From: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:50:47 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Archiving on inet
Message-ID: <YhHjSSC00awOERPEVd@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Wow, this usenet copyright issue has touched off a pretty heated debate.  

Let me just make a few points:

In most usenet areas, there are no limitations on who may receive the
group.  By posting to such an area, you imply that you intend your post
to be received by an unrestricted audience.  This, of course, includes
the possibility that some readers of the newsfeed will be reading it in
a time-delayed manner, such as a dialup newsfeed over slip, uucp, or
other protocol.  A CD-ROM is just another form of delayed newsfeed.

There are many areas availiable where restrictions are placed upon who
may receive the feed.  Many mailing lists, such as extropians, have this
policy.  Anyone receiving that list agrees that they will not
redistribute the messages, and that includes selling CD-ROMs.  If you
have something which you would like to limit the distribution of, there
are many forums availiable where the readers consent that they will
abide by such a policy.  The general readers of usenet have not
consented to any such agreement.

What offends me is that some hypocritical people would send a message to
an area that they know is public domain, and then complain that they
didn't want their message distributed.  When you post, you should decide
weather or not you want it public domain.  But don't complain if you
change your mind after the fact.

I reccomend that everyone who is concerned about the distribution of
some document that you wrote, (ie research paper, commentary, etc) post
a message in a public forum giving a brief overview, and then state that
it is copyrighted, and that anyone who agrees to respect your terms of
non-distribution should send you email and that you will send them a
copy.  This also allows you to place an expiration time limit on it, so
that someone won't find it reading outdated usenet news.

To continue Lefty's cable TV analogy:  A cable TV company can charge you
a fee for assisting you in receiving a publicly availiable signal. 
However, they do not have copyright on that signal - they can't stop you
from buying your own antenna, nor can they stop a competing cable
company (if the municipality allows it).  The cable company is selling
you their assistance in receiving a publicly availiable signal.  They do
not own that signal or the copyright to it.  They are merely a common
carrier of the communication.  In the same way, internet service
companies like netcom are merely providing a service which aids you in
receiving a publicly availiable signal.  Selling the netnews feed either
on a CD-ROM is no different.  They are not selling the posts - they are
selling their communications services which allow you to receive it. 
They have no copyright on the posts.  They are NOT SELLING COPYRIGHTED
MATERIAL - they are SELLING A COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE.

If a TV station was to take the broadcast of a competing station, add
their own commercials etc, and rebroadcasts it, then we have copyright
infringement.  They are taking someone else's material and using it for
their own benefit - here we have copyright infringement.  The cable
company does not do this - they are simply distributing the signal
unaltered, commercial advertisements and all.  In the same way, if
someone is selling complete, unaltered archives of usenet, it is a
communication service.  If they're taking posts, modifying for their own
purposes, and selling at a profit, we have the possibility of copyright
infringement.  I hope you all understand the difference.