Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!ckd From: ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet Message-ID: <45061@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: 22 Dec 89 02:22:02 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> Sender: daemon@bu-cs.BU.EDU Reply-To: ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) Organization: Boston University School of Management Lines: 59 In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane B. Close) writes: [GEnie <- USENET gateway] DC> I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the DC> *exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way DC> transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder (*for DC> profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the DC> latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This DC> wholesale plunder of Usenet is not. >>>>> On 21 Dec 89 00:00:41 GMT, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) said: JL> Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a JL> consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in JL> the public domain. This has never been tested in a court of law, to my knowledge. I suspect that copyright is retained, but I am not a legal expert. JL> I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line JL> companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all JL> make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! I seem to recall a similar discussion going on right now in alt.activism; y'see, it turns out that in a capitalistic society, when you exchange things, both parties generally win. At least I find that the modem I paid $X for has given me *what I feel to be* >$X "worth" of usefulness. GEnie is giving *nothing* back. JL> Yet I seriously doubt whether you would find it in your moral code of JL> ethics to condem them. If so, then your condemnation of ANYONE (even JL> beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory and arbitrary on its face. Different case. JL> In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, JL> your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential JL> GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! I reserve the right to control my intellectual property and the ways in which it may be redistributed. DC> Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? JL> There may be something legal -- but it could never be moral -- JL> since you are the aggressor and the GEnie user is the victim! This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Chris Davis. Redistribution for profit is prohibited. This copyright statement shall not be construed to limit non-profit distribution, including but not limited to UUNET's news forwarding services. This article may not be gatewayed to GEnie without a license fee paid to the author. [I don't see that as aggressive. I do see it as a hassle to type into every article, but if I've gotta expand my .signature to control my postings, so be it.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 "Many verbal attacks are part of someone's aim to establish their rank in a dominance hierarchy, the same sort of behavior common among nesting fowl." --Daniel Mocsny