1994-07-01 - Re: Detweiler clone at WS

Header Data

From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
To: frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Message Hash: c038e7ea4c8ab1831c230d0381ff26c378340946ba68ab5a7ba3212698bad4a5
Message ID: <940701.155307.4J7.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Reply To: <Pine.3.87.9407011343.A11973-0100000@panix.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-01 22:03:05 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 15:03:05 PDT

Raw message

From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 15:03:05 PDT
To: frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Subject: Re: Detweiler clone at WS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9407011343.A11973-0100000@panix.com>
Message-ID: <940701.155307.4J7.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Quoth frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell), in list.cypherpunks:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 1994, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
>> Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So.
>> Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as
>> publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose).
>> - -- 
>> Roy M. Silvernail  []  roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org
> I know the courts have never ruled in a case in point but is there any 
> doubt that BBS are publications.

- From the court's point of view, there was.  Another message on the list
mentions a favorable decision Tuesday that will help to set some good
precedent.  Up until then, BBS' were't recognized _legally_ as publishers.

> What are they, chopped liver?

In case you missed it, I never said I agreed with this point... only
tried to put some quasi-legal light on it.  I think legal recognition is
way overdue.
- -- 
    Roy M. Silvernail       |  #include <stdio.h>            | PGP 2.3 public
roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org   |  main(){                       | key available
                            |  int x=486;                    | upon request
                            |  printf("Just my '%d.\n",x);}  | (send yours)

Version: 2.6