Re: archiving on inet

[Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>]

Dear Jason,

I don't think you are neccissarily correct about making an archive of the 
usenet. You may be correct, but I don't believe this point has been 
litigated yet. Furthermore, just because something is forwarded and 
something is archived I don't believe is expressly covered in copyright 
law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted 
become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but 
am not a copyright/trademark specialist. Also, as was posted earlier 
someone is already making an archive of the usenet. See earlier postings. 
Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings 
on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is 
re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would 
argue.

Kirk Sheppard

kshep@netcom.com

P. O. Box 30911             "It is  Better to Die on Your Feet Than to 
Bethesda, MD 20824-0911      Live On Your Knees."
U.S.A.
			    			     - Emiliano Zapata


On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jason Zions wrote:

>    So if I sell (at a profit) a netnews feed to subscribers via modem, it
>    is not copyright infringement, but if I sell the same data on a CDROM,
>    you cliam copyright infringement.
> 
> Yep. When you're providing a netnews feed, you're acting as a node in a
> store-and-forward network. A CD-ROM is not a part of a store-and-forward
> network; it is a permanently fixed repository of information. You can't hold
> up a netnews feed in a courtroom and point at it saying "there it is"; you
> *can* do so with a CD-ROM.
> 
>    So I suppose you want to give some
>    kind of list of what types of media are acceptable for transmitting
>    netnews feeds, and which are not?
> 
> A CD-ROM isn't a medium for transmitting netnews feeds; it's a permanently
> fixed copy of the contents of such a feed. Static versus dynamic; permanent,
> ephemeral. Is this hard to understand?
> 
>    The plain and simple fact is: When you post a message to usenet, you do
>    so with the expectation that others will receive it.  You can have no
>    way of knowing or limiting who may get it; that is given by the nature
>    of the network.  Usenet news is, and is intended to be, publicly
>    accessable information.  If there is something you don't want
>    distributed, then DON'T POST IT!
> 
> Learn a little about law; while you're at it, learn a little about usenet.
> When you post a message to usenet, you have tossed it into a flood-routed
> store-and-forward network. You implicitly give permission for copying
> appropriate to the propagation of messages in that network. You neither
> grant permission nor withhold permission for Fair Use. Everything else,
> though, is not granted unless explicitly granted.
> 
> If I post a message, under the terms of the Berne Convention and current US
> copyright law, a recipient was not granted the right to print a copy and
> publish it in a book. What makes you think I granted them permission to
> publish a copy in a CD-ROM? The only permission I granted was that they
> could (a) read it and (b) forward it via usenet protocols.
> 
> Jason
>