From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:02:55 GMT

In article <23612@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
> >> 1. Definition of the parties to the contract
> 
> >The posters and the owners of the computers which are connected to 
> >the net..
> I'm sorry, but while we're still disputing the terms, you can't
> possibly argue that we agree, and you can't possibly argue that
> discussing the issue constitutes agreement.  

Now you're telling me that you don't intend to have your "works"
shared among other users on the net.  BS!

You, jj, don't like what is happening, but you continue to use the 
system as it is: I know this is beyond your comprehension, but while
you may disagree, your actions are consenting to the terms in spite
of your childish fits declaring otherwise.

> 
> >> 2. A "meeting of the minds" between the parties
> 
> >They willingly allow you to post and you willingly post, knowing
> >that they will copy your work all over creation (and US law 
> >gives you a copyright for your works, so either everyone on usenet
> >is violating that copyright or you are granting a license to copy.)
> Of course, Ford ignores two simple facts, first that copyright
> law exists in a specific form regardless of what he says, and that

You're an idiot.  The lines above affirm the existence of copyright
law AND your ability to grant licenses (often times without even
being aware of it).

> no site is obligated to take a message.  As they are not obligated
> to take a message, this point about "willing" is simply silly.
> They may be WILLING to take the source code to all useful 
> operating systems, but that's not legal, either.

Unless the legal owners of that source code give it to them, in 
which case the legal owners have granted license.

> >> 3. Consideration
> >Both parties end up smarter.  
> Easily disputed.

Yes, your are proof positive that item 3 is incorrect.t

> >Many of the sites make profits selling access to what you want
> >other people to read.
> That, perhaps is consideration, but not to the owner of the copyright,
> ergo only half a point.
> 
> >The poster gets his work distributed.
> The poster has gotten his work distributed for years without
> any claim of relinquishing copyright.  There is no reason, 

Not without any claim, without any understanding.  You seem to hold
the delusion that the whole world gives jj the right to use their
computers for *nothing*.

> current or historical, to suggest that any change is needed.  The
> only driving force here seems to be that Mr. Ford wants to eliminate
> respect for intellectual property.

BS again (or should I say *still*).  It is you who is trying to ignore
the rights of the people who permit you to use their computers so that
you may be part of the net.

> >The poster grants copyright license to the (owners of)
> >     computers on the net.
> Some of us explicitly do so, for certain uses, and explicitly
> not for some of the "new" "USENET" uses.  Just because a network exists
> does not permit new uses, of different kinds, just because somebody
> has given them a network feed.  They're still bound by law, despite
> the contract of attachment Mr. Ford would like to try to create,
> and despite the fact that disagreement has been clear, clearly preventing any
> outright appearance of agreement.

JJ, you would like to ingore all contracts and licenses except for those
printed on paper and signed by the parties involved.  Neither of these
two conditions are necessary for the formation of a legally enforceable
contract (they do make it easier to enforce).  Talk with a lawyer if
you don't believe me.

> >> >The agreement with your feed is one agreement, but part of that 
> >> >agreement is to be a part of the net, which is another agreement.
> What agreement?  Again, no such agreement exists, except perhaps between
> individual feeds, or individual owners.  There is no "overriding"
> agreement, and this discussion makes THAT completely clear.

On the contrary, without the agreement to cooperate, there would be no
net.  The net is held together by a collection of loosely defined 
agreements (contracts).

> >The agreement to be part of the net is an agreement with each and
> >every one of the owners of the computers which are "part of the net."
> There is no such agreement.  You have falsely asserted this
> repeatedly, but you have yet to offer any evidence.  The only agreements
> that even MAY exist are site-to-site agreements, and I know for
> a fact even those vary substantially.  There is no agreement with
> each and every owner, and cannot be, because that would necessarily
> require each owner to communicate with each poster, and require each
> owner and each poster to be mutually aware.  This, I suspect, is
> more than untrue, it's impossible.  There is no overall agreement,
> and all the assertion in the world only will make you look more
> foolish, Mr. Ford.  Why do you persist?

Well, I can understand how this could be hard for you to accept,
being as you've been on usenet since it was a little, bitty baby
and all, but the fact is that not all contracts are carved in
stone tablets!

> >Yes, not only is it unilateral, it is inconsistent with your actions,
> >which show that you agree to the free transmission of this message.
> That $100 charge is just like your falsely asserted contract,
> it's a contract of attachment.  That differs entirely from a
> copyright statement, the appearance and meanign of which is
> a statuatory issue.                                     

You seem to have done very well reading the statutes.  Now maybe you
should read the *real* law: it's called case law and it tells how
the courts interpret those statutes (and it quite often defies
all logic!).  You might specifically read up on case law involving
contracts.  

> >Same thing as when you decide not to read the fine print on the
> >back of any contract -- U R SCREWED!
> There is no contract, there is no fine print, and the "newuser"
> documents you refer to specify that they are advisory only, and
> that they constitute nothing but the author's opinion.
> Some contract!  What's more, some of us have existed, if you
> MUST argue a contract exists, from long before any silly ideas about
> "public domain" were offered, and must assert that we hold a long-standing
> contract that asserts otherwise.  The fact that we can no more
> produce this contract than you have been able, despite four months
> of bald assertions, to produce yours, points, I think, quite clearly
> to the truth, i.e. there is no such contract, not now, not ever.

Like I said, your feeble mental capacity notwithstanding, you don't
have to have a producable document in order to have a contract.
The requirements for a contract have been presented, you denied
each of them -- no logical argument, just a denial.  Then you
accuse me of argument by assertion.  Then you say "we hold a 
long standing contract that asserts otherwise".  JJ, you are 
full of cr*p!

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda