Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!letni!sneaky!merch!spudge!johnm From: johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet Keywords: The wholesale capturing of Usenet by GEnie Message-ID: <8073@spudge.UUCP> Date: 22 Dec 89 15:34:43 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> <65046@looking.on.ca> Reply-To: johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) Organization: Friends of Guru Bob Lines: 58 In article <65046@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >> Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post >>one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect >>of, "This article is copyright 1989 by . You may >>redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the >>people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access >>Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves >>redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change >>the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the >>people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." > >Actually, no. The first clause would bar UUNET, and if you think >about it, also bars AT&T, which feeds some sites via its BTL arm, but >charges them for it through its long distance arm. So. >And all these clauses mean nothing because once an automated link is >in place, you can't put stupid copyright messages on things that you >know will be violated by the link. I have a feed to UUNET. I put a >copyright message on my posting saying, "UUNET may not copy." I then >command my computer, and UUNET's computer (because they allow me to, and >I know that) to copy it. You think a judge wouldn't laugh at you? *I* did not establish this link, nor do I talk to any sites which have for profit access (much less ONE WAY for profit access). If we take your "excellent" example and apply it to me rather than you we find things are a little different. If I have already told you that you are going to receive something from me that you cannot give to someone else, you can choose to not take it from me in the first place or take it but not pass it on. However, if you take it and then give it to the person you understood was not to receive it there aren't going to be many laughing judges then. Will there... This GEnie thing will either have to go or become two way, I personally am not in favor of the two way transfer option but I will bend to the will of others on this issue. I am in favor of whole sites, not just individuals, declaring that their material is copyrighted and is not for transfer to sites that do not transfer material both ways (esp. when done for profit). Then those sites that choose to ignore the restrictions when accepting the material can bear the legal responsibility of having done so with full knowledge of their wrongdoing. >GEnie is yet another pay site to get USENET material. Not the first, >not the last. This was all gone over a year ago. Most people like the >idea. Can we pass this one over? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No. "WE" cannot. As I said in another posting, a few people (like yourself) cannot be allowed to run over everyone else and dictate how Usenet will run. "Well the link is there now, whether you like it or not." seems to sum up your attitude. I count myself very fortunate that I do not have to work with you given that attitude. >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Munsch