From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:44:48 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Well, this does sound supiciously like "if we all break the
> law, then we will be sued, so let's agree to ignore the
> law", but it could just be me.

You're right - but that's because we all are (potenially) breaking the
law. For instance, everyone who copies this article is in breaking my
copyright. Unless some interpretation similar to the above is used.

> I think most people assume they are granting permission
> for copying in the context of an automated, distributed
> bulletin board service. The reason this debate wont die is
> that there are two possible interpretations of what else
> is allowed. 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. However, "automated, distributed bulletin board services"
doesn't begin to cover the real things that are being done with
USENET. If you limited it to "automated" services, that might do it.
What I'm pushing for is a way to tag articles that the authors don't
want to be used by those automated services, without throwing out the
baby.

> >That's why I'd like some reasonable mechanism in place so authors (and
> >those service providers) can recognize articles that have
> >restrictions, and deal with them appropriately.
> 
> We have exactly such a mechanism now. It's the
> "Distibution:" field of the header, and people regularly
> use it to control the automated copying software to limit
> distribution of their work.

No, people regularly *try* to use it to limit the distribution of
their work. My feed is a gateway for an international company, and
thus gets *all* distributions. They give me the same.

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.

> So how about? Can we all agree on some more words to stick
> in there, like "no_cdrom", or "no_paper", or
> "electronic_only", or even "no_EBCIDC"? Then, if I put> them in and you ignore it, haven't you violated my clearly
> stated wishes not to distribute my work without bound?

Yes, but if you say "no_cdrom,na" then you get distributed to _all_ of
na, even places that specify !no_cdrom. Strike two: they don't work
the way you want them to.

> Thus, I would argue that the
> concept of "not for everyone, and not forever" is already
> firmly established in the Usenet system. What's at debate
> (it seems to me) is exactly what the default behaviour
> should be when we don't specify instructions to the contrary.

You haven't made any argument about "not forever". Since people have
been publicly announcing permanent usenet archives since before the
great renaming, I'd say that the concept of "forever" is already
firmly established in the Usenet system. Distributions still apply to
"anyone who wants them".

	<mike
	
Copyright 1992, Mike W. Meyer
All Rights Reserved
Duplication by any devices not owned by me expressly prohibited.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6403 comp.org.eff.talk:5035 misc.legal.computing:1642