From: sfi@verity.com (Stefan Fielding-Isaacs)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:20:48 PST
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Subject: Re: archiving on inet
Message-ID: <9402012220.AA24439@verity.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



	>From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
>	>
>	>
>	>Chris Knight says:
>	>> If all you are concerned with is "Material differnce", then you think 
>	>> it's perfectly ok for me to sell you a good copy of a magazine?  By your 
>	>> "logic" (loosely used), you had to pay for the copy, and you had to pay 
>	>> for the original, so what's the difference?  The difference is the WILL 
>	>> AND PERMISSION of the author!  As the author of this message, I willingly 
>	>> placed it within the net.  I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL NOT, GIVE FREE PERMISSION 
>	>> TO A CD-ROM PUBLISHING HOUSE TO PUBLISH MY WORK.
>	>
>	>Try to sue for damages when your work is available for free to
>	>millions of people. The judge will laugh in your face, copyright or
>	>no. Damages are, after all, related to lost revenue -- if you allow
>	>anyone who wants to see something for free in one medium, you will
>	>have a fucking hard time to keep them from examining it in another
>	>equivalent medium. Usenet is NOT a magazine. Failing to put a
>	>copyright notice in your work destroys whats left of your ability to
>	>do anything. I'm sure you can pay a lawyer to sue for you, but this
>	>isn't exactly one anyone is going to take on contingency.

 I believe this is completely fallacious. Simply because I don't include
 a copyright statement _does not_ mean that my material is not copyrighted
 (look it up).

 Secondly, the issue at hand is not so much redistribution (I think that
 can be resolved by attribution) but rather that the redistribution was
 done for profit. I think that is where you can be hanged (metaphorically
 speaking).

 I do not think it wise to defend such an indefensible (morally and legally)
 position. Perhaps you should reconsider.

 Stef