Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!evan
From: evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changes to the monthly postings (for rec.humor.funny)
Message-ID: <493@telly.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 89 21:46:19 GMT
References: <2706@looking.UUCP> <2844@epimass.EPI.COM> <1448@vsi1.COM> <371@twwells.uucp>
Organization: System telly, Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 60

In article <371@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <1448@vsi1.COM> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes:
>: Brad has NO ownership rights unless he copyrights the material, which
>: would be pretty funny since it's not his creation.
>
>He does have a copyright. Read his monthly posting for the details.
>The copyright is for the compilation, not the contents.

While nobody is questioning this kind of copyright for a book of r.h.f.
compilations, I suspect that the Usenet activity of passing along 'approved'
messages without changing their content would not qualify.

A book or other single body of collected material is in itself a creative
work. Newsgroup moderation, on the other hand, is a destructive act rather
than creative - Brad's main function is to reject jokes, not create them.
Can one copyright moderation? Don't bet on it.

Because I, as site administrator, choose to reject postings containing
binaries, and since my software appends my site name to the 'Path' of
each article passing through here (thus altering its content), does that
give me the right to claim copyright on everything passing through this
site? Well, I could _claim_ it, but no one and no court would recognize it.

What's the difference?

>Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit?  It is not to prevent
>anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the
>event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the
>newsgroup.

If you hadn't noticed, the JEDR affair never made it to the courts. It
was 'tried' and argued in the media, at MIT and Waterloo U., and of
course on Usenet. Explicit copyright wouldn't have changed a thing.

Further, I would suggest that explicit copyright on r.h.f will cause
MORE trouble for Brad than keeping the status quo. By claiming rights
to the material in r.h.f, Brad is also explicitly acknowledging legal
responsibilty for its existance. One could not say "Hey, I just pass
the stuff along, I don't create it", while claiming copyright on it.
Either you're a source or a conduit - not both.

>Because of him saying what he does, there are two legal possibilities:
>if the offended party hasn't obtained his permission he gets thrown
>out of court. If he has, then he has agreed to the bullshit, and gets
>thrown out of court. End of problem.

In your dreams. One can obtain the jokes in r.h.f with permission, find
them offensive, and attempt to prosecute and/or sue. Just saying that 
people read your remarks at their own risk does not give you additional
rights to write something libelous (pornographic, whatever) with impunity.

>BTW, it is clear from Brad's posting that he doesn't like this
>bullshit any better than you do.

And he may one day be sorry he started it.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Evan Leibovitch, System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan
  And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."