Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!zinn!ditka!qiclab!leonard
From: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation: A Moderator's Response
Message-ID: <2213@qiclab.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 89 03:39:26 GMT
References: <41197@bbn.COM> <12113@well.UUCP> <41207@bbn.COM> <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> <632@biar.UUCP>
Reply-To: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Organization: Qic Laboratories, Portland, Oregon.
Lines: 52

In article <632@biar.UUCP> jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) writes:
<In article <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes:
<>***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are 
<>***UUNET Communications Services.
<
<Another way to get the intended effect would be to say "only
<non-profit organizations may charge".  This would more generally
<discriminate between those who would use Usenet to profit-minded ends
<and the Rest Of Us ;-)

Sorry, but "non-profit organization" != "organization that doesn't make
a profit". "Non-profit organization" has a very specific legal meaning
that is quite different from what you have in mind. And I rather doubt
that more than a small fraction of the sites on the net are *legally*
non-profit. And odds are that they aren't the ones charging for access.

This is being pointed out to avoid the fate of the BBS sysops in 
Oklahoma who were asked by SW Bell "are you a business or are you
non-profit". Due to the *legal* meaning of non-profit being different
than the one you seem to think it has, *either* answer resulted in
business phone rates. The "proper answer" was "neither, this is a 
hobby".

The only thing I can think of that would do what you seem to want,
is to say "The In Moderation Network may not carry this message."
Or something like that. If it's as important to you as you seem to
imply, then my advice is to find a *good* lawyer who either understands
the net or can be taught. But from previous discussions on copyright
and the net, I'd be willing to make a small bet that you'll be told
that the net isn't explicitly covered and there are no clear 
precedents, so there is now way to guess what would happen if you
wound up in court. *And* that the kind of limited distribution
you want isn't possible (as in the *legal* way of accomplishing
it isn't practical). What do you do if you are told that given
the nature of the law and of the net, the only way to do it is
to *explicitly* list the systems you are giving permission to?
Wouldn't that do wonders for volume?  From your comments I doubt
that an explicit list of sites denied permission would meet your
wishes. 

The whole problem boils down to this:
	The law expects you to be explicit in stating the limitations.
	If you aren't, then it will be the *courts* that decide the
	interpretation of any ambiguities, not you. Are you willing
	to take that risk?


-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short