Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!watmum!javoskamp From: javoskamp@watmum.waterloo.edu (Jeff Voskamp) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Live News & Professional Electronic Publications in USENET Format Summary: You don't want it - you don't (can't?) get it Message-ID: <10290@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Date: 13 Jun 89 13:37:12 GMT References: <3492@looking.on.ca> <4494@ficc.uu.net> <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Sender: daemon@watcgl.waterloo.edu Reply-To: javoskamp@watmum.waterloo.edu (Jeff Voskamp) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 78 In article <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >In article wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >>ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it >>uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet? >No -- WE don't understand yet. If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet >paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS >VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't >particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the >BUSINESS VENTURE. If you don't subscribe to Clarinet you won't be in Clarinet. From what I've heard so far anyone who passes on a feed to someone who isn't subscribing to Clarinet will be breaking their contract. Clarinet will probably contain a subset of the current Usenet paths. All connections will have to be negotiated. ... >>Which is fine. Because ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Subscribers to ClariNet >>will probably have to sign CONTRACTS. > >That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding >and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches. Probably no more difficult than the current licensing and distribution contracts that are set up for equipment and software. >>If the contract is WORDED well, it will be ILLEGAL for subscribers to pass >>their FEED on to OTHERS. I have no reason to BELIEVE that the contract will >>not be WORDED well. Do we UNDERSTAND yet? > >That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice >and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET. How a >contract will be drafted with this in mind is also interesting since any >contract written will be required to offer VALID access and responses without >using USENET AT ALL!> Usenet is a collections of systems talking together by mutual consent. The non-business agreement is not binding to any great degree. If, for example, the company that I'm working for agrees with another company to set up a mail/news link to facilitate our respective businesses there's nothing that any one else could do about it. It would also be within our rights to dis- allow other companies to use this link for business related communications without our permission. After all, we're paying for the link. For the most part the net uses a "you carry my mail/news and I'll carry yours" attitude. As long as nobody abuses the priviledge people are happy. ... >Yes, we do exist. The law however, regardless of who exists, does not allow >others to benefit from the deeds of a third party without giving that third >party compensation for the expenses incurred, i.e., USENET may seek >compensation for the use that the BUSINESS VENTURE is obtaining. To take >my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in >my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do >not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE. What third party expenses? As has been said above, if you don't want to be part of Clarinet you aren't. It may in fact be illegal for you to carry clarinet groups if you don't subscribe. A couple of lines in the L.sys files of your neighbouring nodes (this is the right file, isn't it?) and you'll never have to see a single clarinet article. The same goes for any soc, comp, talk, etc. groups that you don't like. The main difference is that clarinet sites have a legal obligation to keep articles from slipping out. >If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine >but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and >postings. That's up to the subscribers, otherwise you can end up with a bad case of "you-can't-get-there-from-here". Don't ask me about cross-posting, but I suspect that there'd be something in the contract to cover that. Personal opinion is that you couldn't do it legally. Jeff Voskamp It looks like we're in Trouble. No, I'm in trouble - you're invincible. - My Secret Identity bang path: ...{!uunet}!watmath!watmum!javoskamp domain : javoskamp@watmum.uwaterloo.ca or javoskamp@watmum.waterloo.cdn