Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation
Message-ID: <3600@looking.on.ca>
Date: 8 Jul 89 05:00:52 GMT
References: <3300@epimass.EPI.COM> <197600001@inmet> <14403@bfmny0.UUCP> <3749@viscous.sco.COM> <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> <3579@looking.on.ca> <24B4CCD7.5183@ateng.com>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 29
Class: rebuttal

Let's not get down to the read my lips level...

But you say IMN might limit redistibution on articles.  But do they?

Take any given article from IMN.  Can you redistribute it?  YES.

Take another, can you redistribute it?  YES.  This one?  YES.

This is true for *any* article that doesn't have a special copyright
applied to it.  Thus it's true for an article that says "you may only
redistribute this if your recipients may." and for one that doesn't

In fact, the "you may only redistribute...." is a non-statement, since
*nobody* can prohibit redistribution of a single article that you write and
post without restriction. 

But can you re-send *all* the articles in an IMN group?  No.  It is the
collection that you can't redistribute, not the articles themselves.

Where does the borderline reside?  It's undefined.  In the end, if anybody
wanted to go that far, a judge would decide if the bulk redistribution of
some large chunk of something like IMN captialized unfairly on the moderator's
efforts.

But I still don't understand the fuss, and particularly from Patrick Townson,
who, at last account, made great speaches about how a moderator should have no
control over what happens to a group once he/she sends it out.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473