Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!indetech!cirrus!dhesi From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin Subject: Re: copyright status and future development of comp.archives Message-ID: <1991Jun24.175523.17435@cirrus.com> Date: 24 Jun 91 17:55:23 GMT References: <1991Jun24.001311.11155@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> Sender: news@cirrus.com Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 33 In <1991Jun24.001311.11155@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> oz@nexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: >I don't believe your position (within USENET context) as a moderator of a >public newsgroup in a public network, re-posting public information [albeit >after much effort] entitles you to a copyright on that information. Before everybody starts talking at cross-purposes, let's make sure what the term "public" means, at least in the USA. In phrases like "public school" and "public road", the term "public" means "government-funded" and/or "government-controlled." (Nobody has ever stopped me from transporting copyrighted material on a public highway or using it in a public school.) In phrases like "public place" when referring to, e.g., a restaurant, the term "public" means "privately owned but open to anybody who is willing to pay for service." (I occasionally read copyrighted material in a restaurant without invoking anybody's wrath. Even the menus are often copyrighted!) In phrases like "public place" when referring to, e.g., a city or state or national park, the term "public" means "government-controlled but open to everybody who can squeeze in." (I have never been stopped from reading of carrying copyrighted material in a park.) So think about which meaning of "public" is intended here. Then tell me why this meaning should prevent the posting of copyrighted information to the net. (We already have tons of copyrighted software posted.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi