From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:41:43 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: e3fb0f216ff0dde35451a3ce04fe212c

whs70@dancer.UUCP (Bill Sohl) writes:
>peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>
>>God, this is getting tiresome. This will _not_ "create"
>>the ability to limit. PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT
>>NOW!!! IT IS GRANTED BY THE BERNE CONVENTION AND YOUR
>>COUNTRY'S ASSOCIATED COPYRIGHT LAWS!!! PEOPLE DON'T NEED
>>YOUR PERMISSION TO DO THIS!!!
>
>Yes and No...People have the ability to limit, BUT if their
>actions prove contrary to their end goals (as stated in any
>copyright notice) THEN their notice is of no value with regard
>to the distribution (copying) that follows their posting.
>Their notice can NOT be the ruling factor when they
>themselves initiated the process that lead to the copying
>they didn;'t want to happen.

	Well, I'm not so totally sure about this.  They may very well
have given a copy of their work to someone whom their explicit license
implies shouldn't have it, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate all
the terms of the license (assuming the license has any validity.)

>As I've stated before, I'm firmly in the camp
>that says: "Leave the network alone, it isn't broken,
>it doesn't need to be fixed."

	I'll agree with this.  The mechanics of the network are NOT
broken, and there isn't any need to "fix" the system (other than trying
to make sure that the Distribution: header has some truly useful
function (but that is a different thread :-)

	The attempt to introduce new headers and special semantics is an
attempt to improve something as an intellectual exercise.

	I've always been trying to say that the operators of the net
need to have a clearer and more definite understanding of the matrix
within which the net is embedded (cultural, legal, social, etc.) so that
there can be a bit more coherence in terms of dealing with the problems
that do arise.

	I was interested to see Peter Da Silva point out that the
"poster does the copying by using lent resouces" is not really a "new
model" for the net's operation.  It has not previously been pointed out
that this is a better model than "implicit grant of permission to copy"
which has been the most common interpretation since the founding of the
netnews net.

>In the end, my opinion is not intended to undermine or
>refute any author's intellectual property claims, my opinion
>is based on MY knowledge of the network and my view that
>those that use/participate in posting to the network need
>to live with reality and not try to force the network to
>bend to their desires/expectations.

	Again, I suspect that most of the admins and net.philosophers
will agree with this sentiment.  There has to be a clear understanding
that the situations have changed over time, the law has changed, the
technology has changed, the software has changed.  What has not changed
to keep up is the theoretical thinking about how the net works.

	Too many people have the impression that something posted to the
net somehow (magically?) becomes a "public domain" work.  Too many
people somehow think that they can insert some kind of words into their
messages and magically take back the copies that they have given to each
site and each reader of the net.

	This is 1992.  The situations have changed, and they are going
to keep changing.  Get used to it.

-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property