Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!letni!lawnetg From: greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Live News & Professional Electronic Publications in USENET Format Message-ID: <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Date: 12 Jun 89 16:51:33 GMT References: <3492@looking.on.ca> <4494@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) Organization: LawNet Inc. California Offices. Lines: 52 In article wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it >uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet? No -- WE don't understand yet. If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the BUSINESS VENTURE. >Peter da Silva goes on for a bit about how unenforcable Brad's policies are >and how Brad is setting himself up to play net.policeman. >If anything, Brad's setting himself up to play clarinet.policeman. Great -- will he read the mail and make sure none of it goes via USENET? Which is fine. Because ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Subscribers to ClariNet >will probably have to sign CONTRACTS. That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches. Contracts are nice but as any lawyer will tell you they are only as good as the parties thereto will allow. If the contract is WORDED well, itwill be ILLEGAL for subscribers to pass their FEED on to OTHERS. I have >no reason to BELIEVE that the contract will not be WORDED well. Do we >UNDERSTAND yet? That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET. How a contract will be draftedwith this in mind is also interesting since any contract written will be required to offer VALID access and responses without using USENET AT ALL!> >Put simply, a ClariNet subscriber that passes his ClariNet feed on is breaking >the law. Perhaps, Mr da Silva, your jaundiced world view won't permit you >to believe that there are people that would choose to abide by the law, and >the ClariNet contract, but we do exist. Yes, we do exist. The law however, regardless of who exists, does not allow others to benefit from the deeds of a third party without giving that third party compensation for the expenses incurred, i.e., USENET may seek compensation for the use that the BUSINESS VENTURE is obtaining. To take my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE. If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and postings. -- Gregory G. Petersen, Esq. greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott, A Law Corporation (714) 971-1441 770 The City Drive South, Suite 2100 Orange, California 92668