Batch, and the article is on its way.

And sites foo and bar (and any sites that are leafs to them) won't see the
article.

> >Yes, it would be easy to implement.  That implementation may be difficult to
> >make correct, but it could easily be implemented.  Doing the Right Thing is
> >far from just doing SomeThing.  And, you are right: this scheme is not the
> >Right Thing.
> 
> It would *not* be "easy to implement".  Nothing would.  Remember we
> are dealing w/ a loosely affiliated bunch of machines with no obligation
> to ugrade anything.  Any proposed changes would have to be "additional

Let me rephrase: it would be esy to *code*.

> >Note also the original target for this technique: those who insist on copyri
> >on Usenet.  You and I agree on the point that copyright being applied to
> >Usenet is not a Good Thing.  Besides, I am like you: If I have something ver
> >valuable, I probably will not post it--unless the common good of the Net is
> >at stake.  My problem is trying to define "valuable" in a meaningful way.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, whether you would *like* copyright law to
> apply to the USENET or not, it does.  The problem is figuring out
> exactly how -- and that is something we probably do *not* want to
> leave until the laywers get brought into it....

Ok, my English is bad.  Oh well.  Oh, for a spoken tongue with the preciseness
of assembler... (of course, even assembler is ambiguous, but I digress). I'm
not even going to try to explain what I meant to say, because I simply cannot
express it, nor can I remember that far back in time.  To say I am behind on
reading new.admin would be a severe understatement.

Of course copyright holds on Usenet--Copyright is the Law, not just a good
idea (and, there are those who insist that it is NOT a good idea).  As you
stated so well in paragraphs adove that I deleted, copyright law is there, and
needs to be dealt with.  I am, and was, simply brainstorming.

> >> >It all boils down to one issue: which is more important, the poster's rig
> >> >to restrict an article's distribution, or the reader's right to read any 
> >> >all articles?
> 
> The reader can read 'em -- but he can *not* republish 'em.

Then we have another dilemma: WHO is the "reader"?  (I *hate* legalease
semantic bickering, but, as so many here have explained, when dealing with the
law, one needs to adapt to their jargon and their rules in order to effectively
communicate.  To relate this to the net.community, if someone posted an article
using Jargon terms in incorrect meanings, using incorrect form, cross-posted
to comp.*, and had a 4000 line signature, there would be instant flames--and 
that person might as well never visit Usenet again.  Likewise, lawyers, which in
ANY court case are going to have to be dealt with, look down upon, with
disdain, people who cannot use their jargon and rules effectively.  We would
call such people 'lusers'.)

>               -Richard Hartman

> Never speak in absolutes.  It will always lead to trouble.

So true....

[Note: due to news.admin reorg, this followup has been placed in the 
news.admin.policy group.  Followups directed there.]

--

Lamar Owen, Systems Consultant, GE Lighting Systems, Hendersonville, NC
***********************************************************************
 Opinions expressed herein are the author's and do not reflect policy
   or opinions of the General Electric Company or its subsidiaries.
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general