From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 01:44:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.025706.21976@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
># = me
>> = jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
>
>#   I can tell my system here to ignore Distributions. Your articles don't
>#   get propagated.
>
>>I did not deny that you could.  Read my post again.
>
>Ah, but the crux of one person's argument that "consideration" given from
>the net to the poster was the distribution of the poster's articles "far and
>wide". By limiting the distribution on my machine, I can effectively "breach"
>that contract, as I would be over-riding the poster's predefined concept
>(via a "Distribution" header line) as to what "far and wide" should consist
>of.

Your limiting one machine is certainly not going to impact with any
significance the "far and wide" distribution of the network.  And, as I've
said in another post, there is no guarantee that the post will be delivered
to any specific number or locations of sites.

>#   Individuals configuring computer systems may or may not have the authority
>#   to act as the computer-owner's agent in legal representation.
>
>>Perhaps.  But that's not my argument.
>
>But again, the crux of someone's previous argument was that by putting my
>machine on the net, I have somehow bound this machine/my company to some
>vague terms outlined singularly in the minds of each of the 10,000,000 users
>on the Internet. 
>
>Clearly, some people don't understand the concept of "agency".

As far as I can tell, any court would make a presumption that the
person(s) involved with connecting a specific site have the authority to
do so.  In fact, I don't see any way that the question of that authority
would be called into question unless it was being used by a site to
try and eliminate some liability that may have stemmed from a determination
of liability because of the connectivity to the network.  It would be 
ludicrous in my mind to think that someone charging a site with
copyright violation would suggest to the court that those that established
the connectivity were not authorized to do so or that those people
were not authorized to have their site participate in the USENet
distribution process.

>#   "The net" is a non-entity.
>
>>I hope you never refer to such a non-entity as the net in daily conversation
>>except in hypotheticals.
>
>I did not say that "the net" did not exist, I stated that it is not an 
>entity.

As Mr. Spock would say, that isn't logical.  If the net exists, it is
an entity.  

>[bandwidth spared]
>
>I disagree with individual's assertions that by placing a machine on
>the net, I somehow agree to enter into a contract with each of the
>10,000,000 users of the Internet.

I suppose those that make the public domain claim (not me) may be
saying that, but those of us that make the claim/assertion that
posting grants an almost unlimited copying permission throughout
all of the network/USENet are saying that
the "agreement" you enter is with the various sites and communications
links that constitute the network/USENet.  IF (big if) someone ever
follows through on their claim that their distribution limitation
appended to their post has been violated, perhaps we'll then get a
court determined answer.  Until then, the net goes on (happily)
and those that claim the net or some sites or CD-ROM distributers
or pay to read sites are violating there copyrights are just airing
an opinion that is unsubstantiated by any precedence.  

The ball is in their court, we all await the day when one of them
shoots for the basket.

(Note - if using an automatic email addressing reply and you get
a bounce because there's no site called "dancer," then manually
address your email to me using one of the addresses below.)
 
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:7502 comp.mail.misc:2945 news.answers:2829