From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:15:28 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: archiving on inet
Message-ID: <9402012201.AA23756@internal.apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>This is not an accurate comparison. A posting on usenet is not the same 
>item as a program on HBO or the radio.

So you claim.  How does it differ, though?

>In what way does my internet provider 
>(netcom) have a "legal" distribution of usenet news, while a cd-rom 
>provider does not?

I have "provided" my postings to Usenet, for the personal use of Usenet
subscribers.  By providing my postings to a particular distribution
mechanism, I implicitly give permission for them to be redistributed _via_
_that_ _mechanism_.  I _do_ _not_ give permission for them to be repackaged
and resold via another medium, any more than David Byrne has given me
permission to resell cassettes of his music by allowing it to be broadcast
on the radio.

>HBO has paid for the use of the programs it broadcasts 
>that are produced by others, hence they have a contract between 
>themselves and the owners of the copyright.

And, hence, they have permission to distribute it over the medium of cable
televison transmission.  This does not, in and of itself, give them the
right to, for instance, resell laser disks of the movies they broadcast.

>No providers of usenet news 
>have any agreements between themselves and the posters regarding 
>copyrights.

An author doesn't _need_ an agreement to assert copyright.  Were you,
somehow, ignorant of that?

>Netcom and all the other internet providers receive postings 
>"free" and a cd-rom manufacturer has the same "right" to use postings as 
>any other internet provider.

Quite correct.  The CD-ROM manufacture may _read_ them.  Period.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.