Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!pyramid!decwrl!sun!chuq
From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Policing Ourselves (Was: Re: Followup on "Man of Steel ...)
Message-ID: <4784@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 4-Jul-86 13:26:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.4784
Posted: Fri Jul  4 13:26:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jul-86 08:53:36 EDT
References: <308@hp-sdd.UUCP> <4703@sun.uucp> <484@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 53

> I agree, we should police ourSELVES.  That is why I have to agree with the
> original poster about tattling.  I followed all the postings in reference to
> this issue.  It seems to me that the original poster of Niven's work took
> enough abuse from the net.police without the need to drag outside parties
> into it.

I agree completely.  We SHOULD police ourselves.  However, you are
forgetting one major thing.  This is a case where the policing FAILED.
Usenet, through one of its users, BROKE THE LAW.  In this case, we could
only have compounded it by not informing Niven.  It is NOT enough to slap
someone's hands, but it was also neccessary for the victim to be aware of
the problem so that HE has the option to deal with it.

Why?

Good question. Here is a scenario.  Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex is posted
to the network, sans copyright.  Someone out there grabs it and considering
it to be in the public domain, decides to publish it in an anthology of
works.  I mean, it's free, it's well written, and it has a name author
attached.  Said anthology sells 1 million copies paperback and 25,000
hardback plus a Science Fiction Book Club alternate.  Anthology makes a
mint.  Niven makes nothing.

Guess who is at fault?  Most likely, Ken and USENET.  The anthologist had
no reason to believe it wasn't public domain and used it in good faith.  A
story from a name author in the above situation could be worth about
$25,000, more or less.  Since we are guilty of the breach, we're liable to
repay Niven for that lost revenue.  We're also liable for court costs to
recover the above, our court costs, possibly punative damages, and possibly
a figure for lost future revenue.  Total cost? Good question. Say $100,000.

Now, here is the other scenario.  Same as above, except someone notified
Niven of the violation and he chose not to pursue it.  We aren't liable.
Cost? to the net, nothing. To me, $.22 for a stamp and a bunch of flames.

The above is full of round numbers and some oversimplifications, but the
situation is realistic.  Policing ourselves is wonderful, as long as we
don't break the rules.  We are NOT an entity unto ourselves.  You have to
remember that in any situation like there there are not only our interests,
but THEIR interests, since there is a transgressor and a transgressee.  

I think the answer is real simple.  Don't break the rules.  But when you DO
break the rules, you shouldn't be surprised to be held accountable.


-- 
:From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid:          Chuq Von Rospach 
chuq%plaid@sun.COM	FidoNet: 125/84		 CompuServe: 73317,635
{decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq

Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be
the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table.
					-- The Anarchist Cookbook