From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:14:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23612
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

>> 1. Definition of the parties to the contract

>The posters and the owners of the computers which are connected to 
>the net..
I'm sorry, but while we're still disputing the terms, you can't
possibly argue that we agree, and you can't possibly argue that
discussing the issue constitutes agreement.  

>> 2. A "meeting of the minds" between the parties

>They willingly allow you to post and you willingly post, knowing
>that they will copy your work all over creation (and US law 
>gives you a copyright for your works, so either everyone on usenet
>is violating that copyright or you are granting a license to copy.)
Of course, Ford ignores two simple facts, first that copyright
law exists in a specific form regardless of what he says, and that
no site is obligated to take a message.  As they are not obligated
to take a message, this point about "willing" is simply silly.
They may be WILLING to take the source code to all useful 
operating systems, but that's not legal, either.

>> 3. Consideration
>Both parties end up smarter.  
Easily disputed.

>Many of the sites make profits selling access to what you want
>other people to read.
That, perhaps is consideration, but not to the owner of the copyright,
ergo only half a point.

>The poster gets his work distributed.
The poster has gotten his work distributed for years without
any claim of relinquishing copyright.  There is no reason, 
current or historical, to suggest that any change is needed.  The
only driving force here seems to be that Mr. Ford wants to eliminate
respect for intellectual property.

>The poster grants copyright license to the (owners of)
>     computers on the net.
Some of us explicitly do so, for certain uses, and explicitly
not for some of the "new" "USENET" uses.  Just because a network exists
does not permit new uses, of different kinds, just because somebody
has given them a network feed.  They're still bound by law, despite
the contract of attachment Mr. Ford would like to try to create,
and despite the fact that disagreement has been clear, clearly preventing any
outright appearance of agreement.

>> >The agreement with your feed is one agreement, but part of that 
>> >agreement is to be a part of the net, which is another agreement.
What agreement?  Again, no such agreement exists, except perhaps between
individual feeds, or individual owners.  There is no "overriding"
agreement, and this discussion makes THAT completely clear.

>The agreement to be part of the net is an agreement with each and
>every one of the owners of the computers which are "part of the net."
There is no such agreement.  You have falsely asserted this
repeatedly, but you have yet to offer any evidence.  The only agreements
that even MAY exist are site-to-site agreements, and I know for
a fact even those vary substantially.  There is no agreement with
each and every owner, and cannot be, because that would necessarily
require each owner to communicate with each poster, and require each
owner and each poster to be mutually aware.  This, I suspect, is
more than untrue, it's impossible.  There is no overall agreement,
and all the assertion in the world only will make you look more
foolish, Mr. Ford.  Why do you persist?

>Yes, not only is it unilateral, it is inconsistent with your actions,
>which show that you agree to the free transmission of this message.
That $100 charge is just like your falsely asserted contract,
it's a contract of attachment.  That differs entirely from a
copyright statement, the appearance and meanign of which is
a statuatory issue. 

>Same thing as when you decide not to read the fine print on the
>back of any contract -- U R SCREWED!
There is no contract, there is no fine print, and the "newuser"
documents you refer to specify that they are advisory only, and
that they constitute nothing but the author's opinion.
Some contract!  What's more, some of us have existed, if you
MUST argue a contract exists, from long before any silly ideas about
"public domain" were offered, and must assert that we hold a long-standing
contract that asserts otherwise.  The fact that we can no more
produce this contract than you have been able, despite four months
of bald assertions, to produce yours, points, I think, quite clearly
to the truth, i.e. there is no such contract, not now, not ever.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.