From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:01:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
> In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
[...]
> 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.

The assumptions of most people do not affect the agreement which
each person enters into upon posting.

> >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.

The Distribution field only determines the geographical 
area which you feel is appropriate: anyone can repost that
message all over the world.

> 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?

We all can agree on anything, but it's pretty much pointless.
You see, nobody physically looks at your post before copying
it.  The distribution system is handled by computers: your
instructions to those computers are limited to what the 
software can understand.  Since you have instructed the
computer to send your "work" all over the world, you wont'
get far claiming that someone violated your copyright because
the system does not work as you wish it to.

The software which interfaces you to netnews is written to
accept a certain few variables in the Distribution field:
those you suggest are not amongst them.

Now, you might be able to convince one of the persons responsible
for updates to the software that such items may be good and 
worth the effort to include them, but, given the purpose of 
usenet and the immense effort required to update the source
code, I don't think you'll be able to do that.

> 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.

I strongly and courteously suggest that you read all the posts
in news.announce.newuser before posting again.  What applies here
is not copyright laws, but the terms and conditions of the contract
in which you have freely entered.  

Your lack of understanding of those terms and conditions does not
alter them.  (Indeed, if you fail to recognize that you have entered
a contract, it still does not change the terms and conditions.  --
What? you thought the whole world is letting you use its computers 
without any kind of agreement?)  

And, please! how many people do you know who would pay to use a 
computer if the were not content?  Believe me, if the machines 
which charge for netnew access were to try to continue charging
with no content, their revenues would drop significantly.

The "charge-for-delivery" theory is bogus: nobody pays for modem
time or connect time or machine time unless it has *content*.  You
can play all the semantic games in the world, but the fact is that
nobody pays a penny for the efforts of the supplier: they pay for
the content.

Don't misunderstand my statements: I have tremendous respect for 
intellectual property rights, but you must understand when you
contract away your rights.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: news.admin