Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-lcc!unisoft!mtxinu!sybase!yak!cuccia
From: cuccia@yak.sybase.com (Nick Cuccia)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Introduction to REC.HUMOR.FUNNY -- Monthly Posting
Message-ID: <2910@sybase.sybase.com>
Date: 7 Feb 89 20:11:19 GMT
References: <2712@looking.UUCP> <1449@papaya.bbn.com> <2944@stiatl.UUCP> <363@magnus.UUCP> <2724@looking.UUCP>
Sender: news@sybase.sybase.com
Reply-To: cuccia@sybase.com (Nick Cuccia)
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Lines: 98

Lest I get accused of 
In article <2724@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>1) If members of a site, in response to getting the group for free, do nothing
>but attack it and me, particularly in the press with libel and
>misrepresentation, then I need:
>	A) Legal protection that ensures nobody complains that they were
>	offended without deliberately subscribing and/or decrypting
>	B) The right to say, "if all you're going to do is waste my time
>	complaining about how you don't like what you're getting for free,
>	then you're not getting it any more."

There is another option here that Brad is not acknowledging:

	C) The right to step down and let somebody else become the moderator,
	thus letting them take the heat for what others consider "bad
	judgment."

or was this option never considered?

>2) If the newsgroup is to be picked up by Compuserve/Source/Genie/Delphi/Bix
>or similar organizations that sell access to electronic services for either
>an hourly fee >$3 or a large enough monthly fee to large numbers of readers,
>then *I'm* the one that arranges the link, and *I'm* the one who is the official
>moderator on that service.  (From the descriptions of Portal I have read,
>they don't seem to be a problem.)

Moderator, yes.  Lord High Ruler of All that is Right and Good, no.  Owner
of r.h.f., no.

I see this as an all or nothing situation: either everybody needs to make
arrangements with you concerning connections, or nobody does.  And the answer
to this is obvious: don't distribute r.h.f. as a USENET group.  Keep it as a
conference on a BBS.  Announce the number, state your copyright plainly in
the login session, and disallow downloading of files.

Suppose I, as the postmaster/newskeeper at my site, decided to feed netnews
(including r.h.f.) to Compuserve/BIX/etc.  Given that (despite claims to the
contrary) that you as moderator of r.h.f. do not (and cannot) own r.h.f., what
avenues of recourse do you have?

>3) I am legit in making the annual jokebook, and its compilation copyright
>is OK.

I won't touch this one.  Don't know the details, you may be within your
rights.  But if your goal here is personal profit, then my gut feelings
are as bitter as those who sold the comp.mail.maps databases as a mailing
list...

>Now after examining these needs, I decided that a compilation copyright
>with an unlimited electronic distribution and storage licence to free
>usenet sites, with case-by-case permission to the borderline commercial
>sites was the best answer.

>If somebody can think of another method to address these needs, that would
>be fine.  But they are real needs, and they can't be ignored by me.
>*CAN'T*.

>So if you want to hold a vote on the matter, then either you lose because
>you don't get 100 more removal votes than keep votes (that was the criterion
>other people established during the last such debate.) or you lose because
>rec.humor.funny leaves usenet.

This doesn't follow; in fact, it smacks of "I'm losing, so I'm taking my
marbles home."  Again, let's say that you pull r.h.f. off of usenet.  What's
to stop me from (after a suitable voting period) saying "r.h.f. is being
created, and that I (or somebody else) is its moderator."  What can you
do about it?  I don't see that there is a lot that you can do about.

>Maybe you don't think of that as losing, but
>if you don't, then it will be just as well -- if people don't think the loss
>of RHF would be a loss to usenet, then what am I doing here?

This is only true if you also believe that the statement "RHF == Brad
Templeton."  I don't, and am not sure how many out there would.

Again, you forgot about yet another possibility: if you had your way, then
I suspect there will be a lot more people with "Use of this posting for personal
profit expressly prohibited without permission of the author" copyright
notices in the .signature files.  This would have negatives, as far as you
were concerned: first, the book would not be possible, without permission of the
authors of the jokes contained therein; second, your reposting the articles
(in either compilation or in separate articles) would depend exclusively on
your ability to get people's permission.  In other words, *YOU* lose.

>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

Some disclaimers are in order here:
    1) I am not a lawyer.
    2) I don't read rec.humor.funny.  I would not be adversely affected if
       it were to disappear from the face of the USENET today.

'Nuff said,
--Nick
===============================================================================
 Nick Cuccia			 System Admin/Postmaster, Sybase, Incorporated
 sybase!cuccia@sun.com                 6475 Christie Av.  Emeryville, CA 94608
 {sun,lll-tis,pyramid,pacbell}!sybase!cuccia                   +1 415 596-3500
===============================================================================