From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:28:13 GMT

In article <157crjINNbl9@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>>which apply to your use of the net.
>
>Heh.  Exactly who do you imagine to be party to this unsigned
>"contract" you declare to exist?  Good luck getting a judge to
>enforce a "contract" that was never agreed to, and whose terms
>have been explicitly rejected.
>
>Under U.S. copyright law, I own the rights to my works.  Despite
>what you might prefer, I choose not to release those rights with
>respect to my Usenet postings.  When you own Usenet, then you can
>require me to release my rights as a condition of posting.  Until
>then, I choose to retain those rights.

However, if you post to USENET, you know that you have no reasonable
expectation of restriucting distribution (or you should have known)
and any such duplication, archiving, etc. would (IMHO) be viewed by
a court as an implied contract (permission) that you gave when you
posted.  Yes, you own the copyright, but any and all distribution by
the network is (IMHO) an authorized copy you granted.  Similarly,
you know or should have known that posting to the netwoek does
NOT contain any methodology to restrict distribution (eg. you don't
want a particular post to go to any site in Kansas) even if you 
place such a restriction in your post.

In my opinion, the mere act of posting to the network constitutes
acceptance of the fact that widespread (worldwide) distribution of
your post can and may occur and that efforts to claim otherwise are
rediculous.  Another poster made a good anaology with the "letters
to the editor" section of say the NY Times.  If you send a letter
and include a limitation that said you don't want it printed in
the overseas edition of the Times, the paper likely wouldn't even
accept it.  In essence, posting to the network tells all the sites
that they can copy it at will through whatever methods and meiums
constitute their involvement with what is loosely defined as USENET.

Bottom line is that the network exists, the network is NOT in violation
of any copyright laws, it is the responsibility of any poster
to understand (if they care at all) the distribution processes
that constitute the network today (and they'll expand in the future),
and to realize that posting does not provide any means to limit
distribution as a function of anything said or included in a
particular post.  That is the "impied contract/understanding/etc.
that anyone posting should be aware of.  If they are not, then they
are using a process that they are ignorant of and certainly would have
no claim (IMHO) to argue that their ignorance is/was the fault of
the network.

Having said all that, let me end by saying I still believe that a
copyright exists and is owned by the poster, BUT the posting has
initiated an almost limitless permission to distribute and copy
through the network, 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
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing