• ©opyright
  
• A Women's Online University
  
  

Imagine that one day you share your favorite pet story with a newsgroup. Now imagine that a year later you tell that same story to a new friend, and she laughs in your face "You can't fool me," she says, "You got that from a book." She pulls out a new paperback- and there's your story, but without your name attached. How would you feel?

Today's topic is copyright, also known as intellectual property. The principle is that a person or company that produces an original work such as a song, a story, or a piece of software-may reasonably expect payment (or royalties) when that work is reproduced. Information technology has made obscure intricacies of copyright law as lucrative as, say, compound interest. With the US and Canadian governments debating new intellectual property legislation, the doctrines known as "fair use" or "fair dealing" are up for redefinition.

As you might expect, major Websites have sprung up to share information about copyright. Try the National Library of Canada

www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifla/ll/cpyright.htm

or in the US, the Franklin Pierce Law Center

www.fplc.edu/

or Al's copyright page
naio.kcc.hawaii.edu/project/al/
[site no longer accessible]

As well, there are newsgroups, mainly misc.int-property, but also misc.legal, which frequently consider copyright questions and regularly run a six-part copyright FAQ by US lawyer Terry Carroll, which can be found at

www.bel-epa.com/bricolage/resources/lounge/bureau/copyright/faq/part1/html

We'll look at three areas of concern in this article: the public's right to information, the creator's right to creative integrity, and the Internet user's rights and responsibilities in balancing the two apparently conflicting sets of rights, when dealing with online materials.

the public's right to information

To set the stage: the world's biggest "Copyright Grab," is being attempted by major corporations, according to Pamela Samuelson's paper on the US Congress' proposed White Paper on Intellectual Property

www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifla/documents/infopol/copyright/samp3.htm

Much as Disney and Universal Studios once sued Sony to prevent sales of videotape players (on grounds that taping could violate their copyrighted movies) or Sega once sued another videogame manufacturer for making Sega-compatible games, Samuelson says, corporate lobbyists are trying to legislate extreme restrictions on the use of Information Highway material-to the point of turning ISPs into copyright police.

Samuelson cites the legal precedents by name, not by where they're published . Smart thinking. In the US, West Publishing -which publishes THE standard references for US court decisions-has tried to copyright the very numbers of the pages on which judicial decisions are published. According to the Centre for Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), a branch of the Consumer Project of Technology

www.cptech.org

if Westlaw succeeds in its claim, then lawyers or journalists will have to pay royalties every time they cite page and volume in order to refer to court decisions; the decisions themselves will never be made freely available on the Internet; and the public's access to court information will be jeopardized.

Nor is Westlaw an isolated instance. Privatization of formerly public agencies means that more and more information gathered at public expense is being converted to private databases. Someday in the not too distant future, for instance, you may have to pay a private company fee to discover whether your neighbours pay the same property taxes as you. Or you may be turned down for a job because the company you applied to has obtained your Workers Compensation records from a company you never knew existed. The Distributed Knowledge Project at Toronto's York University

www.yorku.ca/research/dkproj/o2i.htm
argues that any agency with a database of information gathered at public expense has an "obligation to inform."

Of course, public access to information always has to be weighed against an individual's right to privacy. When Victoria, BC deliberated over whether to put its property tax records online, the Privacy Commissioner warned against making personal information more easily available to direct-mail and other mass-marketers- or to potential stalkers or sexual predators. The records are already public, but right now accessible only to somebody who actually appears at Victoria City Hall during business hours and presents some identification.

Note that these examples of copyright grab are coming from the corporate sector, not the creative community, who tend to be eager to explore this new medium of the Internet. As the UK National Writers Union states, "The NWU is a staunch supporter of the new communications technology and of public access to these media, but those who create the content must be treated fairly."

the creator's right to creative integrity

Creative artists tend to regard copyright as a Good Thing. Copyright royalties have allowed writers, artists and composers, time-precious, irreplaceable time-as well as some financial security, to pursue their creative work. Information technology, however, has meant that creative artists are losing the ability to monitor who's using their work, and how, at the same time that unsuspecting consumers are finding pirated copies of everything and anything in the marketplace and on the Internet.

You might have noticed, if you're the kind of person who reads by-lines, a rash of articles by new writers. That's because many of the top name writers in Canada and the US are boycotting many of the major magazines and newspapers, over the issue of electronic rights. Toronto author and journalist Heather Robertson has launched a class action suit against The Globe & Mail, alleging The Globe paid to publish an excerpt from her book and then made the excerpt available electronically without any further payment. See the Periodical Writers' Association site

www.cycor.ca/PWAC/copylist.htm
The Writers' Union of Canada newsletter suggested that all TWUC members run regular Alta Vista searches on their own names, to check whether their work has been posted without their consent.

Partly in response to writers' actions, most publications now ask free-lance writers to sign away all rights to their work-not just electronic rights, but what's called "moral rights" as well, which means that the publication can rewrite the piece completely and still use the writer's name. Staff writers and artists have always surrendered copyright to their employers. For independent writers, this new demand amounts to a declaration of war. The American Society of Journalists and Authors

www.asja.org/

post regular bulletins on the skirmishes. Hell hath no fury like a writer whose work has been purloined- worse, if the writer's name has been misspelled!

Besides creators, another community that favors correct attribution is, of course, academia. Not only do they want credit for their own work, but scholars are also quite strict about respecting work that other people have done. Quoting without attribution can be construed as plagiarism, and it's a serious offense at most universities, with penalties ranging from flunking to suspension or expulsion. At the same time, most academics treasure libraries, and are thrilled by the Internet's potential to facilitate access to the world of texts and ideas.

the Internet user's rights and responsibilities

Finally, let's consider the small, often self-employed entrepreneurs, and the non-profit organizations, who are looking for ways to make money from placing information on the Internet. Inter-Press Service, for instance, bills itself as the Third World's biggest press agency. IPS news stories posted to newsgroups such as misc.activism.progressive often cover issues or events never even mentioned in mainstream media, such as national reports on the status of women, or profiles of local heroines. Yet IPS stories come with large warnings that they may not be cross-posted or published without express permission.

Do such warnings have any legal force or validity? Yes and no. IPS directly supplies only the IGC/APC service providers, including PeaceNet, EcoNet and Women's Web. If another service provider started cross-posting wholesale to its own customers, there might sufficient people and money involved to trigger a lawsuit. Where individuals are concerned, as with so many other aspects of the Internet, much depends on the average Internaut's willingness to comply with netiquette, and eagerness to avoid the embarrassment of being flamed.

Newsgroup and mailing list moderators and Website owners have been wrestling with copyright in their own ways, and policies differ widely from place to place or even from piece to piece. The MAP newsgroup (above) recently ran a message warning potential contributors that all posts placed with MAP should be considered in the public domain, unless otherwise specified. IPS is one exception; another is People's Weekly World, which stipulates that articles may be distributed on condition that the attribution is retained. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) suggests that readers ask their local newspaper or radio stations to order and pay for any report that captures their interest.

Despite the moderator's judgement call, the originator's conditions should be observed. As Brad Templeton explains about Usenet postings at his Home Page

www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html

"Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly." This means that theoretically any note that you post to a mailing list is automatically copyrighted. If you actually work a while at an essay-if you compose off-line, for instance, in order to get it right -you might consider adding a notice that says Copyright 1997 Yourname.

At The Public Eye: Challenging the Right Wing Backlash website

www.publiceye.org/pra.html

there's a section called The Fine Print which requests, "Please do not download, copy, share or print any text without first reading the explanation of terms and conditions..." and every page has a little box that you click to learn the copyright status of the article thereon. Some people who contribute to The Public Eye just want to get the word out; others have spent considerable time and effort on investigations, and hope to recoup some of their expenses by selling their reports to print or broadcast media.

Complicated? You bet. Beyond the obvious importance of communication and networking, the Internet is teaching us all new ways to balance public and private rights. Perhaps the most important lesson is that we can speak directly with one another just so long as we respect one another's privacy. Netiquette forbids making a private post public, for instance, to a newsgroup or mailing list, without permission. The same courtesy should be extended to messages posted publicly- that is, they may be cited, or referred to, but not reproduced unless they carry PLEASE POST WIDELY banners or unless we comply with explicitly stated conditions for posting, such as retaining the attribution.

Copyright on articles which appear here in Women'space remains with their authors. While readers are free to share print-outs or forward articles (with attribution) to a few select friends, we ask that you not post to mailing lists or newsgroups-or publish in print form- without express permission from the author. "Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt [by unauthorized cross-posting]," writes Brad Templeton, "think about the fact that piracy on the Net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars."

Observing copyright is more than a matter of courtesy. It's an important way to maintain the Internet's independence and integrity, by insisting that information belongs to people, and not to governments or especially to corporations. In the end, perhaps the most subversive thing any of us can do on the Net is to maintain the direct connection between originator and user.

Copyright Penney Kome 1997--but you can quote me.

Email: kome@shaw.wave.ca

Top

I am frequently asked what inspired me or drove me to embark on the project for a WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC UNIVERSITY

www.wvu.edu/~womensu

which was born on the WorldWide Web on December 6, 1996. The answer is both personal and political.

Personally

The personal aspect has to do with my own experience. I decided in middleage, and after three other successful careers, to take up studies in clinical psychology. I knew I couldn't afford to stop my life completely, drop out, move to a campus somewhere and spend 5 or 6 years doing it in the usual way. Nor could I afford what that transition would cost. So I investigated several schools that could provide the accredited training and degree without continuous residency, and finally selected what I considered to be the best of the lot—the Fielding Institute. A significant portion of Fielding's program is conducted through computer-modem communication. Compared to the experience of my first doctorate, for which I studied on a campus in the conventional way, this new modality not only gave me more frequent contact with my faculty committee and professors, but also enhanced interaction with my peers and greatly expedited the research process. I am a convinced graduate of a "moveable campus" with a "multipresent faculty." Computer-modem technology makes this possible.

Politically

From a political point of view, I have even more reason for initiating a project such as the WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC UNIVERSITY. Technology can also be a means of creating and sustaining socioeconomic discrimination. When printing was invented and the book became the chief means of education and transmission of knowledge, women were excluded and their social power became even more limited. The book became a tool of patriarchal power. New exclusions came with the rise of science and technology. Now, on the verge of the 21st century, women will be disenfranchised again if they are excluded from access to and training for information technology.

The computer is becoming the key that opens the door not only to education, but also to employment. If it is genderized, and made the exclusive tool of profit and elitist groups, then democratic sharing of information and the benefits of opportunity and access will belong only to the few. The opposite of democracy is the hoarding of social power.

From a global perspective, there is even more reason to concentrate on educating women. I have learned from my work in international development and cross-cultural projects -as have the major international development agencies- that the key to social change is to focus education and training on women. Conventional social and economic policies benefit men either intentionally or by default. The result has been dismal. Whereas we have learned that women are in fact the greater social multipliers, when women are given access to education, training and similar advantages, the benefit to children, families, communities and successive generations is far greater. Change depends on placing a priority on the empowerment of women, especially through education.

Electronic education has the power to transcend the poverty and isolation, the class and gender bias that disempower so many women. Since our WIEU Website appeared last December, I have had many requests from women- from Lithuania and Russia, from Maylasia and Africa, from Latin America and, yes, North America- who tell me they desperately want to be educated, but cannot leave their children, must work, or do not have access to schools and universities. To continue in our present, often elitist and moribund forms of education, and ignore these voices is, I believe, to imperil the future of our planet.

Women's ways of knowing and learning

There is still another reason for a WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC UNIVERSITY. The dominant educational, professional and work cultures have standardized the forms, methods and substance of transmitting knowledge. A women's university has also an intrinsic purpose of incorporating and promoting women's ways of knowing and learning-now well-identified in research literature-in every discipline and in the entire process of education. These "ways" contribute different, more varied and expansive frameworks for thinking as well as doing, for research as well as practice, in fields as diverse as literature and history, psychology and geography, medicine and engineering. They are participatory, cooperative, socially motivated, earth-friendly ways.We have a structure now, one that is flexible but focused-above all, one that is accessible anywhere in the world, if we can make the connection. That is the challenge: to find ways of making the connection for more women who don't have access, and to find mentors and teachers who can offer the education women need and want.

How to join in

So, to those who can teach, we say, join this effort. Learn the new technology which your fourteen-year old son or daughter has already mastered. Expand you r horizon into the future.

There are many ways to teach and mentor: (1) you can offer a course as an independent practitioner-contractor (2) you can offer a course from a university base, which could provide credit (3) you could offer a course as a skilled person in a corporation.

We need your ideas, and the world's women need your skills and your help!

Top
Part 1
Part 1.2
Part 2
Part 2.2
Part 3
Women'space Home