From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 03:19:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep08.231313.3426@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>I prefer to look at the issue of copying articles from one site to the next
>as falling under the "fair use" doctrine. When you post to USENET, "fair
>use" means that each subsequent site will store and forward your articles
>as appropriate. This "fair use doctrine" is similar to that which is used
>in other mediums for determining the amount of original material you can
>copy from a source before requiring a written waiver/agreement to use said
>material.

Great, that adds another counter argument to the copying limitation that
a site might raise as a defense against a charge of copyright violation by
a poster who claimed his/her post had a distribution limitation on it.

I was thinking abit more about the telephone network analogy and I think 
there's some good similarities.  As you correctly mentioned, the telephone
network has no responsibility for the content of messages.  No burden
of monitoring for content is placed on the telephone network.

By comparison, the USENet/network doesn't monitor posts for content
either (nor should it in my opinion).  A poster originates a message
and sends it to the world with no other addressing other than a
newsgroup name.  My analogy then is that the poster is sending
his/her post to all sites that choose to subscribe/carry/receive
that newsgroup.  The network addressing process while allowing
for a distribution field, does not guarantee that a post will
be limited to that distribution field and, more importantly, there
is no way to eliminate distribution via certain mediums that some posters
do not want (ie. CD-ROM, pay-to-read, etc.)

So, it seems we agree in principle (I think) that posting with a
copy distribution limitation is meaningless and not likely to result
in a copyright violation against any site for distributing a post
contrary to the poster's limitation.  We have then, at least 4 possible
network defenses against a copyright violation charge by a poster:

1. Command model
2. Implied contract (I know you don't agree with this one)
3. Fair Use 
4. Telephone network analogy

Should some site ever be charged by a poster with copyright violations
relative to that poster's post, I think the attorney(s) for the site would
use every defense possible to have the charge dismissed.
It then becomes the burden of the poster (plaintiff) to succesfully
challenge each and every defense raised by the site (defendant).

Mike - While not really related to misc.legal.computing, I'd like to
mention that lot's of packages/shipments come into any receiving
department of a company that have no Purchase Order info because no PO
was required for the shipment.  This can include: sample products,
packages shipped by another employee to another site, etc.  Things
would be pretty upsetting in my company if the receiving department
started rejecting anything that came in without a PO number on it.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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