COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT Leslie Regan Shade McGill University, Graduate Program in Communications [shade@polestar.facl.mcgill.ca; ac900@freenet.carleton.ca] Discussion Paper for Intellectual Property or Public Knowledge: A Roundtable Discussion of Copyright in the Nineties, Concordia University, April 7, 1995 Copyright 1995 by Leslie Regan Shade. The paper is publically licensed so that it may be copied for further distribution, provided that it is copied and distributed in its entirety, including this title page. _Introduction: The Conundrum of Copyright in the Digital Era_ The creation of multi-media content and digital libraries which, according to the hyperbolic claims of information highway-philiacs, will flood our domestic environments, create new jobs, and add to the wealth and competitive livelihood of countries, raises profound issues with regard to notions of copyright and intellectual property. As Nicholas Negroponte comments, "Copyright law is totally out of date. It is a Gutenberg artifact. Since it is a reactive process, it will probably have to break down completely before it is corrected" (Negroponte, 1995, 58). John Perry Barlow remarks that "notions of property, value, ownership, and the nature of wealth itself are changing more fundamentally than at any time since the Sumerians first poked cuneiform into wet clay and called it stored grain. Only a very few people are aware of the enormity of this shift, and fewer of them are lawyers or public officials. Those who do see these changes must prepare responses for the legal and social confusion that will erupt as efforts to protect new forms of property with old methods become more obviously futile, and, as a consequence, more adamant" (Barlow, 1994, 86). The creation of multi-media works will, in many instances, depend upon securing copyright in an economically feasible manner, while guaranteeing that creators are justly compensated for their works and that the moral integrity of their work is kept intact. The concept of copyright in the electronic environment is therefore legally challenging and socially provocative. As legal scholar Anne Branscomb so eloquently describes the complexity: "the ease with which electronic impulses can be manipulated, modified, and erased is hostile to a deliberate legal system that arose in an era of tangible things and relies on documentary evidence to validate transactions, incriminate miscreants, and affirm contractual relations. What has been traditionally known as letters, journals, photographs, conversations, videotapes, audiotapes, and books merge into a single stream of undifferentiated electronic impulses. The complex environment and fluid messages make it difficult to determine which version of a document or electronic envelope is the draft or review or 'published' copy. The diversity of inputs and outputs also makes it difficult to determine who is author, publisher, republisher, reader, or archivist" (Branscomb, 1991, 154). How are words, texts, video, sound, and images dispensed and manipulated in the digital environment? The digitization of text and images renders them: facile to copy (whether by forwarding a text on the Internet or scanning in materials); facile to manipulate and edit; and, facile and speedier to transform and reformat from one medium to another. Such `digital plasticity' refers to the "ease with which [digital] works can be manipulated, transformed, and/or inserted into other works. Although many authors might prefer their works to remain as fixed as they have traditionally been in printed form, the genie of plasticity cannot be pushed back into the bottle. The manipulability of digital data is one of the key advantages of the digital medium" (Samuelson, January 1994, 24). Chunks of data in the digital environment, then, are up for grabs. How do you then determine who is entitled to claim recompense for value added, compensation, or royalties from the data? Unfair appropriation of digital works could create intense legal tussles and market failure in the production of creative works. This becomes particular vexing when it takes place under a distributed network with multiple participants. Publishing agreements, for instance, often do not cover the gamut of rights agreements under multi-media content. In Tasini v. N.Y. Times, 93-8678 (S.D. N.Y.), ten free-lance writers backed by the National Writers Union, filed suit in federal court against the New York Times, Time Inc., Newsday, and two electronic publishers, alleging that certain articles by the writers were made available on an online service and published in CD-ROMs without authorization or added compensation (National Writers Union, 1994). As Max Frankel recently described a recent conference entitled "Intellectual Property Rights and the Arts: the Impact of New Technologies" in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, "there is a growing fear that computers are upsetting relationships among the creators, purveyors and consumers of art and ideas...[some] creative people feel helpless to prevent the infinite replication of their words, pictures, and songs...presenters and publishers...are afraid that a `tollbooth' royalty for each and every Internet replication will impede the progress of technology. They cite evidence that the evolution of computers depends on their carrying ideas and images that people will want and want to copy-and that making copies is an essential attribute of computers" (Frankel, 1995, 26). And, as reported in the Wall Street Journal some months earlier, the Walt Disney Corporation has been unable to prevent the circulation on the Internet of graphics of Disney characters-some in a questionable and slightly disrobed manner (Ibid). How are intellectual property rights managed in a networked environment? Peter Lyman, Chair of Educom's Committee on Copyright and Fair Use, believes that three interrelated questions must be considered: How should private property rights be managed? What public rights to information access should be protected? How do we protect technological innovation when it comes in conflict with powerful political and economic interests? (Lyman, 1995, 33). _Fair Use and Fair Dealing Doctrines_ The doctrines of fair use (used in the United States) and fair dealing (used in Canada) are the conceptual tools which have guided copyright law to date; and it is the re- interpretation of these doctrines in the digital environment which have been under discussion in the policy milieu of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) in the United States and the Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC) in Canada. In the U.S., the fair use doctrine in copyright law provides a "flexible and adaptable way to balance the interests of copyright owners and of the public so as to maintain adequate incentives to produce creative works while at the same time allowing the public to make reasonable uses of copyrighted material" (Samuelson, January 1994, 21). Fair use of copyrighted materials includes: the purpose of the intended use-whether it be for commercial (generally not allowed) or non-commercial or educational uses (usually allowed) the nature of the copyrighted material (whether it be entertainment or factual) the substantiality of the taking, or the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole the effect or potential harm to the market for the copyrighted work The purposes of fair use would be for: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), and scholarly research. Fair Use Dealing provisions in Canada stipulate that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce his/her own work or a `substantial part thereof', but also recognizes that the copyright owner has no right to control the reproduction of a non-substantial part of his/her work by others. Fair dealing of a work would include use for: private study, research, criticism, review, and newspaper summary. _Fair Use/Dealing Practices on the Internet_ In the world of the Internet, a common practice is to forward e-mail messages, or a portion thereof; to quote portions of Usenet and mailing list postings; and to make private non-commercial copies of texts downloaded from ftp, gopher, or Web sites. Under current definitions of fair use, these practices would be considered fair uses; and they are also acceptable norms of practice for Internet users. Grey areas of fair use and potential copyright infringement activities would include: scanning in photographs in GIF formats (these are usually copyrightable images; for instance, a common Usenet practice is to scan in Playboy photographs, but these images are protected by copyright); typing in newspaper or magazine articles (acceptable to type in portions with the correct citation and attribution); posting articles or private e-mail written by someone else without their express permission. Lyman has expressed some trepidations about applying fair use to networked intellectual property. For one, there is the practical conundrum of enforcement. Another exasperating issue is that "net culture-if that isn't an oxymoron-has become hostile to the concept of intellectual property, for an interesting sociological reason. The network was developed as a medium for research collaboration among a relatively homogeneous group of scientists and engineers...[and]...although the Internet has become more sociologically diverse, it still reflects the academic view that knowledge is properly governed by a gift culture in which each of us gives away what we know for free, and takes what we know for free..." (Lyman, 1995, 33-4). Lyman further suggests that network culture must create a culture where fair use is understood alongside a level of compliance and responsibility, or else fair use will be stifled and negotiating fees and licenses will become the norm: "...communities are defined by the information they share, the way they learn together, and the information they create. We need to ask whether our model of intellectual property reflects the sociological reality of the network, of education, and of the way people work in the real world. Perhaps we need to be inventing a legal and ethical framework that acknowledges sociological reality, rather than trying to change the social dynamics of groups to fit a system of law designed for the libraries of the print world" (Ibid). _U.S. Green Paper on "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure"_ In the United States, the National Information Infrastructure (NII) Preliminary Report, the Green Paper on "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure" was released by the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights in July 1994. The Paper recommended that the Copyright Act of 1976 be amended slightly to accommodate the advent of digital information. Specifically, the Paper recommended that: digital transmission of a copy of a copyrighted work be considered an act of copyright infringement; `first sale' rules for works transmitted digitally be abolished; copyright infringement could be construed if technological devices are used to circumvent copy-protection schemes that copyright owners have created. Criticism of the Green Paper proposals have been harsh and led by public interest groups, such as library organizations and educational institutions. Legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has questioned whether the report is in the public interest: "...let me say that not since the King of England in the 16th century gave a group of printers exclusive rights to print books in exchange for the printers' agreement not to print heretical or seditious material has a government copyright policy been so skewed in favor of publisher interests and so detrimental to the public interest" (Samuelson, December 1994, 22). Samuelson further lambastes the report for being couched in obscure legal terminology that it is difficult for the public to interpret; for favoring publishers' rights to the detriment of the public interest; and for "abolish[ing] long-standing rights the public has enjoyed to make use of copyrighted works, rights that have been consistently upheld in courts and in the copyright statute" (Ibid, 22). Existing copyright law grants authors five exclusive rights: an exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies; to make derivative works of it; to distribute copies of it; to publicly perform it, and to publicly display it. Four areas of copyright law and their applicability to digital transmission have been identified by the Green Paper. They include: right to browse;right of digital transmission; abolishment of first sale rule, and abolishment of fair use. _Right to Browse_ The interpretation and expansion of these copyrights to the digital environment as proposed by the Green Paper would mean that `browsing' electronic works would be considered an act of copyright infringement (unless authorized by the copyright owner). Drafters of the Green Paper feel that works in digital form can only be browsed, read or used if the machine they are displayed on makes copies of them. The act of `browsing' is a prevalent occurrence on computer networks, since readers frequently download files onto their home computer via ftp, gopher, and WWW sites, as well as from e-mail text. Oftentimes these downloaded texts are read offline on the computer screen, or printed out and read in another venue-commuting to work, or in bed. To suggest that this common practice would constitute copyright infringement is a rather preposterous notion. _Right of Digital Transmission_ The `transmission right' proposed by the Green Paper is one of the more controversial proposals: "to transmit a reproduction is to distribute it by any device or process whereby a copy or phonorecord of the work is fixed beyond the place from which it was sent" (122). Peter Lyman worries that "transmission might define all network communications as copying and thus subject to copyright law" (Lyman 1995,33). This definition of transmission, then, would be applicable for the protection of copyrighted printed text, but Lyman is concerned that the definition would hinder the development of new forms of innovative communication, including interactive and collaborative work or educational situations. "In extending the industrial concept of copying to digital environments, the transmission right may inhibit the development of uniquely digital communications" (Ibid). Public access to digital works would thus be curtailed and favor publishers' rights over the rights of the public. Library organizations (including The American Library Association (ALA) and Association of Research Libraries (ARL)) are concerned that the `transmission' and `publication' definitions do not take into consideration the implications of such changes for the fair use, education and library sections of the Copyright Act. Online service providers are concerned that the `transmission' definition will hold them liable for the content and copyrighted nature of material on their systems. _Abolition of "First Sale"_ The `first sale' rule in copyright generally means that owners of copies of copyrighted works can redistribute their copy without the copyright owner's permission. This means that libraries may lend books, and that individuals who purchase a book for their own enjoyment can then lend this book to friends, or, for instance, re-sell it at a garage sale. First Sale rules promote public access to books and other information owned by individuals or accessed from libraries. The Green Paper proposes to abolish the first sale rules for works transmitted digitally, but does not give sound reasons why this should be the case. _Abolition of Fair Use_ Although the Green Paper does not expressly recommend abolishing the fair use doctrine when applied to the digital environment, it does take a very narrow view of fair use and the NII. It is generally assumed that private, non- commercial copying of works (an everyday practice of researchers and students) is not a violation of copyright. Publishers, of course, disagree with this sentiment, but the rules have been relaxed for educational uses. The Green Paper agrees with the publishers, and says that all private non-commercial copying of digital works is a violation of copyright. _Canada-IHAC Copyright SubCommittee_ The Copyright SubCommittee of the Working Group on Canadian Content and Culture of the Information Highway Advisory Council published a preliminary draft report in December 1994, representing an examination and analysis of the implications of new technologies on copyright. The SubCommittee referred to several recent reports and studies, including the NGL Nordicity Study on New Media and Copyright, the NII Green Paper, and the Report of the Japanese Institute on Intellectual Property. The scope of questions examined by the Copyright SubCommittee included: --how will existing rights apply to the creation, transmission, and use of works in a digital environment? --how will the moral rights of creators be protected in a digital environment? --who should be made liable for copyright infringement? --how can the use and reproduction of protected works be policed? --how can multimedia clearing rights, particularly in a global environment, be consolidated and streamlined? The SubCommittee recommended that: --current categories of works under the Copyright Act are sufficient to embrace multimedia works and should be the continued source of protection --e-mail between two people containing a copyrighted work should not be illegal, but placement of e-mail on a public system without an author's permission could infringe their rights --further consideration should be given to the fair dealing defense when `browsing' digital works (this was the controversial `transmission' recommendation of the NII Green Paper) --BBS owners and operators should not be considered liable for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials on their systems unless they have knowingly allowed offensive or copyrighted material to be disseminated or have not acted reasonably to limit potential abuses (application of common carrier principles) --moral rights of integrity should be maintained --the current concept of fair dealing provides adequate protection on the Information Highway; the SubCommittee will examine further whether fair dealing should be an acceptable defence in certain cases of browsing --tampering or bypassing encryption or security software should be made an offense under the Criminal Code --the government should assist in the development and use of technology to make it easier to identify and trace copyright ownership --penalties (mostly fines) for copyright infringement should be increased. _Copyright, `Net Norms', and the Public Interest_ The Green Paper was harshly criticized by public interest advocates because of its favorable slant towards private (publisher), rather than public interests. Some commentators have called the Green Paper "anti-net". David Rothman commented: "As a writer of nonfiction, I'm grouchy. The Green Paper would make it harder to research my books and is outside the tradition of copyright law, which is supposed to promote the spread of knowledge. Consider those electronic clips. If it's too much of a hassle to share them with friends without erasing the files from our hard disks, then authors lacking big money or Fortune 500 connections will suffer. So will citizens trying to discuss complex national issues. They'll be less able to match wits with Big Business, which can easily afford access to expensive databases. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material to lists is wrong, but we musn't confuse this with small-scale sharing with friends. Ironically, in the end, the Green Paper's proposals would not even protect my property rights adequately since its restrictions would be so cumbersome to enforce and would actually diminish respect for copyright. Writers should press for realistic copyright law that is easy to obey. The last thing we need is (c)yber-Prohibition. Americans love to share. So, please, Al, don't let Bill's buddies make criminals of schoolchildren or sic a Copyright Gestapo on the Net. Law and Order won't fare well" (Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 21:10:12 -0500, From: rothman@clark.net (David H. Rothman), Subject: ABCs of the Green Paper, etc. Reprinted Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:28:48 -0800, From: Phil Agre , Reply to: rre- maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu) The Internet evolved from a network of networks serving a primarily research and scientific community to one that has expanded to most enclaves of academia, and now, commercial sites and community networks. There is a strong tradition of developing user norms and practices in an almost ad hoc, yet slightly anarchistic, fashion. As was mentioned before, fair use norms on the Internet include forwarding e-mail messages, or a portion thereof; quoting portions of Usenet and mailing list postings; and making private non-commercial copies of texts downloaded from ftp, gopher, or Web sites. In most instances, Net denizens adhere to rules of `netiquette' and `common sense' practices which do not violate acceptable net practices. Flagrant disregard for net rules can result in net `community-policing' and admonishments by fellow `netters' to follow ethical practices. As Samuelson remarked regarding the Green Paper: "The report should acknowledge and build upon the strengths of existing digital networked environments. Its policy recommendations should permit exchanges that promote the learning function of copyright law without having harmful effects on the economic interests of copyright owners. Before recommending dramatic changes to copyright law that would favor those who want to use the NII, the drafters of the report should consider what effect these policies will have on existing user communities. It should seek to adopt solutions that would improve the lot of those who want to enter the Net without harming the lot of the millions of people who now use it" (Samuelson, December 1994, 26). Lyman questions whether "network culture will respect and enforce the responsibilities of fair use" (Lyman, 1995, 35), and suggests that the public good would be better serviced by undertaking more research by the higher education and library community to determine how to develop and design "robust markets in digital information in order to raise sufficient capital to solve the problem of quality control, price, and distribution" (Ibid). _Digital Libraries & Electronic Publishing_ The widespread creation of digital libraries will extend the parameters of formal education from classroom settings to domestic situations; and will allow users to become browsers as well as depositors of information (Marchionini, Maurer, 1995). How current copyright law will change to accommodate educational fair use on the information highway is currently a subject of debate in information infrastructure policy discussions, and will effect how digital libraries can be created and deployed. For instance, the Library of Congress is committed to creating a digital library, but they are constrained by what holdings they can put online because of current copyright law-this, then, excludes most of their books, film, and recording collections. So far, only documents or finding aids created within the Library or government agencies, or out-of-date copyrighted articles, or special library exhibits, are within the purview of copyright law (Ibid). The American Library Association (ALA), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), American Association of Universities (AAU), and online service providers are concerned that the `transmission' and `publication' definitions do not take into consideration the implications of such changes for the fair use, education and library sections of the Copyright Act. They recommend that fair use and specific library reproduction and distribution rights in the NII be retained in the document, and that statements specifying the opportunities and benefits to research and education that will emerge as a result of any recommended changes to the Copyright Act and the deployment and the NII, be included. Surprisingly, distance learning through the NI was not even addressed by the Green Paper. This omission has serious implications for fair use of materials, including the integration of live lectures and pre-existing materials. (ARL, 1994). Two other noteworthy recommendations were made by ARL and ALA. One recommendation was to strengthen the library provisions of the copyright law to allow for preservation activities that use electronic or other appropriate technologies as they emerge: "Digital works of enduring value need to be preserved just as printed works have been preserved by research libraries. As with other formats, the preservation of electronic information will be the responsibility of libraries and they will continue to perform this important social role. The policy framework of the emerging information infrastructure must provide for the archiving of electronic materials by research libraries to maintain permanent collections and environments for public access." (Ibid). The other recommendation was to implement a forum such as a new National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) or "CONTU 2", which would complement the work of the IITF Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. How will copyright be adjudicated and managed for hypertexted links? The explosion of Web servers and the increase in WWW traffic (now the fastest growing part of the Internet, with an exponential increase in registered servers over the last 18 months), poses new intellectual property questions. These hypertexted links create a `value-added service', and because of this "the link document author may want compensation when someone traverses his or her own links....does the author of a link document infringe copyrights in the works to which links have been created as unauthorized derivative works? Does a user of someone else's links infringe any copyright interest of the link author? Authors of hypertext links would, of course, like to be free from claims of infringement for linking portions of other authors' documents yet able to assert copyright control over traversals of their links by other users" (Samuelson, 1994, 26). _Balancing Needs of Authors, Publishers, and Libraries_ Balancing the needs of authors and publishers in securing appropriate remuneration for materials posted digitally with the needs of libraries and educational institutions in supplying materials in the public interest is a querulous and contentious issue now. The Green Paper has recommended that copyright law be amended to make the `unauthorized digital transmission' of a copyrighted work to be copyright infringement. A pay-per-use scheme would be enacted, and this scheme proposes draconian outcomes for people that try to break any technological means that protects the copyrighted work. Under this proposal as well, system operators would be liable for any illegal copying done under their system-this, despite the 1991 ruling of Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. This court ruling treated the operator of an online information system as a distributor rather than as a publisher, in order to assess liability at the state libel law level. Cubby also set an important precedent by ruling that the system operator cannot reasonably be held liable for the content of the messages it carries, given the sheer volume and rapidity of the messages on computerized boards. Given that Cubby only holds network operators liable when they knowingly publish defamatory, illegal, or obscene messages, network operators should also be held liable only when they know that copyright infringement is taking place on their system. "No wonder then", Pamela Samuelson remarks, "that publishers have hailed the [Green Paper] for its vision, depth, and insight. After so many years of living in fear that digital networks would put them out of business, print publishers and other well-established copyright industries have found a new Messiah. The ancien regime may be dead, but perhaps they have died and gone to heaven (so long as the legislation the Green Paper proposes is enacted)" (Samuelson, April 1995, 20). The prodigious Ted Nelson, who coined the term "hypertext" in 1964, and conceived of Project Xanadu (a virtual repository for the textual visual, and auditory artifacts of civilization), has formulated a novel approach to the copyright problem. In his Public Access Xanadu (PAX) system (originally scheduled to be test-marketed in 1993 and franchised in 1996,) documents will be encoded with accounting software, which will tally royalty payments and bill patrons' accounts accordingly. Royalty fees will buy fair use privileges for the documents or portions thereof, and the patrons' monthly bill will include connect time, storage and transmission charges, and publication fees, crediting any royalties received from others for your work read online-basically, a pay-by-the-byte system (Basch, 1991, 19; and Barlow/Nelson, 1991 Technical means to remunerate authors and publishers and allow for the integrity of networked material will most likely encompass cryptographic means, including digital signature methods. Cryptography-a technique for transforming ordinary text (plaintext) into unintelligible text (ciphertext) through encryption-is gaining in popularity as a way of ensuring the privacy and security of electronic communications. Cryptography can:improve identification and access control, through password encryption; protect confidentiality and data integrity by encrypting the data;improve nonrepudiation services through encrypted electronic signature and related means. Digital signatures are a cryptographic method, provided by public-key cryptography, used by a message's recipient or any third party to verify the identity of the message's sender and the integrity of the message. Digital signature standards can:facilitate electronic funds transfer; facilitate the signing of documents; prevent forgery of e- mail messages; be used to sign official documents, rules, or regulations. _Electronic Publishing: The Case of ACM_ The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) is the first scientific and educational society devoted to computing, established almost 50 years ago. It publishes 17 periodicals, accounts for 79,000 members who hold 55,000 subscriptions to its journals, and has an additional 13,000 non-member subscriptions (Denning, Rous, 19945, 98). ACM has recently announced an electronic publishing plan, which attempts to balance the shifting publishing norms of the scientific community in light of digital technology (i.e, the increasing trend to post papers-in-progress and pre- prints on FTP sites for perusal and comment before publication), fiscal downsizing in the academic and research communities, and changing economics in the publishing community. ACM will soon initiate electronic distribution from a structured database of its paper publications. Print versions of the papers will be made available until such time as there is no market for them. ACM envisions a world of scientific and technical publishing that, by the year 2000, will be: stored in a digital library with services including browsing, searching, extracting, and repackaging. Nominal fees will be assessed for non-database-subscribers; definitive versions of works will be stored in servers maintained by the copyright holders as a service to both authors and readers; active links will be a standard way of connecting documents, serving as both citations and as automatic ways of obtaining copies on demand. These policies refer to four basic ACM copyright tenets: Transmitting an ACM copyright work through a computer network is a form of copying. The recipient of an ACM copyright work is not free to copy it and pass it on without permission from ACM. The definition of `publication' includes distribution by transmission from a database. Links, although used for copy-on-demand, are a form of citation. An ACM Copyright Notice must be displayed on the first page or initial screen of a display of all ACM copyrighted works, whether the works are in a print or digital medium. The string "Copyright 199X by ACM Inc." should be a hypertext link to the full copyright notice. The ACM Copyright Notice reads: Copyright ACM 199X by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, or post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Publications Dept., ACM Inc., fax +1 (212) 869-0481 or (permissions@acm.org). (ACM Interim Copyright Policies, 1995, 104). Copyright is assigned to ACM as a condition of an author publishing their work with ACM. Authors are asked to incorporate the ACM Copyright Notice into all copies they have. ACM maintains the definitive, or reference version of the published work on their server, and they ask that authors who maintain personal collections (i.e., home pages) implant a link to the definitive ACM version. ACM treats links-hypertexted links, URLs on the WWW, and document handles-as citations. ACM does not require that authors obtain prior permission to include links in their new works but does ask that the link be to the definitive ACM version. If service providers are intending to collect or distribute copies of ACM copyrighted works they need to obtain permission from ACM, but if service providers only want to provide links to the definitive ACM version, they do not need prior permission. Electronic postings and distributions of ACM copyrighted material may need prior permission from ACM. ACM's guideline for this is that if the number of people who have public access to the distribution is less than 1% of the ACM membership (approx. 800 people), no prior permission for distribution need be made. ACM copyrighted works that are made available to the public from a server other than the ACM server needs the following notice attached to the document: Server Notice (Sample) The documents contained in these directories are included by the contributing authors as a means to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work on a non- commercial basis. Copyright and all rights therein are maintained by the authors or by other copyright holders, notwithstanding that they have offered their works here electronically. It is understood that all persons copying this information will adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. These works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. (ACM Interim Copyright Policies, 1995, 105). One of the innovative ideas for future implementation of the ACM Electronic Publishing Plan includes a public discussion scheme whereby readers can attach comments to an author's work and the author can respond. _Conclusion: Copyright and the Global Information Infrastructure_ Given the peripatetic nature of networked technologies, copyright issues in the digital environment are global, not local issues. How can differing national laws and dictums be harmonized in the global context? Issues surrounding sovereignty and copyright could become quite complex and messy, and the recent G7 Meetings on the Information Highway (held in Brussels in February 1995) took stock of this. Many commentators have suggested that a copyright clearinghouse to issue licenses and clear rights will become a necessary adjunct to creating multimedia content on the information highway. U.S. lawyers have commented that "the availability or non-availability of a [copyright] clearinghouse could increase the U.S. competitive advantage or provide the opportunity for others to catch up" (Greguras,et.al, 1994). Other countries, such as Canada, might be wary of an influx of U.S.-based multimedia content, and might take steps to quickly expedite their own national clearinghouse. How these issues resolve themselves on the global stage should prove to be quite interesting. So far, Canada, through the Information Highway Advisory Council, has not issued explicit recommendations on copyright and intellectual property, and some of their findings might depend on how the authors of the U.S. Green Paper appease the public interest arguments made against their recommendations. It appears though, that the Copyright SubCommittee is taking into account the myriad criticisms the Green Paper has engendered, particularly regarding the transmission, fair use, and first sale recommendations. U.S. public interest groups might wish that the follow-up to the Green Paper consider the remarks made by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service: "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but `to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the rights to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." _COPYRIGHT-REFERENCES_ ACM Interim Copyright Policies; Author's Guide to ACM Interim Copyright Policies. Communications of the ACM, v.38, n.3 (April 1995):104-109. Association of Research Libraries. ARL Response to Draft Report on Intellectual Property, September 6, 1994. URL: gopher arl.edu Barlow, John Perry. The Economy of Ideas: a framework for rethinking patents and copyrights in the Digital Age. Wired (March 1994):84-90; 126-129. Barlow, John Perry. Caverns measureless to man: an interview with Xanadu founder Ted Nelson. Mondo 2000 (Issue 4, 1991): 136-141. Basch, Reva. Books online: visions, plans, and perspectives for electronic text. Online (July 1991): 13-23. Branscomb, Anne Wells. Who Owns Information?: From Privacy to Public Access. BasicBooks, 1994. Branscomb, Anne Wells. Common law for the electronic frontier. Scientific American, v.265, n.3 (September 1991):154-158. Denning, Peter J.; Bernard Rous. The ACM Electronic Publishing Plan. Communications of the ACM, v.38, n.3 (April 1995):97-103. Canada. -Information Highway Advisory Council. Copyright and the Information Highway: Preliminary Report of the Copyright SubCommittee. (January 1995). URL: http://www.debra.dgbt.doc.ca/info-highway/ih.html or FTP: debra.dgbt.doc.ca/pub/info-highway -New Media and Copyright. NGL Nordicity Ltd., study produced for Industry Canada, New Media, Information Technologies Industry Branch (April 1994). Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y.1991). Demac, Donna. Property Rights in the Electronic Dawn. Reflex (August/September 1994). URL: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/public/copyright/papers/iltdocs/ demac2.html Frankel, Max. Cyberights [Word & Image column]. The New York Times Magazine (February 12, 1995):26. Greguras, Fred; Michael R. Egger; Sandy J. Wong. Multimedia Content and the Super Highway: rapid acceleration or foot on the brake? (1994). URL: http://www eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-copyright Henderson, Carol. At Stake: Electronic Fair Use of Copyrighted Material. Educom Review (January/February 1995):56-57. Koman, Richard. Act Now to Preserve Your Information Rights. Global Network Navigator (1994). URL: http://gnn.interpath.net/gnn/meta/imedia/features/copyright/ index.html Lyman, Peter. Copyright and Fair Use in the Digital Age". Educom Review (January/February 1995):33-35. Marchionini, Gary; and Hermann Maurer. The Roles of Digital Libraries in Teaching and Learning. Communications of the ACM, v.38, n.3 (April 1995):67-75. National Writer's Union. -Statement of Principles on Contracts Between Writers and Electronic Book Publishers. (1994). -Recommended Principles for Contracts Covering Online Book Publishing (1994). Negroponte, Nicholas. Bit Protection? in Being Digital. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995:58-61. Nelson, Ted. Computer Lib/Dream Machines. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press, 1987. Samuelson, Pamela. Copyright and Digital Libraries. Communications of the ACM, v.38, n.3 (April 1995):15-21; 110. Samuelson, Pamela. The NII Intellectual Property Report. Communications of the ACM, v.37, n.12 (December 1994):21-27. Samuelson, Pamela. Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine and Digital Data. Communications of the ACM, v.37, n.1 (January, 1994):21-27. Samuelson, Pamela and R.J. Glushko. Intellectual Property Rights in Digital Library and Hypertext Publishing Systems. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, v.6 (1993):237. United States. National Information Infrastructure (NII) Green Paper, "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure. Working Group in Intellectual Property Rights, Information Infrastructure Task Force (Preliminary Report, July 1994). http://www.psg.com/nii.ipr/overview.html _Copyright-Online Resources_ Association of Research Libraries (ARL) gopher: /scholarly communication/copyright/NII Fair Use Copyright Conference Issues Papers /scholarly communication/Intellectual Property Issues/ Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University: URL: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu URL: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/gen/ref/ILTcopy.html USACM (Association Computing Machinery) National Intellectual Property Rights Issues URL: http://www.psg.com/nii.ipr/overview.html Library of Congress URL: gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright