Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site midas.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!teklds!midas!riks
From: riks@midas.UUCP (Rik Smoody)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: Open Letter To Brad Needham and Other Net Cops
Message-ID: <279@midas.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 15:12:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: midas.279
Posted: Wed Apr 24 15:12:57 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 04:21:52 EDT
References: <262@ucsbcsl.UUCP> <1163@hammer.UUCP> <572@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 30

> Geez, YOU again? Why don't you leave people be? Dave Barry's work is
> copyrighted by Knight-Ridder, anyway. The Miami Herald may pick it up, but
> hey, some people on the net are getting the articles directly off the
> Videotex anyway, so they already exist in electronic form anyway. Why the
> hell do you bother? To merely distribute these articles in electronic form
> is no more a provable violation of copyright than posting a printed version
> on a physical bulletin board.
> 
> To Dave Barry fans everywhere: how about if each of you key in one article
> and post it simultaneously? Is Brad gonna tattle on the whole world?
> 
> -- 
> Gary Benson * MS 232E John Fluke Mfg Co Inc * POBox C9090 Everett WA USA 98206

Geez, if you're gonna start a mass rebellion to see who is stonger,
this network or the federal courts, why not pick on a worthy cause
like the IRS?
Copyright laws do exist, and can be enforced.
The mere fact that they are not always does not mean that they cannot be.
You wouldn't stand a chance in court with a feeble argument like yours.
It is no violation of copyright to post a printed version on a physical
bulletin board IFF you have a legitimate physical version.
A photocopy?  Wrong.  Illegal.
Simple?  You bet.

I don't care much, but I hate to see you get too arrogant with
people who are entitled to play hardball.

Rik Smoody
(I won't tell)