From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 13:13:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.032455.23496@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.002241.16018@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>but don't expect the whole network, which existed long before your brain
>>damage, to bend to your will.
>
>Look, copyright existed long before the net did.  Why does the 
>net get special privileges to violate jj's copyright?

The net does NOT have special privaleges, jj is the one that
MUST accept the manner and distribution process that is USENET and
then IF he does not like it, he should not post.  This line of
argument is very similar to the movie industries suit against
SONY to eliminate or curtail VCR sales/use.  Their claim was that
the devices (VCRs) were being widely used to violate their
copyrights.  The court clearly sided with SONY and made specifc
reference to the fact that there were many non-infringing uses
of VCRs and some copyright holders (eg. Fred Rogers of the "Mr. Rogers
Show") had absolutely no problem with VCR use and infact encouraged it.

So, there is NO need to change the way USENET works as far as
I'm concerned.

>  It is
>the responsibility of those wishing to make use of copyrighted
>materials to get permission to use that material.  Just because
>the net exists in a certain state doesn't mean that copyright
>law doesn't exist in our semi-mythical Usenet.  For all we know,
>current Usenet practices might be found to be in violation
>of copyright laws.

As many have already said, it is NOT the net that violates, it is the
poster or some other human down the pipe.  People violate laws, not 
machines and networks.  If no one posted anything to the network
or if they posted several messages and said they were free to be
copied by anyone, anyway, anytime, then the net would have
absolutely no involvement with any copyright infringement if
any copying was done, therefore the basic function of the net
can not (IMHO) be viewed as a vilation of any copyright laws.

The network is a distribution system/tool and as far as I can see
it is clearly the responsibility of any poster to understand the
functioning of the network, especially as it relates to the
inability of a poster to place limits on any of the automated
functioning of the network.  As before, if you don't like the
distribution process, don't post.  Otherwise, there is no
reason to try and change the net to accomodate the small minority
of folks that seem to want to be able to post with express 
limitations as to how the network might deliver the post and/or
as to if anyone is in a commercially benefiting situation 
as a provider of netnews.

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:6212 alt.censorship:6307 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2399 alt.sex.bondage:14530