Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!agate!garnet!weemba
From: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: The Cincinnatus Society of Pinheads
Message-ID: <15838@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 22 Oct 88 03:31:32 GMT
References: <15638@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <7068@dasys1.UUCP> <391@flatline.UUCP> <15798@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <15800@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <31186@bbn.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 26
In-reply-to: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)

In article <31186@bbn.COM>, levin@bbn (Joel B Levin) writes:

>Mr. Berch's article stated that notification to holders of copies was
>insufficient, that notice had to be imprinted on each copy.  I think
>'supersedes' falls more under the former category, especially as it
>would have no effect on legally printed copies of the article, or
>archived or backup copies.  Sorry.

Am I to post presuming that people are going to be archiving and backing
up all my articles?  Hell, if I believed that, I *would* be a gung-ho
rah-rah member of the Cincinnatus Society!

The existence of legally printed copies (that I cannot get at) from
versions with missing copyrights is irrelevant in the hypothetical
situation that I'm considering.  Or at least, that's the thrust I
get from Jordan Breslow's <1930@vaxwaller.UUCP>, which Michael Berch
referred us all to.

Consider: I can legally photocopy for private use an article out of a
magazine that had an omitted copyright notice, and which the publisher
then makes a quick attempt to rectify.  USENET is different, yes.  What
I'm asking: just how different?  I know, I know, nobody knows.  But I
think this sort of stuff is worth thinking about--and can we push for
legislation that defined the legal gray zone we live in?  Ugh...

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720