Copyright and copy wrong

Computer Life column for 8/16/97 by
Richard Gordon

As I write this, I'm in the middle of teaching a class in "Computing Ethics" for UD's Division of Continuing Education.

My students are surprised that someone who looks as unlawyerly as I do can be so fussy about copyrights.

They are surprised when I ask them to consider how much of someone else's Web page they may copy when they make their own. Just because it's on the Web doesn't mean it's free.

They think our legal system for the protection of intellectual property is restrictive, that it sets up barriers. So I introduce the topic by discussing how our copyright and patent system encourages the growth of new ideas and the creative expressions of those ideas.

In short, if I profit from creating a new invention, song, poem, book, computer program, or other original work, I will be encouraged to come up with more useful or entertaining new works, and others will create new works as well. After a period of time, our work enters the "public domain," the body of works that people can use freely.

The Web, indeed the entire Internet, grew to technological adolescence fueled by the academic tradition of sharing ideas in your community. Come up with something new and exciting, and your reputation was made. But not your fortune.

Now that the mature Net has entered the world of commerce, more formal copyright standards apply to the electronic exchange of information.

Problem is, it's so easy to copy things electronically. See something you like on the Web, point at it with the appropriate mouse clicks and you've grabbed it.

The tradition of sharing plus the ease of electronic copying allows things to spread like wildfire over the Net. For example, last week three different people e-mailed me copies of Mary Schmich's June 1 column in the Chicago Tribune, all misidentified as "Kurt Vonnegut's Commencement Address at MIT."

Some people don't feel like they are taking something when it's only software or a computer file. "The file is still there; it's not like I stole it or damaged it."

People with that attitude forget something: we usually have a license to use the software or view the information; we do not usually own it.

I once bought several CDs of clip art for a variety of projects, including Web pages. I was stunned as I read the license for one of the collections: it specifically prohibited the use of the art in any electronic medium. The vendor, knowing how we really act, didn't want people to "steal" their art from a Web site I might develop.

There are very few times when you do not need to seek permission before making a copy of something. For example, last week I quoted a small amount of text from three Web sites. Since I did so as part of a review of those sites, those quotes are considered a "fair use" exception to the copyright law.

Many people feel that intellectual property laws are so difficult to enforce on the Net that they copy things willy-nilly.

However, word is out that some big entertainment companies are on the look-out for copyright infringements, shutting down fan sites for movies, television series, or recording artists. The issues again are control and commerce: the entertainment companies want to control the distribution of their copyrighted material to make sure they also retain full commercial advantage for the duration of their copyrights.

So, think twice before you grab your favorite Star Trek image and turn it into a screensaver you share around the office or apartment complex.

For More Information

Copyright © 1997, The News Journal Company

Computer Life Index

Richard Gordon helps support faculty, staff and student computing at the University of Delaware. E-mail questions, comments or suggestions to richard@inet.net, or write him at The News Journal, Box 15505, Wilmington, DE 19850. Although each note cannot be answered individually, reader comments and questions will often be incorporated in future columns.