part of other things they are doing. So if you don't intend your material to be public, don't put it there. Putting it there *does* give them the right to do all those things with it, even if you (as the copyright holder) can *also* do all those things. >>all materials on the Help Community web site are protected by Federal copyright and under applicable treaty provisions and worldwide copyright laws. Materials contained in any part of the Help Community web site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded without the express permission of the copyright owner. Except as expressly stated in the Limited License provision in these Terms of Service(//w - excerpt of the Limited License is below), Help Community does not grant any express or implied permission to you to use, reproduce, copy, edit, publish, transmit or upload any copyrighted or other proprietary information of Help Community or any of its affiliates. //w - again, u post it they own it & don't even *think* of using it. So - if u're in a discussion on the list about how to do or say something in a manual or some such ... u had better not use the info from this "community". It's owned by BS & according to copyright law BS has certain privileges over the use of that material.<< Sorry, I still own the copyright. That's me, the copyright owner--I just give them the permission to do whatever they want with the copy they have.. I've given BS permission to reprocuce, copy, etc., but they in turn do *not* give you the right to reproduce, copy, etc. any of my material without express permission from me (the copyright owner). Also, even copyrighted materials (assuming *you* posted and *I* want to use it) are subject to quoting and fair use. >>Help Community provides the materials on this site for the personal use of viewers, visitors, members and/or potential members of Help Community. Users of Help Community are granted the license to download for personal use only materials published on the Help Community Web site. Users of Help Community may not: (i) modify any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site; (ii) use any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site for any sale or rental; //w - So - BS owns all that is on their "community", right? so - theoretically - not only can u not verbatim use material discussed on the "community", but u can't even alter it slightly as modifying it would constitute a breach of the ToS. Additionally, (ii) points out that if u were to use the material from eHelp to make a profit by it in either ur own company or consultancy - u've just breached the ToS _again_.<< Yeah, but I can still roll my own based on the *facts* presented on the site. Copyright doesn't cover the facts, just the expression. We have to keep "material" (the stuff you post) separate from "facts" (what the material is about). They have the right to use the material. People reading have no more rights to it then they do when reading a book. In otherwords, they can't modify, copy, etc. >>You agree to indemnify and hold Help Community, and each of its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by <snip> your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any intellectual property or other rights of another. //w - so -in my understanding of this- if they sue u for breach of ToS -they r contending that u cannot sue them for the cost of defending urself, or - should they lose - they free themselves from the fear of having to pay your legal fees.<< And I assume this means that you don't use *any* software, since the equivalent statements in software are essentially the same. All they are saying is that they are a clearing house, and they hold no responsibility either financial or criminal if you are ripping off someone else's copyright. Have you read your software licenses lately? Essentially, they say "We own it, we can take it away from you any time we want, and if our software blows up Russia when you use it, even if it does so because of defects in the software, it's *your* problem." The RoboHelp stuff sounds no worse--somewhat tamer in fact. >>(e) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements); (f) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any person or entity;<< I hate to say it, but this is illegal anyway. They're just saying they aren't responsible for *your* posting such material and ripping off someone else's copyright. The *site* of course is copyrighted by BS. That's the law folks, since they created it they don't even have to *claim* copyright by current law (though I'm sure they do). Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/2/2000 7:32:22 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of William Meisheid --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter, >(a) Help Community receives rights to the Content - You hereby grant to Help Community and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content within the Help Community. The significant difference is rights are only for within the Help Community, even for affiliates to use. Now in the future, that could get pretty broad as the community grows and things are "added" to it, however, they assume no rights outside the community, such as in their help systems, training docs, books, or manuals. No matter what the copyright says, fair use, still applies, so I can quote a portion of a post from the community, properly annotated, in something I do. They can do likewise. They could do the same thing for something from this list. ________________________________________________________ William Meisheid "Thoughts still and always in progress" WUGNET/Help Authoring Forum Sysop & Microsoft MVP Certified Baltimore/Washington area RoboHELP Training Sageline Publishing 410.465.2040 Fax: 410.465.1812 http://www.sageline.com email: wgm@sageline.com |
|
Subject: OT: Blue Sky's revised TOS Sent: 5/3/2000 11:34:36 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Sue Heim (Home) --------------------------------------------------------------- Just out of curiousity, has a legal professional taken a look at the Terms of Service for the eHelp community? I mean, a legal professional not employed by or for Blue Sky? Someone who has the interests of help authors in mind? Does anyone know? ....sue * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sue Heim Sue_Heim@msn.com |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/3/2000 11:33:59 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Iannone, Shauna -------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Don Lammers[SMTP:DonLammers@COMPUSERVE.COM] > Reply To: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List (much better...still wish I knew why it screws up the reply-to and From fields on occasion...) > To: WINHLP-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA > Subject: Re: BS ToS > > Well for starters, you are still the copyright holder, and they don't > claim > *exclusive* rights. > Ah! This was not _completely_ clear from the phrasing presented. I am unable to check out the original on the site from where I am currently...does it say anywhere else in the ToS that "all original content is the property of the party submitting it" or somesuch? I may be suffering from context-gaps in my reading... > >>Help Community provides the materials on this site for the personal use > of viewers, visitors, members and/or potential members of Help Community. > Users of Help Community are granted the license to download for personal > use only materials published on the Help Community Web site. Users of Help > Community may not: (i) modify any of the materials found in any area of > the Help > Community web site; (ii) use any of the materials found in any area of the > Help Community web site for any sale or rental; [...] > Yeah, but I can still roll my own based on the *facts* presented on the > site. Copyright doesn't cover the facts, just the expression. We have to > keep "material" (the stuff you post) separate from "facts" (what the > material is about). They have the right to use the material. People > reading > have no more rights to it then they do when reading a book. In otherwords, > they can't modify, copy, etc. > Here's where I suspect some rephrasing may help. The general user can get very confused over the differences between copyright, patent and trademark. While defining what the term "copyright" actually covers (i.e., defining the word "content" as the representation of the content, and not the content itself, which may be unclear to a user not well-schooled in the vaguaries of copyright law) may be legally unnecessary, it might reduce confusion for the prospective users of the forum. > Have you read your software licenses lately? Essentially, they say "We own > it, we can take it away from you any time we want, and if our software > blows up Russia when you use it, even if it does so because of defects in > the software, it's *your* problem." The RoboHelp stuff sounds no > worse--somewhat tamer in fact. > Yeah. But that's why I dislike using certain software, and only do so when required to for the sake of the client. I also keep an eye open for friendlier products, and try to patronize (that sounds wrong, but you know what I mean) their developers whenever possible to encourage them to continue in that vein. If I need to make strawberry cake and there are no fresh strawberries, only frozen, I use frozen--doesn't mean I wouldn't use fresh if it was available at the time. I doubt the Help Community will be heartbroken if I prefer to use other forums, but it couldn't hurt them to be aware of the effect their ToS has in shaping (however slightly) their target market and its perception of customer service. (That's my only point in analyzing the ToS excerpts presented--I have no opinion of the intrinsic value of the forum either way.) I may not be the type of Help Developer they want to market to, in which case this ToS serves an effective weeding function; if they are trying to woo me as part of the target audience/market for this service they are offering, they would be more effective phrasing various definitions in their ToS more clearly. > Shauna Iannone > HCS Business Support > x55922, DC3-4 > |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/3/2000 10:20:33 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Iannone, Shauna --------------------------------------------------------------- > From: William Meisheid[SMTP:wgm@SAGELINE.COM] > Reply To: wgm@sageline.com (BTW, that reply-to is annoying, since I have to check everytime I want to reply on-list to something you send to the list...just saying) > To: WINHLP-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA > Subject: Re: BS ToS [...snip...] > >(a) Help Community receives rights to the Content - You hereby grant to > Help > Community and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, right > to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, > distribute, perform and display such Content within the Help Community. > > The significant difference is rights are only for within the Help > Community, > even for affiliates to use. Now in the future, that could get pretty broad > as the community grows and things are "added" to it, however, they assume > no > rights outside the community, such as in their help systems, training > docs, > books, or manuals. > I read that to mean rights to the "Content within the Help Community" was received by BS, not that the rights granted were for use exclusively within the Help Community. Legally, it's shaky verbal composition. They could rewrite it much more clearly, even in legalese, and receive a better response. > No matter what the copyright says, fair use, still applies, so I can quote > a > portion of a post from the community, properly annotated, in something I > do. > They can do likewise. They could do the same thing for something from this > list. > More and more copyright issues will be arising as a result of e-publication. The RIAA-vs.-MP3 mess aside, there are still many lawsuits over what could be considered fair-use publication of copyrighted material. Otherwise, the spoecific phrasing of the ToS wouldn't be such a big deal, and the Help Community wouldn't be so adamant in their non-assumption of "reasonable attorneys' fees, made by <snip> your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any intellectual property or other rights of another." This ties (loosely) back to the GIF thread...if someone compiled a package of help-development tools that included a piece of code that had been discussed on the forum as a "fixit" option, will they be required to pay the Help Community royalties even if they were the one who'd submitted it to the forum? If a WinHelp file developed by a non-Help Community member used the same bit of code (which they'd gleaned from off-forum conversations with members), and was part of a package sold by the developer's company to third parties, would it count as Fair Use? or would it be a copyright infringement? The ToC could probably use a little further polishing of the legalese. One or two spots of sentence-structure ambiguity can lead to too many headaches. Writing effective legalese is like riddling with dragons...never take the possible repercussions of misinterpreted wordplay lightly "for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup"... Just my 2 cents... > Shauna Iannone > HCS Business Support > x55922, DC3-4 > |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/4/2000 8:17:40 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>Here's where I suspect some rephrasing may help. The general user can get very confused over the differences between copyright, patent and trademark. While defining what the term "copyright" actually covers (i.e., defining the word "content" as the representation of the content, and not the content itself, which may be unclear to a user not well-schooled in the vaguaries of copyright law) may be legally unnecessary, it might reduce confusion for the prospective users of the forum.<< I haven't met a legal document yet that wouldn't benefit from rewording. My answers were mostly to counteract walter's comments that this was evil legalese and that BS was claiming ownership, which is not what I read. I will be the last to complain if BS decides to reword things to be less ambiguous. I just don't think that even at this time the document actually takes away my rights as walter states. Copyright *always* deals with the presentation, not what I would normally call the content, or facts. This is a very basic thing that everyone needs to understand if they intend to deal with copyright in any form (and as authors, I would think this is something we should all be aware of). Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: BS ToS Sent: 5/4/2000 11:38:55 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>What is copyright if not the content? You can package it anyway you like. It doesn't matter how you put it together, it's still yours.<< Copyright is only for the *expression*, not the content. Just for grins, I looked up "content" in Webster to make sure I wasn't totally off base here. From Webster: 2 a) all that is contained or dealt with in a writing or speech. b) essential meaning; substance [the content of a poem as distinguished from its form]. By these definitions, my document posted on your Web site is part of the content of your Web site. You cannot copyright this content. You *can* copyright your web site, which is the expression, or the way in which the content is presented to the user. I, on the other hand, cannot copyright the facts presented in my document, which are *its* content. I can only copyright the way in which I present these facts to the user (wording, layout, examples, etc.). By the same token a poet or artist cannot copyright the idea behind their creation (its content by the above definition). He/she can only copyright the expression of that idea (the thing we actually call the poem, painting, sculpture, etc.). Loosely speaking, a document consists of the idea (or perhaps subject would be a better word?), the facts, and the writing about the facts. You can probably divide it into smaller segments, but hopefully for this discussion these three will suffice. Let's say you and I both write a book about creating WinHelp. This is the *idea* behind the book. We both list the commands necessary to call WinHelp. These are the *facts* about the subject. I create text to lead the user through the process and examples to show the user what I'm talking about. These are my writings about the subject. The idea is not copyrightable. You and I can both write a book on creating WinHelp. Otherwise there would only be one book on any given subject. The facts are not copyrightable. You and I can both talk about the same WinHelp commands in our book. The writing about these is what's copyrighted. If I copy your examples or your descriptions of how to create WinHelp, I'm in violation of your copyright. I can even discuss the same issues, but I had better not copy anything verbatim. Anyway, this is how I think the whole mess works, and what I was trying to describe. Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: Blue Sky's revised TOS Sent: 5/5/2000 3:49:46 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rosenfeld Walter-W1865C ----------------------------------------------------------------- I'm having a Moto lawyer look it over on Monday ... //walter > Just out of curiousity, has a legal professional taken a look at the Terms > of Service for the eHelp community? I mean, a legal professional not > employed by or for Blue Sky? Someone who has the interests of help authors > in mind? Does anyone know? > > ....sue |
|
Subject: OT: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/7/2000 1:16:16 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Dennis E. Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- The language of the copyright acts, and the available descriptions for explaining them, is pretty clear. Copyright of literary works applies to the *expression* fixed in tangible, perceivable form. The formatting changes that Ron Miller speaks of are probably not viewed as altering the expression, just being different ways it can be fixed without alteration of the expression. There is no "content" in copyright law, so it is difficult to use the term with any precision in this context. It may appear to you that you have a copyright on the content, but it is actually the literary expression that copyright law applies to. Expressions are abstractions of the fixations, in my view, but the concepts and ideas are even more abstracted and not subject to copyright protection. This may seem fuzzy, but it all works out just fine in everyday practice and in tests for plagiarism applied by courts. I agree with Don Lammers. I don't think there is any disagreement here about what is covered, we just have a little trouble having a good word to describe it. This might help: It is how you said it that is protected, not the substance of what you say. And there are many expressions that are not protected. For example, if there is only one reasonable way to express something, guess what: then there is no copyright available for that expression. -- Dennis |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/6/2000 6:29:22 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>They can put in pictures, side bars and format it anyway they choose, but I still own the CONTENT.<< >>I'm not sure we're not dancing around the same point. Certainly, as you say, I don't own the rights to the a concept such as WinHelp, but I do own the copyright if I write an article explaining how to generate WinHelp (unless of course, I sign a work for hire agreement in which case, the publication owns all copyright).<< I think we just define "contents" differently. I usually think of it as "the stuff which your writing is about." Webster says it's "all that is contained or dealt with in a writing," which I think is saying the same thing. Looking at your article only, the article itself (which is what you own the copyright on) is not the content. What you are talking about (WinHelp in this example) is the content. From the publisher's standpoint, their publication is the "writing" (for which they own copyright) and your article is part of the content (for which you own copyright). For you, the expression is the words you use to convey the contents to the reader. For the publisher the expression is the formatting, pictures, and other things they add to your words. So neither of you own copyright on the contents of your work, only in its expression (well, you may in turn own copyright on parts of the content as well, but we could get into infinite regression if we try to describe more levels here). Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/7/2000 5:55:56 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers --------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ron's point is that he doesn't own the subject of WinHelp, but he does own anything he says about it - which is why he can be held responsible in court for what he says.<< Now we are getting into responsibility issues and the contract you may have with a publisher, which is different from copyright. Copyright is an international convention, though each country has some variations. A contract is strictly between the parties named in the contract. You have copyright as soon as you create an "original work." You have to enter into a contract deliberately. You can be held legally responsible for something you express (even without a contract). You are generally being held responsible for *what* you said, not the subject, and not the expression (how you said it) (although if you torched the guy's house to express your anger you might be held responsible for your expression too <g>). They may be able to nail it on you easier if you own the copyright (at least they have a name on the document to chase), but even if you sold the copyright you could still be nailed based on the contract (for instance if your contract specifies that the writing must not only be creative, but also factually accurate). Some things, (facts, for instance) are not copyrightable, though the clever organization of those facts (the expression) may be. For more information, check out the following sites on copyright: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html (by Brad templeton--not a lawyer as far as I can tell) http://www.benedict.com/basic/basic/scope.htm (by Benedict O' Mahoney, an actual lawyer) Among other things, Benedict O' Mahoney says "Copyright protects expression. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that the items of expression can include literary, dramatic, and musical works; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphic and sculptural works; audio-visual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. An original expression is eligible for copyright protection as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form." There's more. I think I'm within fair use to quote this much, but I sure wouldn't be if I posted the whole article. Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/7/2000 12:16:38 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Jack DeLand --------------------------------------------------------------- From my own standpoint, having successfully sued a largish corporation and with a semester of contract law under my belt, I can say this: "content" is not the same as "subject matter." Ron's point is that he doesn't own the subject of WinHelp, bt he does own anything he says about it - which is why he can be held responsible in court for what he says. "Content," as I understand it in American law and from my book publishing contract, is distinguished from the "vessel" in which it is distributed. The same words I write in my HTML file can appear in my RTF, HLP, and CHM as MY OWN words. I own these babies no matter how they are transmitted, i.e., no matter what vessel they appear in. The file itself is the vessel. You cannot grab my words from RTF, compile in HLP, and present it as other than my work. Now, one might aruge the merits of analyzing the content as an instantiation of an object, but there you are, right back where you started. Jack DeLand jackd@adamcharles.com / www.adamcharles.com |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 11:08:08 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Knopf ------------------------------------------------------------------ //walter wrote: | Thanks for excellent info, Jack. How does this apply to the BS ToS where | they claim ownership of all that is posted there? Walter - please re-read it. Nowhere in the TOS does eHelp claim ownership of all that is posted their. They own what they post. You own what you post, though you give them the right to display what you post within the Help Community. It's all there in black and white. Regards, David Knopf Knopf Online Tel: 415.550.8367 E-mail: mailto:david@knopf.com Web: http://www.knopf.com Certified RoboHELP Instructor & Consultant RoboHELP Community Advisory Board WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 10:20:59 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Jack DeLand ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is probably one notch too far, but nothing Don says contradicts what I said. Copyright is the basis upon which ownership is built, otherwise one could say "it's all just words" and anyone can repeat anyone else's words. You need this basis to establish a contract re: the use of your words. The idea of being held responsible for your words does not depend on a written contract, but it does imply that these words and their use are a part of your responsibilities - loosely, there is a "social contract" not to use words to defame someone, etc., and not to steal someone else's words and pass them off as your own. Walter - not sure exactly how all this applies to BS, but if the price of admission to a forum means that I forfeit the right to reproduce my words, I won't enter. And that's where you came in. And that's where we had the permutations begin. Kind of virus-like. The subject of copyright was a vital matter in "my" era - 1830's American lit - when both British and American publishers boldly stole from each other; they had people waiting at the DOCKS for hot titles! It helped fuel the drive for "a true American literature" as we crawled out from under the shadows of alleged "true" i.e,. British only, lit. Nowadays, the obvious plagiarists are working in TV-land, as America rips off game shows like Whose Line Is It? - why, even the pilot for Three's Company was lifted word for word from British TV. Guess we showed them! Jack DeLand jackd@adamcharles.com / www.adamcharles.com |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 9:01:09 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Rosenfeld Walter-W1865C ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for excellent info, Jack. How does this apply to the BS ToS where they claim ownership of all that is posted there? //walter p.s. hope to have something to share from a Moto lawyer on this tomorrow. |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 1:08:22 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of William Meisheid -------------------------------------------------------------------- David, Doesn't the TOD give eHelp the right to use the post anywhere on the RoboHELP community? That would mean in FAQ's, Support pages, and anything that might be added to the community in the future. The limits are only on remaining within the community, not how/where it is used there. That is better than blanket rights but still pervasive. A least that is how I read it. ________________________________________________________ William Meisheid "Thoughts still and always in progress" WUGNET/Help Authoring Forum Sysop & Microsoft MVP Certified Baltimore/Washington area RoboHELP Training Sageline Publishing 410.465.2040 Fax: 410.465.1812 http://www.sageline.com email: wgm@sageline.com |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 11:17:24 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Knopf -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack DeLand wrote: | Walter - not sure exactly how all this applies to BS, but if the price of | admission to a forum means that I forfeit the right to reproduce | my words, I | won't enter. And neither would I. Fortunately, nothing in eHelp's TOS says anything remotely like this. Regards, David Knopf Knopf Online Tel: 415.550.8367 E-mail: mailto:david@knopf.com Web: http://www.knopf.com Certified RoboHELP Instructor & Consultant RoboHELP Community Advisory Board WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 3:16:02 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Paul A. O'Rear ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi David, But even there the difference is with the use of those archives - no single organization is claiming the exclusive rights to use the WINHLP-L archives, nor do they use the content of those archives in a way that may be interpreted as if they were the originators of their content. Or even if not originators, ones that somehow are made to look responsible for and having ownership of that content; not to mention possibly gaining commercial benefit from that content. Paul _________________________________________________ Paul A. O'Rear Ph: 717.502.1906 WUGNET Sysop & Microsoft HTML Help MVP Helpful Solutions http://www.helpfulsolutions.com mailto:pao@helpfulsolutions.com |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 2:20:54 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of David Knopf ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill, In a word, yes. I read it the same way. According to the TOS, when you post on the Help Community Web site, eHelp gets the right to display what you post on that Web site. That is a big change from the "blanket rights" (to use your term) that were granted to eHelp under the old TOS. Every word we write to WINHLP-L is permanently stored in the list archive. It's helpful for people to be able to search the archive, even though it can sometimes be like hunting for the proverbial needle in a haystack. It seems logical -- even beneficial -- for eHelp to preserve useful content so that other users can benefit from it. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Obviously, you have choice about what you post. If there is something you wouldn't want in the WINHLP-L archives, you just wouldn't post it to WINHLP-L. Can't the same approach be taken to the Help Community web site? Regards, D. David Knopf Knopf Online Tel: 415.550.8367 E-mail: mailto:david@knopf.com Web: http://www.knopf.com Certified RoboHELP Instructor & Consultant RoboHELP Community Advisory Board WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 2:06:29 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Well, this has gotten a bit too esoteric for me, but I sign contracts and negotiate my rights to keep my "content," whatever that may be. Many publications want to own my "content," rather than "rent" it. I would rather own it if possible, which was my point (I think--it's been interpreted so often by so many much more knowledgeable about this than myself that I'm not even sure anymore).<< If I was writing an article, I would prefer to retain copyright ownership also. As it is, I mostly do technical manuals and Help, where there isn't really much point in retaining copyright ownership, so I do it as work for hire. I do post copyrighted material on my Web site and on eHelp. One of the confusions here is that we have to separate the content of the publication from the content of your article. Your article is the tangible expression of its content (subject matter). Only the tangible expression is copyrighted. *What* you are talking about (the content) is not copyrighted. *How* you talk about it (the expression) is. However, the the publication, your article is its content. Unless you sell your copyright to them, they own copyright to the expression of the publication (how it looks, what it contains, what order things are presented) but they do not own copyright to your expression (the tangible form of your content). They may, on the other hand, own copyright to other articles with the same content if the authors of those articles chose to sell them the copyright. In this case, presumably they decided that your expression of this content was superior to the others they own copyright to, and was worth paying you for. Even if they own the copyright to your article, they only own that particular expression of your content. As you pointed out, you could take the same content and express it differently (as long is it's "sufficiently" different) and sell it to someone else. On the other hand, if you sign a contract not to write about the subject for x amount of time (WinWriters, for instance, requires you to sign a statement saying you will not present the same subject anywhere else for one year--or at least they did for the 1999 conference), that's part of your *contract* and is legally binding, but has nothing to do with copyright. In that case the contract *is* dealing with content, not expression. I still own the copyright to my presentation (I did not agree to sell or sign it over to them for a year) and still had the right to post slides, notes, and such on my Web site immediately after the conference. But I was not allowed to present on that subject (content) anywhere else for a year. I could have made a completely different presentation (expression) with the same content, and I would be violating the *contract* (for which they could potentially sue me) but would not be violating copyright law (always assuming that the courts decide that the expression is "sufficiently" different). Don Lammers |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 2:06:32 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Thanks for excellent info, Jack. How does this apply to the BS ToS where they claim ownership of all that is posted there?<< Disclaimer: There are places in the service agreement which I think could use clarification to us non-lawyers. None of the following is intended to claim that I think the ToS is as unambiguous as it could be. BLUE SKY DOES NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP TO ANYTHING (and yes, you finally forced me to read the whole thing). They claim "rights" to do some very specific things, and only within the "Help Community." The word "owner" appears in 3 places: "Subject to the foregoing, the owner of such Content placed on Help Community retains any and all rights that may exist in such Content." The "owner of such content" would be the person posting the material. Use of the word "content" here is a bit confusing, but I've discussed the issues of content and expression as related to copyright elsewhere (more like beaten them to death). "Materials contained in any part of the Help Community web site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded without the express permission of the copyright owner." This is the law even if they don't say it. And they are not claiming that they are the "owner." The owner is implicitly a third party, or they would refer to "Help Community," "Blue Sky," or "eHelp" (this is, however, an area that could use some clarification). "Other trademarks and service marks featured on the Help Community web site are the trademarks and servicemarks (misspelled--should be two words) of their respective owners." "Respective owners" again refers to a third party, not Blue Sky. The rights I give the Help Community are stated as follows: "Help Community receives rights to the Content - You hereby grant to Help Community and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, right to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content within the Help Community." First, they do not claim *all* rights. They follow this with a statement of the rights they claim. They have the right to do just about anything they want as long as it's done by them or their "affiliates" (this could use a bit of clarification), but limited to "within the Help Community." Note the capitalization. This does not mean us as the Help community, but the eHelp "Help Community"--their Web site and such. Even Blue Sky is not allowed to otherwise publish my material outside the "Help Community." (this is a confusing term, but unfortunately it's what they have decided to call this endeavor). Following is what they say about "copyright." "[You are not allowed to] upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any person or entity;" This is illegal for you to do even if they didn't say it. "Except for public domain material, all materials on the Help Community web site are protected by Federal copyright and under applicable treaty provisions and worldwide copyright laws. Materials contained in any part of the Help Community web site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded without the express permission of the copyright owner." This does not claim that BS is the copyright owner, though I'm sure they own copyright to at least some of the posted materials. Otherwise it is simply a statement of copyright law. "Except as expressly stated in the Limited License provision in these Terms of Service, Help Community does not grant any express or implied permission to you to use, reproduce, copy, edit, publish, transmit or upload any copyrighted or other proprietary information of Help Community or any of its affiliates." This just means that the only copying rights you as the reader have are what they say elsewhere (basically, personal use, which is fair use under copyright law anyway). It does *not* imply that BS owns any or all of the copyright for material on the site. "Users of Help Community may not: (i) modify any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site; (ii) use any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site for any sale or rental; or (iii) remove, modify or alter any copyright or other proprietary notice, or trademarks from any of the materials found in any area of the Help Community web site." "Users" refers to the recipient (this could use a bit of clarification, since some of us "copyright owners" may also be "users"). Note that once again this is just repeating copyright law. You (the reader) are not allowed to do anything to my copyrighted article that you wouldn't be able to do under any other circumstances. As copyright holder I never signed anything that says I turn this over, and the document I posted carries *my* copyright notice (not a Blue Sky copyright notice), so obviously they don't think they own the copyright either. They do have rights, but so far they have always asked me when they wanted *anything* done with my article, and have asked permission to distribute it at a convention (which they must, since they don't claim andy distribution rights outside the "Help Community." Just my opinion. And having read stuff by several copyright lawyers now (though not on this specific contract) I'll be curious to see what the Moto lawyer says. Don Lammers |
|
Subject: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/8/2000 4:20:37 PM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Jack DeLand ------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Don Don Don Don! This doesn't sound right at all to me. Here are the problems I've got: > One of the confusions here is that we have to separate the content of the > publication from the content of your article. Your article is the tangible > expression of its content (subject matter). Only the tangible expression is > copyrighted. *What* you are talking about (the content) is not copyrighted. > *How* you talk about it (the expression) is. Nein nein NEIN! Content is not equal to subject matter. Nearly infinite words can be written on any subject; how many words on God are there? Content is what one person writes (or dances, etc.), and it subsumes expression (hence it can be danced or HTMLed). Content is stuff, arranged. >However, [to?] the the publication, > your article is its content. Unless you sell your copyright to them, they > own copyright to the expression of the publication (how it looks, what it > contains, what order things are presented) but they do not own copyright to > your expression (the tangible form of your content). This is the "vessel" I was talking about. They can arrange your stuff in any way that doesn't materially alter it without infringing on your copyright - cf., say, the New York Times arrangement and presentation vs. Wired's. This is not the expression; you have already expressed it by writing it (or dancing it, etc.). >They may, on the other > hand, own copyright to other articles with the same content if the authors > of those articles chose to sell them the copyright. Boing! Mais non - content is unique, although one might cite Borges' dream of someone actually writing the works of Shakespeare identically, without ever having known of him, as an example of subverting this groundwork. The magaziners can and do regularly collect various authors' writings on particular * subjects * but I wonder what it would be like if every one contributed the exact same * content *. Revolutionary, I'd say ["trite!" yells my alter ego]. {apropos of nothing, I'd like to point out that Edgar Poe did an amusing sequence of sketches determining authors' personalities by their signatures alone ("Autography"), very tongue in cheek; he also proposed that magazines use a lithographic method that he called "anastatic printing" to capture manuscripts written in longhand - this would again impart the true personality of the author (I think he just wanted to point up his own superior penmanship) - and it also meant that the manuscript itself would be sacrificed in an acid bath, very mystical that} .... > On the other hand, if you sign a contract not to write about the subject > for x amount of time (WinWriters, for instance, requires you to sign a > statement saying you will not present the same subject anywhere else for > one year--or at least they did for the 1999 conference), This, I'm leaving alone! Well, just a little: would anyone sign such a thing if it said they must continue presenting the same presentation over and over? Rather an onerous restriction, that. And as I recall from a previous contract, the clause wasn't referring to the same subject, but the same * content * - and if it were the "subject" that was to be restricted by such a contract, then I'd be pretty dang silly to agree to shut up about it for a year. ........ > Don Lammers > Jack DeLand jackd@adamcharles.com / www.adamcharles.com |
|
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Copyrights (was Re: BS ToS) Sent: 5/9/2000 9:05:30 AM From: Windows Help Compiler (WINHELP) Discussion List on behalf of Don Lammers ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Nein nein NEIN! Content is not equal to subject matter.<< Actually, I agree with this. I was trying to define content as separate from expression, and I admit to straying a bit. Sorry. "Subject matter" is the overall thing that the content is about. "Content" is the stuff that makes up the work. And the work itself is called a "tangible expression" in copyright law, and is what is copyrighted. >>Content is what one person writes (or dances, etc.), and it subsumes expression (hence it can be danced or HTMLed). Content is stuff, arranged.<< Sorry, I disagree with this one. Mr. Webster says it is "all that is dealt with in a course or area of study, work of art, discussion, etc." In other words, the stuff. "Stuff, arranged" is, by copyright law, called "tangible expression." >>This is not the expression; you have already expressed it by writing it (or dancing it, etc.).<< The way the publication is put together is *the publisher's* expression of...whatever. *Your* expression is your article. Theirs is the publication. If the publication itself were not also considered an expression, it could not be copyrighted. Copyright only covers tangible expression. >>but I wonder what it would be like if every one contributed the exact same *content*.<< Chances of even *one* author actually creating an article which, as a whole, has the exact same content as another article they previously created is pretty small. However, this is irrelevant in copyright law, since copyright only deals with tangible expression, not content, however you define it. I define "stuff = content" (and, I think, so does Webster). Copyright law defines the actual dance, article, etc. (your final product) as "tangible expression." You seem to define "content > tangible expression" ("expression is subsumed by content"). At least we are in agreement that content is not expression. So let's just say we disagree on the meaning of the word "content," which I have no intention of arguing about (this thing was about copyright, not word definitions). For talking about copyright, it doesn't matter whether "content > tangible expression" as you say, or "content < tangible expression" which is what I said, or "content = tangible expression" as Rob (?) said. What is copyrighted is the tangible expression. Contracts can cover other things (for instance, you could sign your soul away if you really wanted to, though it's probably not a good idea), but copyright only covers tangible expression. Don Lammers |