From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Last Call: Re: Copyright Summary .  .  .
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 18:51:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.165411.28908@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>In article <8QVHLWH@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul30.185152.19513@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>>>	I am of the opinion that the CD-ROM may be in some form of
>>>technical violation of copyright if it is sold to a person who could not
>>>possibly come into the possession of its contents in some other manner.
>>
>>How does this differ from the traditional "news feed on magtape"? You're
>>thinking of it as an archive. Try thinking of it as Usenet.
>
>If you cannot respond to a posting you read on CD-ROM, how
>could it be considered a part of Usenet? Isn't the two-way,
>interactive part an essential component of what makes it
>Usenet?

That's just one opinion.  It remains to the courts, if ever
such a suit is filed, to determine if a definition of the
network requires that all readers of Netnews must have two-way
capability in order to be considered part of the USENET environment.

>Using a CD-ROM copy of the Usenet feed to send postings
>one way and mag tape or optical disk to send them back, it
>would seem part of the transport layer for Usenet, but
>selling or using a CD-ROM of Usenet postings outside of
>this context seems to be a fairly clear violation of
>posters' copyright.

It MAY be a violation, but it sure isn't clear in my mind
that a court wouldn't accept the idea that a poster knows that 
CD-ROM is part of the distribution process and therefore has given
permission by the act of posting for CD-ROM distribution.  The fact
that some folks buy the CD-ROM is (I belive) irrelevent, just as
the claim that a poster's copyright notice can somehow be used
to enforce a claim against "pay-for-net-access" distrinbution
of the post.

> If you don't like that then you can
>campaign to get the law changed in your own country, but
>I'm starting to find these Canute-like attempts to deny
>reality are bginning to get pretty tedious.

Actually, no need to change any law unless a court sides against 
the CD-ROM distribution and/or any other distribution aspect of
what we loosely call the network/USENET.  Considering all the
concern, especially about CD-ROM distribution, I don't see
anyone going after the vendors of those CD-ROMs.  The longer that
goes on, the more likely the courts  will view the CD-ROM
distribution as a viable part of the "permissions" one automatically
gives when posting to the network.

>Look, no one gets sued because there's no money in it, but
>rest assured that someday somebody will sue and we'll all
>get a chance to see how far we were off the mark. Until
>then this have taken on all the classic hallmarks of a
>religious debate. There are those who believe that the law
>will prevail, and those who seem to believe that somehow
>Usenet is something so revolutionary that it goes beyond
>the law. hurumph. I doubt it.

USENET does NOT go beyond the law, even today.  It is NOT
the reponsibility of USENET to restrict distribution of a
post simply because a poster includes some distribution constraint
at the end of his/her message.  I have absolutely no doubt that
the first thing a court would look at is the way the network
operates and therefore what any poster might expect to happen 
because of a copyright constraint contained in a post.  That
expectation is nothing.

As before, all this does not change the fact that a writer has
a copyright in his/her work, the bottom line question is:
what copying permissions are being granted (implied) by the fact
that someone posts a message?  I believe they are pretty much
unlimited.  I think there can be a limit recognized by a court if
someone takes (obviously by human intervention) a post and then
publishes it as part of a magazine article, etc.  Other than
that, storing, forwarding, archiving on Winchester disks,
CD-ROM, PC hard drives, floppy disks, ftp sites
etc. I think are perfectly legal and are now an
integragal part of the network.

In reality, that IS the case today as no one in favor of
eliminating the CD-ROM distribution (or any other method
of distribution, pay to read, etc) is stepping forward
to drive the issue anywhere else.  Adsent any other firm legal
position from a court, I still see no reason to change any
aspect of the Network/USENET, nor do I see any effort being'started
to have that happen (Thankfully).

>Okay, that was hopefully my last shot. Please, everybody,
>don't provoke me. I have a terminal and I've demonstrated
>that I will use it!  :-)

Nah, can't let you go that easily... :-)

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: news.admin