Back to That Copyright Clause.

[Tom Wall]

Hey all,

Well, I started thinking about this whole copyright
discussion that we were having a few days ago, and about this
clause that I remarked on back then, and about my
response to what Debbie and Kelley said about it. It
probably won't surprise most of you to hear that even
after I wrote that response the other day, something about
it just didn't sit right with me... I couldn't
articulate exactly what that is at first, and I'm not
entirely sure that I can right now, either. 

Not that I'm reversing my concession on poor research... I *should*
have caught that, after all. ;-)

Also, I don't want it suggested that I'm
presenting confusing, ever-shifting positions on
policy, although this may actually be the case. <g> 

But truth be told, I don't really have a specific
position one way or the other on this or most - not
all, as I have definite positions on *some* - issues;
but on the whole I am much more interested in hearing
a lot of viewpoints, and reaching a conclusion or some
kind of consensus, than being personally vindicated as
"right." So I figured I'd throw out my brainstorming
ideas and see what we can make of them.

I started by going back to the ADMIN message (on
HPforGrownUps, message #60580, dated 16-June-2003) in
which the Administrative Team announced the changes to
the old HBfile and the contest to rename the whole
thing.  In that message, one of the paragraphs read
thusly:

"So, please read the new Humongous Bigfile so we're
all up to speed. If you have any questions or
comments, please send them to your List Elf or
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. Thanks!"

This is what I'm thinking: I understand that when
I signed up for HPforGrownUps, under the terms of the
old HBfile, that this contentious clause (see my
message #376 on the Feedback board) that I talked
about *was* there. 

Here's the clause, for everyone who is just checking
in:

"Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst
Administrators the license to use, distribute,
reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such
post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting
the various HP4GU groups and sites."

This clause *was* in effect until 16-June-2003, at which point it 
was removed – inadvertently or not - from the HBfile. This clause
then didn't go *back* into effect until 05-December-2003, when it 
was re-added to the new HBfile.

But the Admin message dated 16-June told us to get "up
to speed" on the new document. So, once the HBfile was
updated, and everyone read it and got up to speed, well, 
doesn't that change all of that?

Let me explain. 

I may be wrong, again, but once the *new* HBfile was
released, it became the new operational document for
members of HPforGrownUps, right? I mean, if you go and
reread the ADMIN message #60580, there's nothing in
there about the *old* HBfile still being valid, or
applying to us any longer in any way, is there? So, in
other words, when the new file was released, it became
the new set of rules.

And it - not the old HBfile - was sent to everyone who
joined after it came into effect, right?

Now, this clause that I'm talking about was *not* in
the new version of the HBfile that went into effect on
16-June. Again, I may be incorrect here, but doesn't
that mean that from that point forward, it didn't
apply any longer? 


Debbie wrote:
Actually, the clause *was* in existence when you
joined HPFGU. It was inadvertently deleted from the
revised HBfile and then reinserted after it was
noticed that it was missing (probably just after your
last download), which is why members were not
notified. <snip> So the rule has always been here in
one version or another. /END QUOTE

Tom's thoughts:
Well, I think I see where Debbie is coming from here. 
But the more I think about it, the more I can't get around 
the fact that that's not a properly accurate statement, is it? 

This rule hasn't *always* been here in one version or another. 
In point of fact, the rule was *not* here from 16-June until 05-
December. How many new people joined during that time?

I mean, once the *new* rules went into effect on
16-June, the *old* rules just became a historical
document, and a historical document which had no real
consequence for members any longer. Right?

So, extrapolating from that, everyone who was
*presently* a member of the list when the new rules
went into effect on 16-June-2003 was, if I'm not
mistaken, *inadvertently released* from the old rules
when the new HBfile became the standard set of rules
for HPforGrownUps.

But then, we have a whole slew of people who joined
in between 16-June and 05-December of 2003. So, all
of *these* people, who were never constrained by the
rules in the *old* HBfile at all, signed up under new
rules which did *not* include that clause on releasing
copyright to HPforGrownUps.

So, in effect, whether or not the rule *used* to
matter is sort of irrelevant now, isn't it?

Old members were released from that rule once the new
rules went into effect on 16-June. New members who
joined between 16-June and 05-December were *never*
held accountable to this rule.


Kelley wrote:
It is *not* a new clause, and it is *not* a "very recent addition".

Tom replies:
Well, as with Debbie, I think I can see where you're 
coming from. This rule *used* to be in effect. 
It was *inadvertently* deleted. From your perspective, this 
rule has basically always been in effect. I can totally understand 
that from an experienced Admin perspective this is a
cut-and-dry case, and that you'd all feel at liberty to just put
that clause right back in once you'd realized your mistake.

But the way I see it at present when the Admin team
Inadvertently forgot to include that clause, it also
Inadvertently released everyone from the
responsibility to adhere to it.

Which means that when the rule was returned to the
HBfile on 05-December, we *still* should have been
notified of it, because even if the rule *used* to be
in effect, it is *still* a new addition to the hbfile, 
since it *wasn't* in the hbfile for about six months.

This is why.

Whether or not the rule *used* to be in effect, well,
that doesn't really matter any more, does it? I mean,
once the new HBfile became law, the old one ceased to
apply, right? 

So, when members who joined before 16-June read the
new file and started working from those rules, then
they were under the impression that these were the
rules that were in effect. And when new members joined
after 16-June, they didn't know anything about the old
rules, and therefore the clause we're talking about
didn't apply to them ever, presumably until
05-December.

I mean, after a little more thought, I still don't
think it's entirely appropriate for the Admin team to
cry "Oops" on this one. I know people make mistakes,
like I said before, and in this case I think I can
safely revise my earlier point and suggest that the
*deletion* of the clause (and not the *readdition*)
was the mistake. The deletion was an oversight.
Whoever revised the HBfile forgot to include it
somehow. But IMHO, I'm not sure that this makes the
version of the HBfile (that was released on 16-June) 
any less binding. 

An error is an error, but *we* can't be held
accountable for the errors that the Admin team makes,
right? I can't see how *I'm* responsible for this, nor can
I see how *I'm* obligated to just let clandestine changes
to the rules be binding on me.

Unfortunately, I think it may possibly be the case
that because of this error, the Admin team actually
might have accidentally released everyone from their
obligations under that clause.

So then, even if the clause *used to* be in effect
before 16-June, it ceased to apply after that, and
therefore for all intents and purposes it *is* a major
change once it was reinserted on 05-December without
telling everyone - and particularly the new members who 
joined from June to December - about it.

So, this is one way to look at it: Everything posted
between 16-June and 05-December is not subject to this
rule, and therefore use of any of this material is
prohibited without explicit permission from the
author.

Another - admittedly more stringent - take on the issue would
be to suggest that once the new HBfile went into effect on 16-June, 
*all* members (and their posts dating back to the beginning) were 
inadvertently released from this clause.

Another possible interpretation would be that the rule
was in effect until 16-June, and then ceased to be in
effect. Therefore, in order to change the copyright
rules *again*, the Admin team should have consulted
the general list membership, and particularly those
who joined after 16-June and who were never obligated
under the terms of the old HBfile.

In such a case, that clause might have to be subtracted from the 
latest version of the HBfile, since even if it *was* pertinent in 
the *old* HBfile, it's not so in the version that went out in June.

Briefly, how might this connect to the banned member situation?

If a member was banned in between 16-June and
05-December, then that member was banned according to
the rules that were in effect at the *time,* not the
rules that *used* to apply or the ones that *later*
applied. 

This means that all of that material is still under her 
own copyright, as she was only bound by the version of the HBfile
that came out in June and cannot be expected to abide by rules that 
went into effect after she was banned. 

I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which 
means that she still has the rights to all of it.

Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this.

-Tom, who wants desperately to apologize for any formatting issues, 
as he's having problems with apostrophes today, and who wants 
everyone to know that since he doesn't have internet access at home, 
he tends to work the old-fashioned way with pen on paper; that he 
has a stack of notes that he's compiling on the matter of Full 
Disclosure and is not in any way dodging the question; and that 
since this was already mostly written, he figured he'd get it out of 
the way first.