From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:35:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.075115.9397@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> >As has been pointed out elsewhere, this isn't really something we can
> >have choice about. Posting must include implicit permission for many
> >kinds of copying; otherwise to many of the people providing services
> >to the net are open to lawsuits.  Anything else leaves to many people
> >to vulnerable to lawsuits.
> 
> I think you got this backwards.   Posting can't include implicit permission
> or the people providing services are open to lawsuits.   Let's assume
> that in this message I included a binary of Lotus 1-2-3.
> 
> 		<Binary of 1-2-3 deleted to maintain brevity>
> 
> The fact is that I can't have given you permission, explicit or implicit
> to copy this posting because it is not within my power to grant that
> permission.  If you hold that normal USENET posting works by the granting
> of such permission, then you truly open up net members to major lawsuits,
> and every deep pocket site would leave the net upon the first such
> ruling.
> 
> Only under the opposite interpretation -- that no permission is involved
> at all in net copying, because it is automatic, commanded by the poster --
> could you ever be found innocent of infringement here.

Posting the 1-2-3 (R) [tsk, tsk, you forgot to mention that 1-2-3 is a 
registered trade mark of Lotus -- *you* could be sued for that 8^)]
here would be very similar to making 100,000 copies of 1-2-3 (R), taking 
them to a convention, and handing them out to everybody there.  

Would the floppy-disk manufacterer be sued?
Would the copy program seller be sued?
Would the convention organizers be sued?
Would the airline that flew you and the copies to the convention be sued?

No, *you* (and possibly your employer) would be sued.  Lotus would have 
to notify every site of the infringement and request them to delete the 
offending post/archive before they could sue any site.

Because, you see, while the other sites have politely set up their machines
to allow you to publish your works, they have taken no explicit action 
with respect to the illegally copyrighted work and therefore cannot be 
sued (successfully).  

Up to the point of saying that the copying is automatic, I agree 
with Brad.  But, IMHO, the act of commanding such an automatic
copying is giving implied consent for duplication (at least it 
is not refusing such permission).

WRT you granting permission on something you don't own: suppose I
include some of your postings from rec.humor in a book, take the 
book to a printer (completely lacking any info which would reference
your ownership of some of the enclosed pages), have it printed, and 
then distribute those copies.

Would you go and sue the printer?  You wouldn't win in any case, as
the infringement would be mine.  
-- 
"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