From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:42:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23572
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old curmudgeon)
Distribution: na
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <a_rubin.714932251@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>I can't speak for jj (jj doesn't seem to be doing very well either), but my
You don't seem to be reading, perhaps that's the problem.

>understand was that jj was going to sue some unspecified "non-usenet"
>usenet sites, such as the CD-ROM distributor.  Now, it's clear that jj does
I am?  That's very much news to me.  I haven't even said that CD-ROM
is necessarily a bad thing, or a violation of my license, or
anything that might indicate that.  I got into this debate when
some uninformed, foolish individuals started claiming that 
"anything you post is in the public domain" or "there is
an implicit contract that lets me put anything I want with
a newsfeed in as a USENET site, regardless of what that
site does with the material".  

The only case that CD-ROM could be a "bad thing" or a nonUSENET like
behavior is when it starts to get selective, or works toward
a pay for read setup. (AND PLEASE REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ON THAT
BEFORE YOU GO OFF HALF-COCKED ON THAT)  A "best of rec.audio"
would be a violation, but as far as I've seen, nobody is 
proposing that.

>not have a contract with the CD-ROM distributor.  jj has specifically said
>as much, and explicit denial is usually sufficient to void an implied
>contract.  The question would be, then, does jj's outgoing feed have a
>contract with ... the CD-ROM distributor.
What's your problem here, Arthur?  You seem to be following someone
else's position, not mine, so would you be so kind as to 
ascribe it to whoever belongs to it?

In fact, if the CD-ROM is a newsfeed and nothing more, it would
seem a whole lot like I've GIVEN it permission.  Whose version
of the world are you living in, here, guy?

>I still side with Brad's command model.  News sites (including CD-ROM, and
>pay-for-read, whatever that is) are allowing jj to use their resources to
>transmit articles. 
Utterly false, they can reject articles if they want.  If they don't like 
people who are trying to make it clear that USENET is a legal use
of the article, that's THEIR problem, not mine.  Then, they
should reject them, like some "enlightened" people have
suggested that we should all reject any copyrighted material,
just because someone has some respect for intellectual property
rights.

There is no obligation on the part of any site to accept any
particular article. That's been well established.  That is a fatal
flaw of Brad's model. It always has been, and until he changes
the model, it always will be.

>I suspect publishing the article in the New York
>Times would be an infringement, but I'm not even sure of that.
Pardon me? That's such an obvious infringement that there's not even
a question.  The NYT is hardly USENET, and not even the most
vociferous sophist could say so with a straight face.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.