From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 06:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.090855.23677@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>
>>Your limiting one machine is certainly not going to impact with any
>>significance the "far and wide" distribution of the network.  
>
>Hogwash. If my site is UUNET, you bet propagation gets affected.

I didn't say propogation wasn't affected, it remains to be seen
how much of an impact there might be.  1%, 10%, 30%?  Please tell
us exactly how much the lack of one site will affect the total
distribution.

>>As far as I can tell, any court would make a presumption that the
>>person(s) involved with connecting a specific site have the authority to
>>do so.
>
>So, if I were to call McDonald's and order 500 cheeseburgers for everyone
>in my company, and said "charge it to the company", the courts would "assume"
>that I had "authority" to speak for my company?

Your example is too rediculous to be comparable, but if you ordered
a dozen widgets from a company and said bill the company you worked
for (and you provided a company address, etc.) then most companies
would send the goods ASSUMING you had the authority.  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.

>Perhaps I should start calling around town and ordering items for you,
>since I could use a few things, and the courts would "presume" that the
>person doing the contacting (me) would have the authority to do so.

This example bears no relation to the netwnes/sites/contract/posting
example.

>>In fact, I don't see any way that the question of that authority
>>would be called into question unless it was being used by a site to
>>try and eliminate some liability that may have stemmed from a determination
>>of liability because of the connectivity to the network.
>
>Agency is a simple concept in Law of Contracts. Its also an issue here,
>as you claim that someone attaching a computer to a network has in fact
>bound a company to some vague terms which 10,000,000 people are supposed
>to have "agreed" to. 

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.  If that includes general agreements
with other sites, etc. then certainly, the company can be bound by
the actions of the employee.  In this case, the network,
site, site owner isn't being bound in any guaranteed manner anyway,
so the "agreement" with 10,000,000 people poses no threat to the
company.  In fact, it is those that claim there is no contract
(or no command/copying permissions granted) that seem to claim the
corporate site owner is (or may be in certain cases) violating the
copyrighted distribution limitation of a poster and that, therefore, the
corporate site owner is in violation and can be sued, etc.

>Then again, since you seem intent with violating every other tenent of
>Contract Law, why should this one be any different.

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....

>>As Mr. Spock would say, that isn't logical.  If the net exists, it is
>>an entity.  
>
>Can you provide me with its mailing address and state of legal residence,
>please. "The Net" is a concept, not an "entity" recognized as a legal
>individual capable of entering into contracts.

Can you provide me with a mailing address and state of legal residence
for the telephone network that exists?  Is the telephone network/system
in this country a legal entity?  There are hundreds of agreements, 
requirements standards, etc. that define the telephone company, yet
there is no single legal 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.  If you don't think so, give a call
to Judge Greene who has oversight of the breakup of the Bell System.

As to the network/USENet
while the network may not have a single legal addrss, all of
the components of the network sure do (sites, comm links, etc.)

>Let me know when you've finished authoring your first Law book. I love to
>read comedy.

In response to this comment, your own words say it best as you posted
in another post today......I quote:

"Now, if you're going to start to resort to personal slurs...... 
then please don't post.
People have to resort to personal attacks when they have no other arguments
to support their position, and very clearly we don't need such inane babble
cluttering the discussion."   MD

But on second thought, maybe I'll write a lawbook after someone finally
follows up on their assertion that the network violates their copyright
distribution limitation statement by taking the net/site(s) to court.
Every passing day adds greater precedence to the current way in which
the network accepts and distributes posts.

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