Re: archiving on inet

[Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>]

Regarding the archive I believe it was some company in Canada, I'm not 
sure. There was a thread about this archiving question on another group I 
suppose in the last three weeks. I can't remember where I saw it, if it 
wasn't here. Sorry. And about "paying" for the cd-rom, I pay for the 
usenet feed, and none of us who post are getting royalty payments from 
any of the internet providers. So answer the question again, what is the 
difference in paying an internet provider for access to usenet, and 
paying a cd-rom provider for access to usenet? None materially, except 
that the cd is not interactive, and some providers are (not all as in 
bbs' that don't send e-mail to the internet, but have some usenet 
groups.) There is no material difference that I can determine.

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, Chris Knight wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Kirk Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > law. Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted 
> > become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable. I practice law, but 
> 
> If I use your logic, a published article in a magazine becomes public domain 
> because it has become available to a large number of subscribers.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Tangible difference...  Lets see...  A CD-ROM can be duplicated and sold 
> for profit, and doing so with net archives violates the copyrights of any 
> message author who cares to file class action or personal...  Who did you 
> say had that archive, and were they selling it?
> 
> -ck
> 
> 
>