From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:48:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.165138.11470@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.023517.28331@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>In article <77N802.Q1b=C01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>> "If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section 
>>> appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright 
>>> infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such 
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    How could a sysop possibly have the ability to access all posts to 
>>see if they have explicit copyrights?  Impractical at best.  Netnews
>>is not a case of handing the "work" to a person to get it copied: it
>>is a case of the poster putting the work into thousands of machines for
>>automatic processing.  
>
>I think the point is that it doesn't matter that the sysop didn't read the 
>article in question, simply that the ability to access the article removes the
>possibility of the "innocent Imfringement" defense.  Whether he had time or
>imclination to read the article is not important, only the the fact that he
>could have accessed the article is.

I think the important point in this whole discussion is that the initialion
of distribution is at the poster's command.  With that decision comes
an implicit acceptance of the way the network works and attempting to limit
distribution by including a copyright limiting statement does not place
any burden on the sysop since there was none there to begin with.
Given the automated nature of the network, I seriously doubt any court
would render a ruling that placed a burden of each sysop having to 
scrutinize every posting for copyright limitations given the generally
accepted manner in which the network works and knowing that any poster
should expect the worldwide distribution that follows.

Very simple anaolgy....If I have two copy machines linked together
such that you make a local copy and also a remote copy in Timbuktu,
If you use the copy machine and include a statement "no copy allowed
in Timbuktu," there wouldn't (IMHO) be any copyright violation because
you used the "service" knowing (1) how it works and (2) realizing that
your statement by itself would not alter the way it works.  Your
statement
places no requirement on the copy machine operator/owner to alter/change
the process simply because you don't want something to happen.
If you really didn't want a copy to show up in Timbuktu, YOU are
the one that then must decide to NOT post/copy at all.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:5993 comp.org.eff.talk:4723 misc.legal.computing:1403