From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:04:17 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Jul29.024520.28473@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <151j9sINN1iu@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blathered:
>> >> > anything lacking an explicit copyright notice is given to the
>> >> > public domain
>> 
>> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) observed:
>> >> You are demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. copyright law.
>> 
>> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blusters:
>> >And you are demonstrating your ignorance of usenet!
>> >The following is from the montly-posted primer on usenet.
>> >->
>> >->              A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
>> >->                             Chuq Von Rospach 
>> >[blah blah]
>> 
>> I hadn't realized that Chuq was now leading the Supreme Court.
>
>Nobody said he was.  The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>which apply to your use of the net.  You would do well to read those

The "Usenet Primer" contains guidelines, protocol and ettiquette tips.
"terms and conditions" as you use it is meant to give us (the people
reading your viewpoint) the idea that this is somehow a legally
binding contract.  It is not.  It even states it's opinions in 
terms of "probably" and "the courts would have to decide".  It
was written _before_ major changes in US copyright law.  Stop
referring to this thing as if it were the Gospel According To Chuq!

Perhaps -- *perhaps* -- it is time for someone to update/revise
this d--m thing so it doesn't keep getting thrown in our faces
like this.  But even if it were updated to include the conclusions
being drawn in this forum, it would not -- repeat: NOT -- be a
legally binding document.  It would remain a statement of
opinion of the author, because there is NO ONE authorized to
speak for, or enter into contractual obligations for, the USENET.

>documents in news.announce.newuser.  They are put there so that
>new users have an opportunity to understand what they are doing
>when they post to usenet.  
>
>By using usenet, you are entering into an agreement with all the owners
>of the computers which propagate netnews.  The articles in n.a.n are 
>put there to inform you of the conditions of the contract.

Not quite.  I'd consider it more of a conspiracy than an agreement
in the legal sense of the word.......			:)

>Denying what those posts say does not change the weight they will carry
>in a court.  And I think you will have a very tough time convincing the

You are the one denying what that post says.  It says, quite clearly,
that it unsure of the legalities of copyright law.  This has been
pointed out many times now.

>judge that just because you did not believe what is in those posts that
>they do not consitute part of the contract: you will also have a tough
>time convincing him that posting does not form a contract.

I don't think any judge would consider that posting to be a
contract of any sort.  This is, of course, merely my own
opinion, devoid of any sort of legal insight.  But the phrasing
of the Chuq post is extremely uncertain of itself, doing it's
best to refrain from making any sort of conclusion.  I don't 
think that it could be considered a contract if it never states
*clearly* and *unambiguously* what it's terms and conditions
are.

More to the point, although it is in a freely accessible
place, it is not *required* to pass through it in order
to gain access to the net.  Online services that allow
you to sign up online FORCE you to go through their "terms
and conditions" document (most of which you just pass through,
or capture to read in detail later).  But they can then be
assured that you have been exposed to the document if for
any reason they have to call you on the the terms of it.
This is not the case with USENET, which is 1) not a legal
entity, and 2) is the most "voluntary" "take it or leave it"
type of thing I have ever run across.  Conventions and
etiquette, certainly.  Enforced terms on ANYTHING, the 
net.population would never stand for such a thing!


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
Xref: sparky news.admin:6025 comp.org.eff.talk:4737 misc.legal.computing:1415