From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
	<mwm.1azh@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>
	<1992Jul27.022855.27237@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
	<mwm.1bbj@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:26:03 GMT

[Lots of quote deletions.  See parent for more complete quotes.]

In article <mwm.1bbj@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
   In <1992Jul27.022855.27237@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
   > In article <mwm.1azh@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
   > >In <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
   > >>             Some are claiming that granting such
   > >> permission renounces all other rights, and some (count me
   > >> in this camp) are arguing that I can grant a limited right
   > >> in this context without renouncing my rights to a future
   > >> mini-series deal.

   > >Actually, I'm in neither camp, because I don't agree with either
   > >interpretation. I agree that you don't give up all rights by posting
   > >an article. 

   > The way I read this, you are firmly in the second camp,

   Nope. "Giving up all rights" means that people can legally copy your
   articles into magazines and newspapers, copy them to BBS'es other than
   USENET, and so on. I don't believe that any of those uses are legit.

Read it again. I think the context gave the first camp as `renounces
all rights' and the second as `limited right in this context'.

   So what are those people who read USENET from the other side of an
   e-mail gateway doing? They clearly aren't reading a bulletin board
   system. Do you therefore maintain that they are violating copyrights?
   Or maybe the people who set up the gateway (and, in many cases,
   created the newsgroup to gateway the mail to) are doing so?  What
   about the people who have some netnews articles fed to their beepers?

All of these are USENET if it happens automatically.  (But I have to
hedge that, since it could be set up to be automatic to transfer
articles to a magazine, and I think many of us feel that there's
something somehow wrong with that type of transfer (without the
poster's permission).)
--------------
(on to Distributions)

[Peter's accusations that Mike violates posters' instructions by
getting `improper' Distributions, and some of Mike's defense deleted]

   > >I've replied to postings, and gotten the response "you should never
   > >have gotten that, the distribution was <blat>". That's strike one
   > >against using distributions: they don't work as intended.
   > 
   > Because people like you don't take the simple steps needed
   > to see that they do.

[spurious reasoning about a leaf site deleted]
                       ..., I've declared my site part of
   all distributions, because I want to broaden my horizons.

USENET is a way to share information among people who are interested
in that information.  Distributions, as implemented in USENET, are
merely identifiers that allow a _reader's_ site to distinguish the
types of posts the reader is interested in.  Some of them _generally_
follow some geographic or logical boundary, but there's no guarantee
for the poster.  If some *.ca (or *.uk or *.za or *.jp or ...) site
has interest in a us Distribution, they're perfectly welcome to get a
feed.  That's how Distributions work, regardless of the wishes or
misunderstandings of a poster.

In other words, Distributions only allow a poster to prevent a post
from going to sites that have declared that they don't want it (which
is being a good neighbor).  In USENET, a poster cannot restrict his
post from anyone else who has declared an interest in it.  (Another
point for a n.a.newusers post?)
------------

[Peter's suggestion of Distribution: no_cdrom, and Mike's extension
to Distribution: no_cdrom,na]

   Go look at rfc822. If a Distributions: line specifies multiple
   distributions, it means it goes to everywhere that gets *either* of
   them, not both of them.

I agree.  Sounds like we ought to be educating misguided posters.
Use another medium (build your own) if you don't like how USENET works.
(But the syntax extension of Distribution: !dist has not been addressed.
Geoff?  Henry?  Could it work?)

   Hmm - I hadn't though of a combination of fields. As has been pointed
   out before, Expires: currently has a use. And distributions: is
   largely ignored (which is a good argument for using it...).

I could argue that many sites, by *default*, have declared an interest
in all but a few Distributions (feeds' sys entries have /all,!d1,!d2).
If a site in France, for example, gets a Distribution: ks article, it's
because the feed has /ks or /all,!notks1,!notks2 in the sys file.
Either one says they want Distribution: ks if the feed receives any
such articles.  Don't blame someone else for `leaking' it if your feed's
sys file says you want it (by not excluding it from /all).  (If you
can't tell, IMO /all is a plague except under exceptional, controlled
conditions.)
--
J Lee Jaap <jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23665-5225
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing