From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 03:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep06.121549.16188@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>If after the bill
>>was rejected by your company, THEN you'd be in hot water with the
>>company you ordered the goods from and probably your own company too.
>
>More than likely the widgets would be returned by Receiving. No bill.
>(albeit a restocking fee)

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.  The receiving department of any large company I've
worked for does not maintain any records as to the authority of
the person that may have ordered an item.  The goods come in and
they are delivered.  The company that sent the goods then sends
a bill to the company for payment, sometimes direct to a
comptrollers organization and sometimes by way of the person
that ordered the goods.

>>This example bears no relation to the netwnes/sites/contract/posting
>>example.
>
>That example demonstrates exactly the type of agent relationship you
>wish to impose on companies who have employees that connect machines
>to the net. You claim said companies then have a "contract" with 
>10,000,000 other net.users, when in fact no agent relationship exists.

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.  

>>If you don't think the communications/site managers have a great deal
>>of unspecified authority to act on behalf of the companies they work 
>>for then I don't think you understand that much about the types of
>>authority that are a part of any job, both stated authority and that
>>which would be implied simply because of the scope of the job that
>>a person has been assigned to do. [stuff deleted]
>
>Well, Mr. Omniscent, I'm glad you are in touch with the operating pulse
>of Corporate America. Have any good inside info you could pass along?

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.

>>We certainly disagree as to aspects, but you've certainly not
>>presented any irrefutable examples, case law, etc. to sustain
>>your view over mine.  The court test awaits....
>
>One does not have to present "evidence" to support commonly-accepted
>contract law principles. In fact, since >you< have the rather odd
>concept of how contract law works, then >you< should be posting the
>appropriate case history to support your side.

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.  As I see it, the network/USENet still does what
those that make such claims say it shouldn't, YET none
of those making such claims seem ready to take on the network or
any specific sites to enforce their claims.  

>Besides, do you really want me to start posting excepts from case history
>to the net?

Why not, isn't that what these newsgroups are supposed to be for?

>>Can you provide me with a mailing address and state of legal residence
>>for the telephone network that exists?
>
>Sure. Contact your local PUC. They have the address of your Telephone
>company. Contact AT&T to obtain their mailing address.
>
>>Perhaps we differ as to the definition
>>of a legal entity, but from my perspective, the telephone system/network
>>is most certainly a legal entity.
>
>A "telephone network" is not a legal entity, any more than the "USENET
>network" is a legal entity. 

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.

>However, as with the Internet, there are legal entities which are
>present on the telephone network.
>
>However, the major difference between the telephone network and the Internet
>is that	the telephone network has pre-defined legal entities controlling
>it, under supervision of your local PUC. The net has no such controlling
>entity, nor supervision.

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.

>>In response to this comment, your own words say it best as you posted
>>in another post today......I quote:
>
>Hardly a "personal slur". Had I called you "jackass", >that< is a
>personal slur. 

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.

>If you can't take criticism, don't post to the net.

I'm more than happy to argue the issues and take critisism, but your
snide remark about "when was I going to write a law book.." because
you wanted the comedic reading was certainly not any bonifide 
critisism of anything I've written.

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.  As such, the common everyday
working of the network continues unabated in the same fashion as it
has for a good many years  with no court order sustaining any
of the copyright violations proponent's claims.

For clarification, I state my views again...

1. I believe the poster retains a copyright in what they post (that is,
   I do not beleive that everything posted becomes public domain).

2. Notwithstanding 1., I believe that posting grants an unlimited
   copying permission (through a command model or implied contract,
   either will suffice, though I think both have a legitamate basis)
   to that network for distribution to any and all sites and distribution
   media that now and in the future may be commonly refered to as USENet.

3. I believe that the network has no responsibility to scan for or
   otherwise be made aware of an individual poster's copying/distribution
   limitation statements contained as a part of any post, nor does
   the network have any liability for or is the network in violation
   of any copyright infringement claimed by a poster because his/her
   copying limitation was not honored as stated.

4. Absent any court imposed change in how the network operates,
   it is the continued operationof the network as it is which is
   setting precedent which can be a strong impact in any court
   review of a claim that the network violates copyright.

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
Newsgroups: news.admin