From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why post? (long was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:17:29 GMT
Organization: negligable


In article <1992Jul20.192734.9914@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.durham.nc.us writes:
[ list extracted from remainder of article for simplicity ]
>
>Some points to examine:
>
>	The poster of an article is the party responsible for the 
>	contents of the article.
>
>	The poster of an article owns the rights to the article.
>
>	The poster want the article distributed for other people to
>	read and think about.
>
>	The poster wants responses to the article.
>
>	The poster is dependent on the owner of the hardware for
>	the distribution of the article.
>
>	The poster gives the hardware owner a copy of the article.
>
>Is this debateable?  If the poster doesn't want to give the owner a copy
>of the article, why post?

Yes, this point is debateable.  Or rather, the meaning of "give" is
debateable.  Yes the hardware owner does get a copy.  This does not
necessarily grant rights to the hardware for further distribution 
(outside the "normal" distribution mechanism of USENET news).

>	On a single machine, the copy the poster gives to the machine
>	owner can be viewed by other users of the machine.

This one is predicated on the previous statement.  I would prefer
a model that goes something like:

	The poster releases into the USENET News system a copy of
	the article that may be viewed by any user of any machine
	providing USENET News services.

This would remove the individual "stops" along the way from
consideration as individual locations, and consider them solely
as agents of the "USENET News", which is a legal nightmare, being
a collection of software, protocols and implicit agreements that
have no physical locality.

>One thing that can be safely said, is that by "posting" the item, the
>poster is indicating that they are aware that the item will be viewed by
>others.

I think that any rational person would have to agree with this.  Do
you think we can find one and check?   :-)

>Now extend the concept into a network of machines.

With the model I have suggested, the physicality of the distribution
mechanism becomes irrelavent, networked, UUCP'd, individual machine
all get covered by the amorphous legal blanket entity "USENET News".

Although we might actually have to come up w/ a FAQ stating what
the USENET News *is* finally, rather than settling for stating
what it is *not*.		:-)

>First, a local network, all owned by the same owner.
>
>	The poster gives the owner permission to place additional
>	copies of the article on other machines in the local cluster.

By my model, the poster, in his initial action has given "permission"
to display the article on any machine/terminal that may be considered
a USENET News service provider.

>To achieve the purpose of posting the article, some copies *must* be
>made.  Who is the person responsible for the copies being made?  Brad
>says that the poster is the responsible party (to avoid any question of
>someone else doing the copies and allowing for no possible violation.)
>
>But the grant of authority from the machine owner to the poster may only
>extend to one machine.  For whatever reasons may be deemed fit by the
>machine owner, they may forbid the poster from accessing or using other
>machines in the local cluster.

Likewise, the poster has the "authority" to *restrict* the distribution
of an article to a given cluster of machines (assuming, of course
that either the distribution field in the header is properly handled
or the local cluster has a set of local newsgroups).

The fact that the owner may impose restrictions upon the poster
I think is a separate issue than who is responsible when such
restrictions have not been imposed, since the poster also has the
ability to impose such distribution restrictions.

>	In any case, the netnews program(s) were activated and 
>	copies of the articles were made and placed on other machines.

Per the "request" (command) of the poster.  I guess the question
really is: is further distribution the result of a command of the poster,
or a request that may-or-may-not be honored?  I would answer that since
there is no positive-intervention (the admin must say "yes" to accept
the article) that this be considered the command of the poster.  The
fact that some systems may *ignore* this command (negative intervention)
is a different issue that cause many people to cry "censorship" when
their local system stops carrying alt.sex.bondage :-)   But should, 
I think, be considered a separate issue.

>Does it really make a difference to say that the poster personally did
>the copying, or saying that the poster gave the machine owner (or
>another user) the permission to make those copies in order to achieve
>the purpose of exposing the article to the view of others?

I would have to say the posted did more than give permission, he made
an active request/command, that the machine owner (by the proxy of
the USENET News spooling software) may *reject*, but is generally 
and automatically (with no intervention by the owner) granted.

>In either case, the poster remains responsible for the contents.

True!  Hey!  a new model (this one just came to me, it wasn't 
thought out before I started this reply....):

The "poster" is a magazine publisher.
The "owner" is a shop keeper.

It does not matter if I buy the latest issue of Scientific American
from Safeway, or Lucky's, or subscribe, or check it out from the
library (i.e. the machine and machine owner are irrelevant beyond
the fact that they have chosen to carry Scientific American).  

>The poster retains the rights and responsibilities for the article.  

The publisher still retains the rights and responsibilities for the
contents of the magazine.

>The person making a copy with (implicit) permission for the specific 
>purpose of placing the article in the public view is fullfilling the 
>explicit desire of the person "posting" the article.

The store owner is fulfilling his purpose in placing Scientific
American on the shelves to be made avaiable to the public.

Actually I think this "market" analogy works rather well.  It keeps
the responsibility for what is published in the hands of the publisher,
although it acknowledges that not all stores will want to carry Hustler.
It also keeps the rights to the content of what has been published
in the hands of the publisher.  USENET is a system of distributers,
not truly a secondary publisher......

Any comments?

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Extensive studies have shown that 93% of all statistics are meaningless.

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing