Re: archiving on inet

[Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>]

This book analogy is not accurate. It is my contention that usenet 
postings are not copyrighted. Our postings are not disseminated like a 
book, we are paid nothing for the use of our postings on the multitude 
of machines that our postings appear. Or, in the alternative, if 
copyrighted, by posting them in the electronic ether, we give up most of 
our rights regarding dissemination, copying etc. Perhaps we may still 
have some residual rights regarding accuracy and the like. Also the 
posting regarding the legal blurbs on software, really was off point, 
since what they they were refering to was a "license", and again there is 
some doubt about how enforceable the individual licenses that the 
software companies give. That is, some of these licenses may have 
provisions that are not enforceable.

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, Lefty wrote:

> Kirk Sheppard asks
> >
> >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.
> 
> I don't believe that _storage_ is the issue at all.  If I purchase a copy
> of a book, I don't believe that I'm violating copyright by making an
> archival copy of it _for_ _my_ _own_ _use_.
> 
> If I start distributing or selling copies to other people, however, that's
> a different matter.
> 
> --
> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
> 
> 
>