From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:22:54 GMT

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

The network is the combination of many
sites and communications paths.  By convention, design, chance,
precedent, etc. the network exists and it remains to be seen what a
court would ultimately view as a legal definition (description) of
the network.  The various owners of the individual component pieces
of the network certainly are legal entities and their creation of
the network results (IMHO) in a larger legal entity, even if that
larger entity exists more by default than design.

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

There is still consideration on the part of the network, the
network distribution does not guarantee delivery to every
possible site.  As before, the poster may not like that, put the
poster can not alter that.

>>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.

jj, where in my post did I claim or state that posting puts a
post in "public domain?"

As to the law, this discussion/debate is centered not on what the
law says, but what you as a poster have granted the "network" in
terms of copying "far and wide."

>>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

I have never denied the existence of copyright laws.

>	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.

jj, as I said above, go to court and prove your point.  I believe that
either the "command model" or the "implied contract" model (maybe
both) would be fully accepted by any court as justification for the
way the network distributes posts.   The network
is (IMHO) not in any violation of copyright law because YOU
are the voluntary initiator of the copying process, regardless of your
appended copyright limitations statement.  

Looking for a PD notice (again, not what I've claimed) or a copyright
notice may be technically feasable, BUT is not something I think
would be legally forced on the network (or its component sites) by
a court.

>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.

As above, I have no prblem with copyright law, and
I have never said the network is public domain.  

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:7406 comp.org.eff.talk:5635 misc.legal.computing:2062