From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:10:49 GMT

In article <23305@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon and general grump) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.215550.29792@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> 
> >You will note that the network does include a copyright notice
> >in their broadcast.  Now why would they bother when copyrights
> >are automatic? 
> Because they want to be able to sue for more than actual
> damages.  Go read the law, why don't you?

Go read some case law, who don't you?  Lacking a copyright notice,
there is a very good argument for claiming that the network's broadcast 
to the public of a public forum (IE: the Demo Convention) actually
places the content in the public domain.  Such a broadcast is not the
usual publishing of a book (which is not deemed in the public domain
unless specifically stated) because it is a public forum and such 
content is in the public domain uless specifically copyrighted.
(Ever been to a town/county/state/federal meeting which was televised?
You do not get asked if you want to be on TV nor if you want what you 
say broadcast -- because it is a public forum and what you say is in
the public domain -- and should you quote a copyrighted source in 
you speech, that is covered under fair use)

> >because they want everyone to know that they are 
> >*not* giving away the broadcast, simply showing it.  
> Non-responsive.
> 
> >In any case, you are not the network: you posting to usenet is
> >more like Jesse Jackson screaming into the networks cameras:
> >if the network decides to sell copies of what Jesse gave them,
> >he has no grounds to complain.
> You are, of course, wrong about what Jesse didn't give them,
> and you are likewise wrong about posting to usenet, and 

Are you trying to tell me that I didn't see copies of things
like 20/20, NOVA, NBC nightly news, etc offered for sale?  Those
things all include speeches (often complete).

> obviously so since I include a copyright notice, just like
> the network.  You ignore the fact that my choice to give
> something to USENET does not impact my right to NOT give
> it to something else.

I simply stated that you look pretty stupid complaining about 
usenet usage of what you gave to usenet: Of course your 
copyright applies to persons outside usenet, if you can
provide a definition of usenet which holds up in court.

> You don't care much about intellectual property, do you?
Calling what you put here "intellectual" is stretching it 
a bit, now isn't it?

And, one more time, I'll quote from the infamous Primer_on_Usenet
(seen every month in news.announce.newuser!):

[More follows this excerpt]

>Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.answers
[...]
>Followup-To: news.newusers.questions
[...]
>Approved: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU
[...]
>Archive-name: usenet-primer/part1
>Original-author: chuq@apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
>Last-change: 5 May 1992 by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
>
>              A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
>                             Chuq Von Rospach 
>
>  *** You now have access to Usenet, a network of thousands of
>  computers.  Other documents or your system administrator will provide
>  detailed technical documentation.  This message describes the Usenet
>  culture and customs that have developed over time.  All new users should
>  read this message to find out how Usenet works. ***
>  *** (Old users could read it, too, to refresh their memories.)  ***
>
>  USENET is a large collection of computers that share data with each
>  other.  It is the people on these computers that make USENET worth
>  the effort to read and maintain, and for USENET to function properly
>  those people must be able to interact in productive ways.  This
>  document is intended as a guide to using the net in ways that will
>  be pleasant and productive for everyone.
>
[...]
>		  Be Careful About Copyrights and Licenses
>
>  Once something is posted onto the network, it is *probably* in the
>  public domain unless you own the appropriate rights (most notably,
>  if you wrote the thing yourself) and you post it with a valid
>  copyright notice; a court would have to decide the specifics and
>  there are arguments for both sides of the issue. Now that the US has
>  ratified the Berne convention, the issue is even murkier.  For all
>  practical purposes, though, assume that you effectively give up the
>  copyright if you don't put in a notice.  Of course, the
>  *information* becomes public, so you mustn't post trade secrets that
>  way.  When posting material to the network, keep in mind that
>  material that is UNIX-related may be restricted by the license you
>  or your company signed with AT&T and be careful not to violate it.
>  You should also be aware that posting movie reviews, song lyrics, or
>  anything else published under a copyright could cause you, your
>  company, or members of the net community to be held liable for
>  damages, so we highly recommend caution in using this material.
[...]


Now, you are using netnews over usenet in an agreement with all sites
which carry netnews.  The above post is one of several which define
how that agreement works.  Copyright law aside, part of your agreement
is that (a) anything lacking an explicit copyright is in the public
domain and (b) anything posted to usenet gets copied all over usenet,
which, as you now know, includes the sales of CD-ROMs.

Sorry jj, but you do not have the authority to alter or define 
usenet: it will continue to develop and grow into new technologies
and distribution methods.  The only choice you have is to agree
or get off.  (Most of us would prefer the latter.)  

You see, nobody owes you the use of their machines.  This whole thing
is done by mutual agreement: your obvious failure to read the agreement
does not alter it one iota.

Have a nice day!

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda