From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:56:31 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <23608@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.154036.7765@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> >support (assuming there were witnesses to the $20 stated terms)?
> 
> >Likewise, the network stands ready to accept anyone's post and
> What IS the network? 

Substitute the words "computers connected to the net" for "network."

> >distribute it far and wide (the offer) with no limitations being
> >placed on the distribution.  A poster, posts an article (the 
> >acceptance).  The network accepts the post (the poster's consideration)
> >and the network distributes it (the networks consideration).
> There is NO agreement to not have limitations. The mere fact
> that some of us place limits makes it clear that your
> argument is outright false.

Utter hogwash.  There is NO agreement to have limitations and 
you cannot force an agreement on every computer on usenet 
through unilateral action.  There is an agreement that everything
gets sent to all usenet sites, even those that are pay-for-read.
That agreement is made between sites and users and one user cannot
revoke it.

> There is no consideration, either, as no site is obligated
> to accept any particular article.

This is a senseless statement: just becuase I'm not obligated 
totake Joe's $10 in exchange for my widget doesn't mean that
his $10 is not consideration.

The ability of sites to regect a post is their ability to freely
decline the contract: that does not mean that you are free to 
unilaterally alter the contract.

> >For someone to say, I'm going to use something offered (the
> >distribution process of the USENet), but I
> >expect that the terms of that offer must be changed to my 
> >demands knowing there's no way for the offering party/entity
> >(USENet/network) to accept
> >those demands just doesn't make sense.  AND, I eagerly await 
> >someone to test that in court.  Stating otherwise at this point
> >is just a futile waste of time.
> Of course, you've misstated fact again.   It's perfectly
> possible (although perhaps painful) for sites who have
> unusual uses for USENET material (i.e. publication, compilation,
> etc) to examine each article for a public domain disclaimer.
> If it's not present, the law is quite clear that they may not
> use the material.

A lot of things are possible: but possibilities do not form 
legal requirements.  The fact is that sites do not scan for
ludicrous distribution limitiations: you know this and post
anyway -- you are consenting (freely) to the terms even though
you do not like them.

> >Clearly, "the ball is in the court" of those that claim the network
> The law is clear.  If it's not in the public domain, you
> can't copy it.  That's why I put a license in my articles.
> If I didn't, I'd be encouraging people to break the law.
> 
> Despite various people's utterly ridiculous claims, the simple
> facts are:	
> 	1) Copyright law exists even if you have some fantasy otherwise
> and

True, but contract law also exists even if *you* have some fantasy 
otherwise.

> 	2) Any site can reject any article, the copying is voluntary
> 	on their part.  This by itself shows that all this impled 
> 	contract and implied permission rubbish is nothing but
> 	either alame excuse to break the law, or a way to put one's head
> 	in the sand.  All "contract" issues have made the claim that
> 	looking for PD notice or copyright is impossible, when
> 	it clearly isn't.  Just because you don't want to arrange to do
> 	something isn't an excuse.

Again, rejection is voluntary on their part and posting is voluntary
on your part.  The contract issues have made claim that looking for
distribution limitations is not part of what is offered you when you
are given the ability to post.  That option is not given and you cannot
force anyone to honor it.

> I don't know why so many people have such a problem with copyright
> law, and why they feel compelled to make USENET a public domain
> network. There's nothing to be gained by making it a PD network,
> and a lot to be lost.  Claiming that it is when it clearly isn't
> and can't be as its currently set up is only inviting some disagreeable
> sod to make trouble.

We all agree with copyright law.  *You* are the one who is denying contract
law.  

Also, no-one (at least no me) has claimed that your copyright notices
are useless: a copyright notice does do you some good -- but don't expect
it to limit distribution withing usenet -- something that neither you nor
I can create a legal definition for.

-- 
"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
Newsgroups: news.admin