Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att!chinet!patrick
From: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Procedure for rec.humor.funny debate
Message-ID: <7650@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 7 Feb 89 06:28:55 GMT
References: <2726@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 79

In article <2726@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I am distressed by this recent tone of "ownership of intellectual work
>is evil" on the net.  Is it just a loud few, or is it a real, amost
>unanimous sentiment?

I don't see any "ownership of intellectual work is evil" thinking here.
I don't see anyone saying you should not own intellectual work. But you
yourself have said that your work has been that of compiler; not author.
There is no intellectual process involved in editing messages and having
the right to post edited text on the network.

If you want to create something of your own, claim ownership and profit
from it, please do. No problem with that; the newspapers buy my stuff
occassionally also.

The sentiment is that people are posting things on Usenet, via your
group, which they posted in good faith as PUBLIC DOMAIN material. The
sentiment is that many, many people participate in the daily production
we call Usenet. Public, non-profit networks of this sort are unique,
in that they rely on the goodwill of all to make them succeed. 

What if someone, like a backbone administrator for example, were to cull
through the messages on the entire net over a two year period -- including
messages in r.h.f., and then publish something called "The Best of 
Usenet Messages" -- and claim compilation copyright based on the several
hours he had to labor each week getting his machine to work properly in
handling news? Would you like that? 


>Those of you who wish to argue against the concept of compilation copyright
>and the implications I have outlined should get together and form your
>document.

There is no argument with compilation copyright where many publications are
concerned....just that it does not belong on Usenet. It would work fine,
and in fact be quite appropriate on Compuserve, or Dow Jones, or Source.
But not here.


>That's the reality, but other internal structures are possible.  Some
>desire a "communist" system, where nothing can be owned, and everything
>is free -- where everything comes from each participant according to his/her
>abilities and to each participant according to his/her needs.  Some opt
>for pure communism (a subset of anarchy) where no rules enforce that, and
>some, like the Free Software Foundation, opt for a communism where this
>is enforced by the rules of the outside world.

But communism is not what we have here. Usenet is a mutual network of
participating system administrators and others who have agreed to pass
news groups back and forth, in echange for the benefits that each recieves
from their ease in reading what others have posted. No more, no less. It
has nothing to do with communism, democracy or any other political theory.

>At times, some have suggested a real structure, with membership agreements
>and the works.  This have never progressed very far.
>
>It is my feeling that it is best to stick with the real, minarchist structure
>that underlies the net.  But others disagree.  The communist ideal of
>complete and free flow of information has appeal, but it is my belief
>that private ownership actually encourages the development and flow of
>resources/information in both the real world and the information world.

I think its going to have to become a 'real structure' one of these days, or
the net will collapse under its own weight. The people who really have
concern for the welfare of the net and its future should begin thinking 
about the day that things have to be spelled out more closely. In my time
here, I have already seen incidents which have stunk everything up, and
been appalled at some of the things people have done.

So you believe that 'private ownership actually encourages the development
and flow of resources.....'  Indeed, it does. Trouble is, you don't own
anything, at least in this context. What is here is owned by everyone
here, at least where the information is concerned. 


-- 
Patrick Townson 
  patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code)
  FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) /  MCI Mail: 222-4956