From: lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Usenet, Magazines, and Moderated Groups.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:35:12 EDT
Organization: LORC Enterprises
Followup-To: news.admin.policy

(Followups redirected to news.admin.policy)

Ok, I've sat back, taken a few breaths, attempted a followup to an article of
peterd's (which failed because of the broken software I run...:-)), and
thought through things very carefully.  Consider this:

The question "does anyone care to defend [magazine Usenet articles]?" was posed
by peterd.  Well, let's see...

<Devil's Advocate mode ON>

If Usenet is a service to readers, and the interactive nature is not assumed,
then would publishing the contents of comp.sys.mac.announce in Computer Shopper
be a Usenet use?  Think carefully before answering.  Read the following points
(note that I reserve the right to be WRONG at any time :-)):

1.) Computer Shopper cannot be construed to be "Pay-For-Read."  Anybody who 
thinks it is should go to a newstand and buy one.  For my $2.98, I get a whole
ream of colored paper.  I can't buy a ream of white paper in the nearest
office supply for that price (I live in the sticks...).  So, I am not buying
content, really, I'm paying the distribution and materials cost (so are the
advertisers, but that's a different story).

2.) If ALL posts to comp.sys.mac.announce are printed, is this a derived
work FROM comp.sys.mac.announce?  Note the last clause: I'll get to the
implications of moderated groups shortly.  Since there has been no modification
in information content, and the WHOLE thing is printed, then, no it is not
a derived work. (Note: the reason I chose Computer Shopper is simply because
of its size--it is the only magazine I know of that could print a whole
newsgroup and stay relatively the same size!)

3.) Is Computer Shopper an archive, in this case? Are you serious?  I know of
no one who keeps Computer Shopper longer than a few months (hey, I did say
the *I* didn't know of anyone, not that there was *no one* who kept it longer).

Now, let's look at a few other things:

1.) Moderated newsgroups pose a completely different set of problems.  These
newsgroups, by their very nature, involve another human in the copying loop.
A moderated newsgroup is obviously a derived work, as I have SEEN edited posts
in moderated groups.  Now, what if the poster DOES NOT KNOW that the group
is moderated and puts a copyright notice on the post?  Well, if I were
moderator, I woiuld simply e-mail the poster, request the proper permission
(including the statement that the post won't be posted without explicit
permission (I think Brad is already doing this to an extent) and that the post
may be edited by the moderator), then post the edited post with the permission
statement appended.  Note that under Berne a copyright notice is not required
at any time and you will begin to see the problems.  Would the moderator of a
high traffic group really want to extract explicit permission from each poster?
There may not be any choice.

In this case, even though the poster is commanding a *copy* operation to be
performed, the poster is not releasing the rights to derivative works.  So,
since the moderator is a human and is preparing a derived work (which
supports Brad's Collection copyrights, BTW), it is no longer a simple
copying operation. (Note that Devil's Advocate Mode is STILL ON)...

2.) Are archives REALLY that much different from regular Usenet?  So, instead
of using an NNTP based reader to get articles from a long-expire site, I am
using the same network and the same machine, just using a different program
suite, to retrieve the same articles into the same user's directory.  Is using
ftp and grep any different than using NNTP-based readers?  If yes, then a word
to all archive sites: provide NNTP access directly to the archives, ie, set
an indefinite expire time for articles in the archived groups.  If you wish,
you can store the articles in an archive file (to save on inode usage), as
long as individual articles are available directly via the "normal" news 
mechanism.

3.) If the hypothetical example of the AT&T code being distributed was to
come to pass, I have a major gut feeling that AT&T could shut the whole net
down simply by claiming that the fact that such a uncontrolled mechanism
exists (anybody want to argue that there is CONTROL on Usenet??) is in itself
illegal--or, to put it more simply, that it would need to be regulated in 
order to prevent such a thing from happening again.  If Usenet was to be 
regulated, I have a hunch that a big loss would occur.  I don't even have
a reasonable suggestion of how to cope with this threat except (horror!!!) 
that, as unwanted as it may be, Usenet may need some form of control
capability (NOTE! Devil's Advocate Mode is *STILL* ON).  No, I don't
want this to take place.  But, which is the lesser evil: death of Usenet, or
a modicum of control on Usenet?  Yes, I agree, I don't want either of those.
                            
<Devil's Advocate Mode OFF>

Devil's Advocate: One who argues a position solely to provide a counterweight
to the prevailing argument.  Literally translated: One who lives in a flaming
Hell.  The D.A. does not have to agree with the position that he/she is
arguing, in fact, in most cases, the D.A. does NOT; but argues simply to
help those arguing the prevailing argument understand their position better.

My position:

1.) Copyright is Copyright is Copyright--Usenet is NOT above the law.

2.) A poster on Usenet is commanding a COPY operation by the act of posting.

3.) Usenet is defined as those sites who RECEIVE any groups in the
news.announce  hierarchy.  These sites my chose any groups they wish to rx,
but cannot just rx selected messages within a group.

4.) The ALTnet is not, and has never been, part of Usenet; as many of the
guidelines for Usenet do not apply there.

5.) INET is not, and has never been, part of Usenet, it is rather a set of
mailing lists that behave similarly to other newsgroups.

6.) Clarinet is not Usenet.

7.) Usenet needs not be interactive, as the majority of Usenet users NEVER
post.  This is called lurking.  I hope that we never have ALL the lurkers
post an article each at the same time!

8.) Usenet is akin to a old-fashioned bulletin board in that its items are
publicly readable.  Usenet users can, if they wish, mail a reply to an 
originator of a bulletin (in which case the medium is no longer Usenet), or,
if the particular bulletin board (newsgroup) is unlocked (unmoderated), they
can directly post a reply.  If, however, the bulletin board is locked, the
would-be poster has to make a memo to the owner of the bulletin board with
a request to post.

9.) Usenet media are noted by the characteristics of not altering the
information content or signal-to-noise ratio of publicly posted articles 
within a newsgroup. Ifthe signal-to-noise ratio is increased by a medium,
then that medium is not Usenet.  Moderated newsgroups, once posted, are moved 
with the standard Usenet media, however, the origination of the newsgroup 
involves a signal-to-noise ratio increase caused by the filtering actions of 
the moderator.  This moderation mechanism is producing a derived work--even 
though moderation is definitely a Good Thing.

I'm all for Usenet, and all for copyrights in the derived work sense mentioned
by peterd, and all for moderation.  I simply feel that the issues have not
been defined well enough where Usenet as its amorphous whole could possibly
weather a lawsuit.  What needs to be defined?  Well, for starters, What is
Usenet?  (Yes, I've RTFAQL--but it leaves alot to be desired from a legal
standpoint).  Does Usenet even have a legal existence?  What are "like
facilities?"  What is "pay-for-read?" (In my book, it is "you read an
article, now you pay this predetermined rate for that article".)  I'm also
all for a free flow of information.  Sounds contradictory, no?  I'm confused
myself, but I know that someone here who knows alot more than I can find the 
happy (or not so happy) middle ground that will allow both the legalities
to be satisfied as well as the NEED for free information flow.

Whew....

(Flames to /dev/extngsher, please. :-))

--

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.
***********************************************************************