From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 12:08:26 GMT

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>I have yet to work for any company where the receiving department does
>anything more than deliver the incoming goods to the address within
>the company.

You simply haven't worked for the right companies. Yes - sometimes the
scenario you describe is easier - but when you have a company of 300+
individuals, and a box which arrives from "Paul Revere Horse Manure, Inc."
not labelled to someone's attention, you'd better have a way of knowing
where that box goes. Hence, receiving departments routinely get copies of
P.O.s, and only material for which they can find a P.O. is delivered - the
remainder is returned on the next truck.


>Actually, let's be more specific here, I claim there is a contract
>between any site and any poster when a post is posted.  Those
>contracts are individual
>in nature and relate only to each specific post
>as it is posted in terms of the copying the poster is (in MY
>opinion) granting all sites that comprise what is USENet.  

I administer USENET for 5 companies. In three of them, I have no decision
making authority (i.e. ability to enter the company into a 'contract'.)
You cannot claim that, because these companies have access to USENET,
I have legally bound them to "contracts" with 10,000,000 other net.users.


>Having been a part of it for 20 plus years, yes, I think I have a
>pretty good idea at the scope of authority that flows/attaches/is
>granted to/ or is implied with many different job titles.

Bellcore != Corporate.America



>No, since the fundamental issue here is the claim by some that
>USENet sites violate a poster's copyright distribution restrictions,
>I think it is incombent on those that make such a claim to prove
>their case.

Funny, I've spent the past week discussing Law of Contracts, not NetNews
copyrights. What discussion were you in on?


>Well, now I know we disagree as to what is or isn't a legal entity.
>I guess the telephone network is just a "concept" the same as
>your view of the network.


Yup. Your "telephone network" is no more a legal entity than my
"ethernet network".


>Perhaps the network doesn't have such a formalized set of controlling
>influences (FCC, state PUC, etc.) however, there must be some inter
>site discussion, agreement, etc. on many aspects of how the network
>interconnects, passes messages, etc. in order for the network to
>work at all.

Naturally, we have RFCs and the IET.


>It was a snide remark directed specifically at me..therefore
>it was a personal slur.  You essentially called me a jackass but you
>used considerably more than one word to do it.

Welp, better not post to the net then, because every post which 
criticizes your opinion will, no doubt, be a personal slur to you.


>I once again wish to redirect this discussion where I think it should
>be...specifically that those that claim copyright violation of their
>posts by any site/CD-ROM distributer and/or pay-to-read access seller
>have yet to make good on their claims.

No comment, as I, as previously indicated, have been discussing your
concept of enforcing unilateral implied contracts on each net.site.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /