1994-02-01 - Re: archiving on inet

Header Data

From: Chris Knight <cknight@crl.com>
To: Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 6b29e589d2c72dd789613fbf3c24b80606d08ce5e0cf31b00994b0df8bc303dd
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9402011111.A18730-0100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.85.9402011100.A29594-0100000@netcom8>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-01 19:15:29 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:15:29 PST

Raw message

From: Chris Knight <cknight@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:15:29 PST
To: Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: archiving on inet
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.85.9402011100.A29594-0100000@netcom8>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9402011111.A18730-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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?