From: Kirk Sheppard <kshep@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:05:43 PST
To: Lefty <lefty@apple.com>
Subject: Re: archiving on inet
In-Reply-To: <9402011948.AB17603@federal-excess.apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.85.9402011555.A9978-0100000@netcom9>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dear Master Lefty,

You too, have fallen into the same trap, as Master Knight, i.e.,  ad hominem 
attacks, unprovoked, launched merely because I disagree with you. As to 
your arguments, no I don't think you have followed my logic at all, and I 
certainly cannot follow or agree with your assertions. My point is that 
the redistribution of usenet postings by  Netcom, my local bbs, me on my 
hard disk to others for pay or not, or by cd-rom are not different and it 
is just as legal for Netcom to charge me for providing me a usenet feed 
as it is legal for a cd-rom manufacturer to do the same, neither is 
paying us a dime nor are they obligated to do so. Personal use is not at 
all relevant. Netcom, Delphi are copying and providing usenet newsfeeds 
as a commercial service, without paying any royalties to the authors of 
the usenet postings. And we can all do the same and use any medium we 
want to  whether you or Master Knight like it or understand it.

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:

> >Usenet copyrightable? I still doubt it. Of course, the only way to 
> >find out is to file a very expensive lawsuit. Most posters would not find 
> >their postings worth the expense to sue on copyright. Only a very rich 
> >dilletante, or someone less rich who is a fanatic on the subject is 
> >likely to do so.  Also, you would have a hard time answering the 
> >difference between charging for a usenet feed and charging for a cd-rom, 
> >again I see little difference except that one is more prompt in time than 
> >the other. But, again, my newsfeed from a BBS which might be 24 hrs 
> >delayed, and my netcom account which is much faster and a cd-rom differs 
> >only as to time removed from the original posting. 
> 
> So, would you argue, on the same grounds, that you didn't believe that a
> movie delivered into your home via a cable feed could be copyrighted?
> 
> How about a movie on a laser disk?
> 
> Do you understand that there's is a difference between personal use, which
> does not infringe copyright, and redistribution, which does?
> 
> Are you _sure_ you're an attorney?
> 
> --
> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
> 
> 
>