From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:35:55 GMT

In article <23440@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
>In article <uoaDPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:
>
>>Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
>>submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..
>
>The problem, of course, is that you can say anything you want,
>but that doesn't mean it will have any meaning to anyone else,
>and at best it's a contract of attachment.

While I also don't believe there's a need to go the "public domain"
statement route, a warning that "posting to the network initiates
a massive and uncontrolable set of copying of a post" would be a
reasonable statement.  The words would have sufficient meaning as
they provide a description of what you, the poster, are initiating.

>All the "warnings" and "you are putting this in the public domain"
>statements in the world don't change the law, and don't change
>the rights of the poster at all.

The action of posting with knowledge of how the network works
should be (IMHO) sufficent evidence to any court that the poster
knew what he/she was doing and would "override" at least any
language that might be expected to have limited the distribution.
The warning would be (IMHO) more than sufficient to eliminate any
sustainable action against someone that a poster believed had an
"unathorized" copy of his/her post.  

>In any case, it's not necessary to put anything into the public
>domain, and there's no reason to even try to strip a poster of
>his or her copyrights.

The basic thread of much of this discussion seems focused in two
areas: (1) posting, if not entering into public domain, should be.
and (2) posting with certain distribution and/or
copying limitations should be honored by the network and if
such a notice is not honored/acted upon as indicated that the
network/sysop/site owner, etc. is guilty of copyright infingement
for the "unathorized" copying that might take place.

I disagree with (1), and acknowledge that posting does not
invalidate, nor should it, the copyright ownership of the poster.

I do not believe (2) that any poster can or should expect the
distribution (downstream copying) of his/her post to be
controlable by the language one might include in a copyright
statement imbedded anywhere in the post.  I also do not believe,
as I've said several times, that any court would sustain an
action against the network, any sysop, or an end user that
had a copy (or participated in the copying process) of a 
post that someone didn't want distributed to some site(s)
and/or by some specific distribution method (CD-ROM, pay-to-read,
etc.)

Clearly "the ball is in the court" of those that think they
have an action against such distribution.  Until such a suit
is brought forward, no one will know for sure, BUT I'd bet
my money on the network not being found as an infringing
party in any way.  14 years of network operation seems like
a tough history of useage to overturn.

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:7159 misc.legal.computing:1981