Xref: utzoo misc.legal:25873 alt.sources.d:1794 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!gdtltr From: gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor)) Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Charging the net... Message-ID: <21182@brahms.udel.edu> Date: 7 May 91 18:54:57 GMT References: <1991May6.110052.11870@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Followup-To: misc.legal Organization: Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. (BDI) Lines: 34 In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: => =>Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to =>copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to =>abide by the conditions of ownership. => But if a copyright holder posts the copyrighted work, he implicitly authorizes copies to be made on every site receiving the particular group, given the automated nature of news feeds. Further copying may be restricted by the terms of the copyright, but it can't dictate the fair use of the implicitly authorized copies. This doesn't deal with the issue of having a third party post the work. It might be wise to include a clause in the copyright notice preventing broadcast (implicit or explicit) of the work. Disclaimer: This isn't law (to the best of my knowledge), but I think my statements are sensible, and reflect what I think the law should be. As it is, I think I like being a hacker more than I would like being a lawyer. => =>mathew => Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu _o_ ---------------------- _o_ [|o o|] Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice. [|o o|] |_o_| Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. |_o_|