From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:35:54 GMT

In article <wPXHPB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>> It seems you think you have the "right to post with whatever
>> copyright". But you haven't. You may have to accept certain conditions
>> on distribution in order to have your article automatically distributed.

Actually, everyone has the "right to post with whatever copyright"
message they want.  It remains to be seen (in terms of a court test)
as to what, if any, impact those words may have as to the manner
and way that the network/USENet functions as a result of anyone's
copyright notice.
 
>> The newsstand analogy isn't that bad. If you demand that an
>> article of yours sent to a magazine shouldn't be distributed to certain
>> newsstands, then your article may have to be refused.
>
>Yes, but the person who wants to do the redistributing refuses the article,
>not the author.
>
>If I send an article to a magazine saying it shouldn't be distributed to
>certain newsstands, the magazine has to accept my conditions or reject the
>article.  They aren't allowed to say "Oh, well, you sent it to us, so you
>must be consenting to our redistributing it in the way we do our other
>articles".
>
>Similarly, I do not believe that submitting an article to Usenet implies any
>consent to anything.  There's certainly no contract of any sort, no
>agreement.  The newsgroups are filled with people who have no idea how large
>Usenet is in geographical terms, so how can they have consented to having
>their articles distributed to places they didn't even know existed?

Ignorance of how the network works and/or how far ranging the distribution
is, is the poster's problem.  Unless there was some specific effort to
misrepresent and/or defraud people into thinking they infact could control
and/or limit their posts distribution, then I see no burden on the network
to "educate" every poster before that poster posts.

The similarity to a magazine editor agreeing/disagreeing with the author
ends when you consider that there is NO editing or acceptance done on
the part of the network.  I post to the network and off it goes, anywhere
and everywhere.  

I, the poster, have consented to all the copying and archiving that
takes place simply because I knew (or should have known) how the
network works.  The initial act of posting is 100% voluntary on my
part.  If, therefore, I choose to post to USENet without knowledge of
how the network works and/or where my post may ultimately end up, then
that is something I (and any one else that posts) must accept.  If, I
don't want a post distributed somewhere, then I have no means to
control/force that limitation and I best not post at all.  Likewise,
the magazine editor, if s/he was really interested in publishing
someone's article (where the author didn't want distribution to
certain newstands) then the editor may tell the author..."Look,
we can't change the distribution, if you want, we'll publish the article
as long as you change your mind about limiting distribution."  If
the author agrees, the article gets posted, if not, then it doesn't.
While the "agreement/contract" between the author and magazine may be
a more formal one-on-one, we all undertake many implied contractual
arrangements by our actions alone without necessarily ever
saying or discussing the terms.

In essence, use of the network/USENet by any poster is an implied
acceptance of the statement made by the editor.  That is, there is
no limit on the distribution and copying that flows from the post.
There is, in my opinion, a very clear agreement/acceptance/implied
contract that a poster initiates when s/he posts...and one of the
elements of the agreement is acceptance of the way the network
functions and distributes the post, regardless of any words to the
contrary that may be included in the post.  Again, that's my
opinion (although it seems to be the majority view if my take
at most of the posts is correct) and until/unless someone 
initiates a court battle to prove otherwise (and wins that battle),
my opinion is..."if you don't like the distribution via USENet,
then don't post."

As a final comment, I have yet to see anyone make a reasonable/logical
court based argument taht would likely end up with some negative
ruling against the network.  Some people have said they would 
point out to a judge that USENet is (insert some description)...
or that they as authors have a right to demand that the network 
acknowldege their distribution limitations, yet they never support
their contentions with prior case law and or a logical presentation
of facts.  More importantly, they seem to totally ignor the fact that
any case has two sides that get to tell their story/description/etc.

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