1994-02-01 - Re: archiving on inet

Header Data

From: Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>
To: Jim McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Message Hash: 1b461017e2a4775e7443ae547d09a152dbf56cb7b252058ae6df406ef4d16031
Message ID: <Pine.3.85.9402011602.A9978-0100000@netcom9>
Reply To: <199402012023.AA26109@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-01 21:15:29 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:15:29 PST

Raw message

From: Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:15:29 PST
To: Jim McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: archiving on inet
In-Reply-To: <199402012023.AA26109@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.85.9402011602.A9978-0100000@netcom9>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Well said, Jim.

Kirk Sheppard


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

On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Jim McCoy wrote:

> Jason Zions <jazz@hal.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Others could argue that postings by their very nature, when posted 
> > >become "public domain", and thus not copyrightable.
> > 
> > Not successfully in court, I should think. How is a posting any different
> > than the production of a radio program which is distributed by
> > store-and-forward satellite distribution and then played through the radio
> > station and received at your home radio? [...]
> It is the difference between "broadcast" and "interactive communication."
> Tell me, if I call in to the talk show you are distribute as part of your
> radio program, do _I_ now own the copyright to a portion of your show?
> > >Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings 
> > >on [any particular storage media]
> >
> > If you were a ligitimate recipient of the work in the first place (i.e. got
> > it in a newsfeed) and you store those postings for your own use or for the
> > use of others on that node in the store-and-forward network, then you can
> > keep the work 'til the bits rot. Infringement occurs when you copy those
> > bits onto some medium for some purpose other than store-and-forward
> > propagation or the allowed fair-use exceptions; stuffing articles on a
> > CD-ROM and selling them falls into neither category and hence is an
> > infringement.
> Buzzz.  According to your logic all that one needs to do is to change the
> label on the order from from "Usenet articles on CD-ROM" to "Quarterly
> Usenet Feed distributed on CD-ROM" and I am in the clear.  I am not selling
> a collectoin containing your articles, I am providing a low-bandwidth
> newsfeed to those who do not have the same level of connectivity you have
> or that want the excitement of seeing thier newsfeed delivered over the
> "original information superhighway" (aka postal services.)  It is still
> store-and-forward, it is just store-forever-and-forward-not-so-often.
> But under all the smoke and mirrors nothing changes the fact that I am
> selling archives of the Usenet.  No amount of puffed up indignation is
> going to change the fact that your Usenet posting or message to a mailing
> list is of no real value to you and is honestly as free as a bird once it
> hits the wire.
> jim