Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation: A Moderator's Response
Message-ID: <41207@bbn.COM>
Date: 10 Jun 89 13:32:51 GMT
References: <41197@bbn.COM> <12113@well.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 42

In article <12113@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
}In the referenced message, cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) wrote:
}}In article <3740021@eecs.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
}}}While I do not dispute your right to establish or operate a computer network,
}}}I do dispute the propriety of taking the submissions of others, without
}}}their consent, and using them in a for-profit media outside the Usenet
}}}community.
}}
}}Indeed --- as you mention later, this would seem to be a straightforward
}}violation of the copyrights of the authors of the various messages.
}
}My interpretation is a little different.  Among the rights implicitly
}granted when someone posts to Usenet is certainly the right to
}redistribute.

As I mentioned, THIS is where the legal knot lives.  We all agree that
in posting to usenet authors surrender _some_ rights to never-seen
third parties.  But what are those?  I would argue that the only thing
I'm sure I can make an AIRTIGHT case for is to "copy" my work as part
of the generally accepted machinery of distributing *usenet*.  Once you
take my work OUT of usenet, you've exceeded my limited copying rights
agreement.  You, on the other hand, apparently believe that an author
surrenders *all* of his rights, and so when someone takes what would
otherwise be copyrighted[*], copies it, edits it, and SELLS it, that that
is OK and I implicitly allowed that by posting.  I wouldn't feel
uncomfortable (assuming I had some financial, rather than mere harrassment,
interest in the matter) dragging Geoff into court, making that
argument, and letting Geoff try to argue that his "redistribution" is
really proper.
  [*] Remember, under the current US setup (and Ithink this is true in Europe
  and Canada, also) anything done by a defined author is *born* copyrighted by
  that author.  You, and everyone else, should be treating *every* usenet
  posting as if it had "copyright 1989 <me>" along with its disclaimers.
  So in some sense, having Patrick or Brad or individual authors PUT copyright 
  notices on postings is gratuitous: we are _obliged_ to treat them AS IF they
  had the copyrigh notice *anyway*.

Absent any real precedents (ARE there any even close ones?  I should
ask misc.legal...) no one really KNOWS how this would come down, of course,
but I think that this is CLEARLY beyond.

  /Bernie\