From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:55:09 GMT

In article <23480@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon and clueless white boy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.135323.29297@progress.com> leary@progress.COM (James Leary) writes:
>>The idea out here that messages should somehow be scanned and determine
>>what the intent on reproduction and use of the message by the author
>>is pie-in-the-sky and unworkable.  That, plainly, is not the intent
>>of this or for that matter, any other public computer network.
>
>First, this isn't a public network.  How can you even think
>of making that claim?

I think you mean it isn't a "common carrier".

>Second, of the posters I know, nobody has asked the run of the
>mill site to do anything other that act like they always would.
>Run of the mill sites, it has been said time and time again,
>include public access sites, commercial timeshare sites, and
>the like, but do people listen?  Noooooo. Then they think they've
>found some basic flaw when you point it out to them. 

So point it out more clearly. "Pay-for-read services" could actually
be interpreted as anything. It doesn't (didn't) seem like you grasped
that.

>Their expectations are simply that sites that aren't run of the
>mill go to some effort.  That's an entirely reasonable request,
>and one that must by law be obeyed.  

Coming back to the law stuff in another article.

>All the uninformed blathering

Ouch.

>on implied consent ignores the fact posting to USENET does not
>imply any non-typical use.  The entire first flame war (which
>I avoided until people started making false claims that 
>USENET is "public domain" material) on CD-Rom was over whether
>or not CD-Rom was "typical" or should become typical.

Well, that Usenet is "public domain" material is a view, it's
hardly a "false claim". A "false claim" is a pretty serious
allegation. Talking about language here, you see.

>The only thing that some of us MUST do is to prevent misuse that
>goes beyond the limits of USENET.  Now various people have
>been flaming about "what is USENET".  All their flames
>don't even confuse the issue.  This network has a strong
>and well-established history.

It's no longer as closely knit as it used to be.

>What some people argue is effectively that anyone who gets
>a news feed is USENET, even if it's the NY Times (not that they
>would) and if all articles went directly to newsprint and out
>to be sold on the street.  That's the FACT of what many people
>propose, and it's simply silly.

I guess I proposed that. Yes, they _could_ do it, but they won't,
because it wouldn't be worth it to put an unmoderated group
on paper like that. I highly doubt it. Note that I said that
the group had to be transferred without editing.

So what's silly about it? "You're allowed, if you take it all.".
Isn't that simple?

>I particularly had to laugh when some poor dweeb claimed that

We are getting personal here I see.

>"alt" was part of USENET.  It was created specifically because
>it was NOT part of USENET.  Learn the facts before you flame
>away, guy.

I think I agree with you on principles, but do climb off your
high horse, jj.

Bengt L.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se