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: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.154143.11941@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:

>>peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>>>God, this is getting tiresome. This will _not_ "create"
>>>the ability to limit. PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT
>>>NOW!!! IT IS GRANTED BY THE BERNE CONVENTION AND YOUR
>>>COUNTRY'S ASSOCIATED COPYRIGHT LAWS!!! PEOPLE DON'T NEED
>>>YOUR PERMISSION TO DO THIS!!!
>>
I, Bill Sohl then wrote:
>>Yes and No...People have the ability to limit, BUT if their
>>actions prove contrary to their end goals (as stated in any
>>copyright notice) THEN their notice is of no value with regard
>>to the distribution (copying) that follows their posting.
>>Their notice can NOT be the ruling factor when they
>>themselves initiated the process that lead to the copying
>>they didn;'t want to happen.

And then "The Wolf of the DEn added:
>	Well, I'm not so totally sure about this.  They may very well
>have given a copy of their work to someone whom their explicit license
>implies shouldn't have it, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate all
>the terms of the license (assuming the license has any validity.)

I agree, I didn't mean to imply as much as my statement does.  My
point is that if the "copyright statement" said "no distribution
to site XYZ, "no distribution through pay to read access"
and/or "no CD-ROM distribution allowed," I really don't think there be
any sustainable action against anyone doing that and/or obtaining a copy
of someone's post as a result of that.  While some may argue the
boundaries of USENet distribution, those are (IMHO) well imbedded
in the distribution chain today and anyone trying to refute there
allowed existence is not likely to succeed (agin IMHO).  So, to be
a bit more specific...the act of posting implies all the copying
that goes on today, regardless of anyones stated "copyright
limitations."

At the same time, I acknowledge, that posting 
does not put the post in public domain, nor would
it allow someone else to claim it as theirs, nor would it be allowed
to be completely reprinted in a medium that isn't connected as part
of the network.  It would allow someone to have a copy at site XYZ, even
if the poster's copyright notice had a statement disallowing a copy to
be at site XYZ because there isn't any methodology to limit distribution
in the network as it is configured today.  It doesn't matter if
technology might have a method to limit (eg. changing header items),
there simply is no legal requirement for the network to make any changes.

To the folks that keep saying the network is wrong, the network is
violating copyright, etc. I join the others that say, go to court and
prove your case.  The movie industry didn't prevail against Sony (big
bucks vs. big bucks), and I can't see anyone other than a major
copyright player (in terms of $$$) bothering to go after anything
that might transit the USENet/network.

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: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing