From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 06:59:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: FWD: Re: David Sternlight's Slurs About Folks With "2.3a" Keys
In-Reply-To: <199405191106.FAA01087@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <199405201359.AA10497@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <evidenceCq3902.BGF@netcom.com> you write:
>David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <199405191106.FAA01087@spot.colorado.edu>,
>: Richard Johnson <alt.fan.david-sternlight.usenet@decwrl.dec.com> wrote:
>
>: By publishing a private e-mail, both beker and Johnson are in violation of
>: my copyright in that message, since it was a private communication and no
>: permission was given to republish.
>
>Actually, David, since you did not register your copyrighted material 
>with the U.S. Copyright Office before the alleged infringement (I don't 
>know for sure that you actually authored that work, and you can't prove 
>that you did because you didn't sign it using *pgp*!!!), you are limited 
>to recovering your actual damages (such as lost profits), which in my 
>estimation would be zero...... Moreover, the re-print here is probably 
>justified as fair use for purposes of comment and criticism... which is 
>exactly what seems to be occuring here.
>
>Anyway, you have a difficult burden of establishing that the document 
>that you claim to be yours is actually yours, as any number of other 
>people could also claim to have written it.  
>
>Its a funny thing about the net... You can't be sure who wrote what...
>
>By the way, in your letter, you claim that you discovered a PGP key from 
>version 2.3a.... Now, how do you know that this was a PGP key?  DId you 
>run it through PGP to verify that it was?  Or are you just assuming that, 
>because it looks like a PGP public key, that it is???
>
>: Thus beker has now committed a new violation of his netcom agreement, and
>: Johnson shows he has bad judgement. What's more, by trying to make what
>: should be a private matter, to be decided by netcom based on their own
>: rules, into a public cause celebre, and by writing to netcom as Johnson did
>: to intervene in a private matter, he has made the situation worse for beker,
>: not better.
>
>We shall see...
>
>: Netcom is perfectly capable of telling me to go peddle my papers if I'm
>: wrong.
>
>Please let us know when they do that, David.
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Evidence, Inc.       |   The Internet Cops are watching, 
>Evidence@Nowhere.Nil |       aren't they?                
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government?  YOU WILL and 
>the company that'll bring it to you..... AT&T"
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!