From: peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Bunyip Information Systems (the archie people)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:07 GMT

In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
.  .  .
>If someone can convince a judge of the "the poster is making the
>copies" interpretation, then things are different. That makes anything
>copying that is triggered as part of news propogation legal.
>
>As has been pointed out elsewhere, this isn't really something we can
>have choice about. Posting must include implicit permission for many
>kinds of copying; otherwise to many of the people providing services
>to the net are open to lawsuits.  Anything else leaves to many people
>to vulnerable to lawsuits.


Well, this does sound supiciously like "if we all break the
law, then we will be sued, so let's agree to ignore the
law", but it could just be me.

I think most people assume they are granting permission
for copying in the context of an automated, distributed
bulletin board service. The reason this debate wont die is
that there are two possible interpretations of what else
is allowed. Some are claiming that granting such
permission renounces all other rights, and some (count me
in this camp) are arguing that I can grant a limited right
in this context without renouncing my rights to a future
mini-series deal.


>That's why I'd like some reasonable mechanism in place so authors (and
>those service providers) can recognize articles that have
>restrictions, and deal with them appropriately.

We have exactly such a mechanism now. It's the
"Distibution:" field of the header, and people regularly
use it to control the automated copying software to limit
distribution of their work. Thus, I would argue that the
concept of "not for everyone, and not forever" is already
firmly established in the Usenet system. What's at debate
(it seems to me) is exactly what the default behaviour
should be when we don't specify instructions to the contrary.

So how about? Can we all agree on some more words to stick
in there, like "no_cdrom", or "no_paper", or
"electronic_only", or even "no_EBCIDC"? Then, if I put
them in and you ignore it, haven't you violated my clearly
stated wishes not to distribute my work without bound?

A last note, I haven't put such a notice in my header in
for two reasons.  First, I still believe my restrictions
are implicit, given my limited knowlege of the world's
copyright laws.  Second, I'm not sure most current
software would handle it, and I _do_ want my posting to
reach readers of Usenet on the electronically accessible
parts of the Usenet tree, provided noone is charging you
for anything other than fees for delivery, _not_ content.
I recognize that pirates might still steal my work, but I
can't be responsible for the illegal acts of others.


				- peterd

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch,
Bunyip Information Systems,     phone:  (514) 398-3709
266 Blvd Neptune,               FAX:    (514) 398-6876
Dorval, Quebec, H9S 2L4         email:  peterd@bunyip.com
Disclaimer? What disclaimer? I'm president of the company
and own half the stock. these _are_ the opinions of the
company...
----------------------------------------------------------------------