May 2001 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #14 - 9 msgs
by aurelija 23 May '01

23 May '01

> YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, > DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS, > TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THIS > SERVICE, EXCEPT THAT YOU MAY DOWNLOAD MATERIAL > FROM THIS SERVICE FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL, > NONCOMMERCIAL USE AS FOLLOWS: YOU MAY MAKE ONE > MACHINE READABLE COPY AND/OR ONE PRINT COPY THAT > IS LIMITED TO OCCASIONAL ARTICLES OF PERSONAL > INTEREST ONLY. hi, I wanted to share my own reflection. Acording to this description, we can print any article and use it in WC and this is legal and good. But when we send that article to mailing list and want to disscuss it trying to find the way to make (maybe) our life better, then this is bad and illegal. Don't you think that something is wrong with the system we live??? aurelija

1 0

RE: Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by Dean Rehberger 23 May '01

23 May '01

The problem extends to not only articles but emails as well (even as part of replies that people do everyday on this list). But beyond this, while I agree it is important to follow the law, what is interesting from the perspective of Internet research is that there is law and there is practice, stated policy and practiced policy. While many publishers will state in public that they do not want their work redistributed through email and listservs, some in private see it as a good thing and make it easy to do so through offering text versions and email versions ("if you like this, email it to a friend"). In short, we may end up arguing the interpretations of the law but I'm not sure it will be of value (having sat with a room full of lawyers and interested parties for days on this topic, it is more than murky and no simple tasks--even the claims so far on AOIR that the list constitutes educational use, research, and such are off). The fact is on Tuesday in Texas it could go one way with one court, and on Wednesday in Ohio, it could go the other. The real interesting research may be in the practices of redistribution and the tacit practices to support it/or shut it down. Dean Rehberger Associate Director of Matrix Associate Professor Michigan State University 310 Auditorium East Lansing, MI 48824-1120 rehberger(a)mail.matrix.msu.edu matrix.msu.edu/rehberger wk: (517) 355-9300 fax: (517) 355-8363 hm: (517) 347-7372

3 2

Re: [Air-l] Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by Zunt＠aol.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

In a message dated 5/23/01 12:34:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Msrpsjr(a)fs1.ec.man.ac.uk writes: > Regardless of the nature of the list wouldn't the caveat only apply in > areas covered by US copyright law? One can read snippets about the Berne Convention here: http://www.wipo.org/eng/general/copyrght/bern.htm Cheers, Bob Briggs Westport, MA

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Copyright Issues
by Zunt＠aol.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

Yes...this is the sort of reference that I think is appropriate...I'd also include the author's name, if one is included, for accuracy as well as courtesy. In a message dated 5/23/01 12:17:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, simonetta(a)artsci.com writes: > What I would recommend is to post a link to the article, the title and a > brief quote or two that gives the essence of the article being referenced. > > For example: > > Finding Free Internet Access for Those Without > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/technology/23EDUCATION.html > > "a group of nonprofit organizations are working to keep those students > connected during their summer vacations by building and distributing a > directory - in both English and Spanish - of more than 20,000 locations > nationwide that offer free Internet access." > > This allows you to convey the central points of the article without falling > afoul of copyright issues (I think). > > Of course, I am not a lawyer. > > -- > Leo G. Simonetta > Art & Science Group, LLC > simonetta(a)artsci.com > Bob Briggs Westport, MA

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by jeremy hunsinger 23 May '01

23 May '01

I tend to agree with Ed. This list constitutes more of a publication and distribution system than a research system. If it were a research system, and we distributed materials as we have done, then we would probably have to make the list password protected and moderated to some extent as lists for classes or lists for research groups usually are. >Ed: > >sorry...but I also disagree pretty strongly with this. This list isn't >doing research. It's chatting. It may be learning about research >issues...but list members are neither signed up for credit for a class, >nor are they engaged in active research as part and parcel to their >participation here. I don't buy it. > >Further, even if one of us is doing research, we aren't all on/in the same >project...so forwarding us copyright protected stuff goes outside the >intent (in my view). > >Of course....I'm no lawyer . . . and this is a brave new frontier. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l Jeremy Hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu Instructor of Political Science Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Webmaster/Manager CDDC 526 Major Williams Hall 0130 http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy --my homepage Virginia Tech (yes i partially updated it) Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540)-231-7614 icq 5535471

4 4

Re: [Air-l] Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by Zunt＠aol.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

In a message dated 5/23/01 9:17:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jhuns(a)vt.edu writes: > However, one can distribute within fair > use guidelines, which is distributing the first paragraph a link to the rest. > Lord knows I've been guilty of this sort of thing and have see the issue raised elsewhere. On reflection I agree generally with Jeremy's view. However, the characterization of fair use is not accurate. Determination of fair use varies quite dramatically between contexts, and I've not seen any case law covering the topic vis-a-vis e-mail lists of any sort. (What if the article is just one paragraph?) As a practical matter on a list, I would prefer being informed *about* an article that someone thinks is important--as with other forms of lit reviews. And if a brief, relevant quote from the article helps to make the point, that's great. Cheers, Bob Briggs Westport, MA

4 6

Copyright Issues
by Leo Simonetta 23 May '01

23 May '01

What I would recommend is to post a link to the article, the title and a brief quote or two that gives the essence of the article being referenced. For example: Finding Free Internet Access for Those Without http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/technology/23EDUCATION.html "a group of nonprofit organizations are working to keep those students connected during their summer vacations by building and distributing a directory - in both English and Spanish - of more than 20,000 locations nationwide that offer free Internet access." This allows you to convey the central points of the article without falling afoul of copyright issues (I think). Of course, I am not a lawyer. -- Leo G. Simonetta Art & Science Group, LLC simonetta(a)artsci.com

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by Zunt＠aol.com 23 May '01

23 May '01

Here 'tis: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html In a message dated 5/23/01 10:45:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ahynes1(a)yahoo.com writes: > My understanding of the disclaimer is > that such forwarding of copyrighted material would be > permissable. Not quite--it's not the one who copies who has the authority to make the decision. My desire to distribute someone's work without profiting from the action--to someone who wants it--does not make it ok because, for example, I might be depriving the author from his right to profit. (People who receive my free copies would have no need to purchase the original from the author's distributing agent.) It's not up to me to rationalize by saying, "this work will never turn a profit for the author in a million years, so my action cannot harm his/her interests." The proposed interpretation would make it ok to scan textbooks and distribute the scans freely. Cheers, Bob Briggs Westport, MA

1 0

Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
by Ken Friedman 23 May '01

23 May '01

Dear Colleagues, I have posted stories to the list from various publications. When I do, I am careful to include full publishing data, URL, and copyright notice. These stories are made available to the public by the publishers, often through emailer programs. Occasionally, I take them from a university-based email newsletter that carries stories from publishers. The time required to write for permission on stories of possible interest here would make it difficult to pass good material on. I don't bother with URL clips and first-paragraph only broadcasts. I find them annoying to read, and I don't want to plague other with material I don't like myself. I'd welcome the view of other subscribers on this issue. If it seems inappropriate to transmit material with full identification and copyright notice, I'll be happy to stop. Best regards, Ken Friedman -- ******************************************** Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University Norway +47 22.98.50.00 Telephone +47 22.98.51.11 Telefax Home office Byvaegen 13 S-24012 Torna Haellestad Sweden +46 (46) 53.245 Telephone +46 (46) 53.345 Telefax email: ken.friedman(a)bi.no ********************************************

3 2

The Guardian: Online: Second Sight -- Melissa is a marketing tool
by Ken Friedman 21 May '01

21 May '01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guardian Unlimited (C) Guardian Newspapers Limited 1999 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3850829,00.html Thursday April 8, 1999 Online: Second Sight Melissa is a marketing tool By Esther Dyson Guardian Unlimited Most right-thinking people hear about Melissa the virus and shudder. But a few politically incorrect marketers are marvelling at her ability to reach the masses overnight. Imagine attaching your marketing message to such a virus. In fact, that's what marketers are already trying to do. When this works so well that it clogs e-mail systems, it's called a virus, but when it happens with the active involvement of the human carriers, it's called viral marketing. The best viral marketing is not just word-of-mouth, as some people carelessly assume. Nor is it multi-level marketing, where Juan sells to Alice and then gets a cut of whatever Alice sells to Fred. It is when users actively recruit other users, not for pay, but because they benefit from a larger user pool, just as virus DNA benefits from the spread of a virus. As with any new concept, anyone can define the term. Steve Jurvetson and Tim Draper of Silicon Valley venture capitalists Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson, are the foremost proponents of the technique. They have even posted an essay about it on their website, mostly describing their success with Hotmail, one of their best investments, sold to Microsoft last year for upwards of $300 million. Each Hotmail user, who signs up for free, markets the service to others because of the sig file attached to each Hotmail message: "Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com." Each time the user uses the product/service, he's promoting it to others. You could almost say that any campaign that gets the customers to flaunt a brand name is viral marketing. But getting people to wear your T-shirt is not viral marketing. Viral marketing, as I define it, is where the original user gets a benefit from the spread of whatever is being marketed. That is, it concerns products or services that benefit from so-called "network effects" - those same disproportional returns to early entrants that are the subject of so much discussion concerning Microsoft. That is why Hotmail can be viral in some cases, but not in others. In the wired world, where everyone has e-mail, Hotmail user Alice doesn't particularly benefit from Juan's using Hotmail, because she can reach him as easily at Demon or on AOL. In the less wired world, where most people don't have e-mail accounts of any kind, Hotmail can spread, well, like a virus. As Jurvetson and Draper say: "The Hotmail adoption pattern is that of a virus - with spatial and network locality. People typically send e-mails to their associates and friends; many of them are geographically close, and others are scattered around with clusters in areas of high Internet connectivity. We would notice the first user from a university town or from India, and then the number of subscribers from that region would rapidly proliferate. The beauty of it is that none of this required any marketing dollars. Customers do the selling." There's a delicate balance between ownership and reach: the ideal viral marketing product is semi-proprietary. That is, it needs to be generic enough for its use to spread quickly, but people shouldn't be able to interact with imitations. At first, Internet telephony didn't spread, because the proprietary systems meant you could talk only with a small group of people using the same provider. When Internet telephony meant you could talk with anyone who had a phone, it became much more useful, but the few who had it had less incentive to push a particular brand onto others. The current rage in viral marketing is relationship or networking tools - Six Degrees or PeopleLink. A couple of times a week I get e-mails from someone wanting me to join one so that I can make new friends. Do I need new friends and contacts? Maybe, maybe not, but enough people do that these services are spreading rapidly. The business model here is advertising. Of course, sometimes the marketer forgets about the business model: the goal is simply to sign up users, and then let someone else figure out what to do with them. That's what Mirabilis did with its ICQ instant messaging service. It acquired 12 million users before it sold out to AOL for $300 million. The best current example of viral marketing is the new range of Gizmoz from Zapa Digital Arts. Gizmoz enable you to build your own identity and then have other people link to it. Instead of static business cards such as Versit's (which simply sit in someone's "card" file and are sent to other people), Gizmoz work as live links. You send someone a link to your Gizmo; then, each time they look at it, they link back to the original (either at your site or at Zapa's) and get the current version. What's the benefit to Zapa? Well, in order to update your Gizmo - which could be kinds of biscuits you're offering for sale or of your need for a lift from Cambridge to London next Friday - you will want to go back to Zapa for new and improved graphics. This isn't viral marketing just for Zapa: it's viral marketing for Zapa's users, because it lets them spread their messages to others. In principle, you can "own" your own gizmo, but you can also share it. That keeps you and other users coming back to each other - and to Zapa for new shareable Gizmo components. So what's to keep everyone from using viral marketing? The backlash is already in sight as some vendors start moving towards multi-level marketing for products where there's no benefit to the redistributor other than a commission. But just as the difference between e-mail and spam is a delicate social matter, so is the difference between gifts that delight both giver and receiver, and using friends in a marketing scheme. So what is the value that Zapa is giving to its customers? In exchange for their attention, it is selling them the ability to get attention from other people. Marketers want attention so they can sell ads to people who sell products. People want attention because, well, they're human. They don't want marketers' attention, which they know is conditioned upon their eventually purchasing something. They want the attention of other human beings. Good on them! But I have to add: in the past, getting attention required nice clothes. Now, it requires nice Gizmos. Is that progress? Or is it just human nature, reinvented? Or am I just too cynical, and are Gizmos actually a tool for creative users to express themselves with? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3850829,00.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guardian Unlimited (C) Guardian Newspapers Limited 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1