Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mica.berkeley.edu!wisner From: wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Live News & Professional Electronic Publications in USENET Format Message-ID: Date: 12 Jun 89 20:54:37 GMT References: <3492@looking.on.ca> <4494@ficc.uu.net> <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Amnesia International Lines: 58 In-reply-to: greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com's message of 12 Jun 89 16:51:33 GMT In article <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Gregory Petersen does an exceptionally good job of being exceptionally obtuse: >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. ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software, and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is seperate. Got it? ClariNet will not be a two-way network; it will consist entirely of news feeds originating at ClariNet headquarters, wherever that may be. >That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding >and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches. Brad pointed out to me that he won't really need a contract to make redistribution of a ClariNet feed illegal, as the newswires carried by ClariNet are already copyrighted by their originators (UPI, etc). Copyrights are internationally binding, no? >That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice >and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET. Brad's use of USENET consists of advertising and that's about all. He posted his plug to comp.newprod, which I'm sure everyone agrees is an appropriate place, and to news.admin because he thought his venture would be of interest to USENET administrators. The response leads me to judge that USENET administrators are, indeed, interested. Are you a lawyer, Mr Petersen? If so that could explain much. >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. Wake up! Take a strong stimulant and re-read Brad's announcement very, very carefully. Your telephone time and expense will never be used to move ClariNet traffic around. You, in fact, WILL NEVER SEE CLARINET, unless you pay for it. Or break the law. The only machines that receive -- and transmit -- ClariNet will be ClariNet's customers. >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. What reply mail? Letters to the editor? Did you even BOTHER to read the ClariNet announcement, or are you flaming for the hell of it? Duh. w