From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:31:51 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <1992Jul27.022855.27237@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
> In article <mwm.1azh@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> >In <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
> >> In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> >> I think most people assume they are granting permission
> >> for copying in the context of an automated, distributed
> >> bulletin board service. The reason this debate wont die is
> >> that there are two possible interpretations of what else
> >> is allowed. Some are claiming that granting such
> >> permission renounces all other rights, and some (count me
> >> in this camp) are arguing that I can grant a limited right
> >> in this context without renouncing my rights to a future
> >> mini-series deal.
> >
> >Actually, I'm in neither camp, because I don't agree with either
> >interpretation. I agree that you don't give up all rights by posting
> >an article. However, "automated, distributed bulletin board services"
> >doesn't begin to cover the real things that are being done with
> >USENET. If you limited it to "automated" services, that might do it.
> >What I'm pushing for is a way to tag articles that the authors don't
> >want to be used by those automated services, without throwing out the
> >baby.
> 
> The way I read this, you are firmly in the second camp,

Nope. "Giving up all rights" means that people can legally copy your
articles into magazines and newspapers, copy them to BBS'es other than
USENET, and so on. I don't believe that any of those uses are legit.

> but disagree with the preamble. And I will stand by my
> handwaving definition of Usenet, since it is definitely
> automated, definitely distributed and definitely a
> bulletin board service.

So what are those people who read USENET from the other side of an
e-mail gateway doing? They clearly aren't reading a bulletin board
system. Do you therefore maintain that they are violating copyrights?
Or maybe the people who set up the gateway (and, in many cases,
created the newsgroup to gateway the mail to) are doing so?  What
about the people who have some netnews articles fed to their beepers?
(I'm not sure this is actually happening, only because I don't know if
the people doing it are reading USENET, or are limiting themselves to
licensed newsgroups).

> rather for access to the _service_ of Usenet. Once we
> start charging for Mike Meyer's work, or take the posting
> into another medium, we have clearly crossed some
> boundary. I think the distinction, while subtle, is at the
> heart of the matter.

I don't agree in either case. As has been pointed out repeatedly,
USENET used to travel via magtape, and probably currently travels over
all the media used by the internet, and then some. I've already offered
to provide a paper feed to anyone who wants it (and others have echoed
that offer).

As for charging for specific collections - that's what the sys file
does. As far as I know, no one has set up a newsclip server on their
machine and allowed people to use it to select articles, but there
isn't a good reason for not doing so. As to whether they charge for
the service or not, that has nothing to do with whether the
distribution is part of USENET.

> Actually, I think the big brouhaha over how special Usenet
> is vastly overrates the complexity of the issue. It is
> clear in my mind that running a Usenet posting in any
> commercial mag, lifting a posting to include in a book,
> etc are clearly out of order, since they involve a change
> in medium and it is clear to me that the poster retains the
> copyright to his or her work, including the right to
> control its use in other mediums.

That I agree with (though not everyone does). Those are *clear* cases.
It's the cases that aren't clear that are the problem.

> of the citizenry. Once we agree on that, then it is merely
> a question of getting a ruling on what the law says about
> what we are doing. As Mike O'Dell once said (in another
> context) "Sure it's rocket science, but aren't we all
> rocket scientists?"

That's the process I'd like to see: an agreement reached among some
large set of the Usenet community, followed by a legal ruling with
that agreement in place. I'd *much* rather have that happen than a
legal ruling with no such agreement in place.

> >No, people regularly *try* to use it to limit the distribution of
> >their work. My feed is a gateway for an international company, and
> >thus gets *all* distributions. They give me the same.
> 
> So your feed regularly violates the instructions of
> posters in mishandling of their work, and you are
> condoning their behaviour by not asking them to stop.

No, the feed isn't violating your instructions. It has declared itself
part of all distributions, for good reasons. Your instructions were
that your posting would go to all sites that are part of that
distribution, which includes them. A number of others sites have done
likewise. A great number of other sites just ignore distributions, due
to the documentation they got with their news software.

> >I've replied to postings, and gotten the response "you should never
> >have gotten that, the distribution was <blat>". That's strike one
> >against using distributions: they don't work as intended.
> 
> Because people like you don't take the simple steps needed
> to see that they do.

No, I don't have any reason to take those steps. I don't need to - I'm
a leaf site. I don't send the articles to anyone, so I can't possibly
not obey your "instructions." Likewise, I've declared my site part of
all distributions, because I want to broaden my horizons.

> >> So how about? Can we all agree on some more words to stick
> >> in there, like "no_cdrom", or "no_paper", or
> >> "electronic_only", or even "no_EBCIDC"? Then, if I put
> > them in and you ignore it, haven't you violated my clearly
> >> stated wishes not to distribute my work without bound?
> >
> >Yes, but if you say "no_cdrom,na" then you get distributed to _all_ of
> >na, even places that specify !no_cdrom. Strike two: they don't work
> >the way you want them to.
> 
> Again, you are telling me that there is widespread
> violation of the authors' instructions, so we should give
> up. Sounds like we should be collectively tightening our
> belts and forcing recalcitrant sites to behave in a civil
> manner. 

Go look at rfc822. If a Distributions: line specifies multiple
distributions, it means it goes to everywhere that gets *either* of
them, not both of them. So by spreading a distribution of no_cdrom,na
to all of na, the sites in question are *obeying* the authors
instructions. It isn't there fault that the author didn't understand
what she was doing.

Now, if you want to change the way distributions work (or, more
accurately, don't work), you can try. I think there are better ways to
go about it, though.

> Out of curiosity, where _would_ I get back a set of
> postings I did to alt.folklore.urban a couple of years
> ago? I just don't believe that anyone really thinks that
> the ability to do this is an integral part of Usenet.

I dunno. Try asking on alt.folklore.urban, and here (take it out of
this thread, though). I've seen such requests be answered before. Not
for an alt group, though.

> I also believe that with a combination of the
> "Distribution:"  and "Expire:" fields, with a few agreed
> upon extensions, we can manage to control Usenet
> distribution enough to keep it out of the hands of the
> lawyers, provided site admins agreed to abide by a few
> simple rules (like, set up your site to adher to clear
> instructions already included in the headers).

Hmm - I hadn't though of a combination of fields. As has been pointed
out before, Expires: currently has a use. And distributions: is
largely ignored (which is a good argument for using it...).

Personally, I favor newsgroups, for two reasons. 1) Most sites pay
attention to those when feeding news; 2) It provides a place to put a
statement about what that group in the header *means*.

	<mike