From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:11:45 -0800 (PST)
To: gbroiles@netbox.com
Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
In-Reply-To: <3302E815.5E66@netbox.com>
Message-ID: <199702131504.JAA20582@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


This is where the distributed nature of the list comes   in.

if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other
mailing list host.

igor

Greg Broiles wrote:
> 
> (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use
> policies might take a look at <http://www.ssz.com/ssz/conditions.html>.)
> 
> Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors
> > anyone?
> 
> What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's
> not. 
> 
> Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights)
> against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also
> prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is
> "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion
> that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled
> speech.
> 
> That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new
> list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. 
> 
> (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally
> enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair
> use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to
> make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) 
> 
> Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I
> suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright
> must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an
> assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all
> text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they
> do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains
> text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still
> be valid. 
> 
> So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents
> are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up
> their rights to what they've written.
> 
> Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement
> your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? 
> 
> If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point?
> 
> If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't
> going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it
> locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you
> just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the
> many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property
> on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free
> speech"? 
> 
> Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet
> gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on
> your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. 
> 
> And Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or
> >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. 
> >
> >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of
> >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."
> 
> Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time,
> people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software
> authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist
> on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is
> reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to
> insist on those things. 
> 
> This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived
> by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that
> a good idea?
> 
> --
> Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy
> gbroiles@netbox.com         | in a nutshell:
> http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
> ======================================
> == This list is still experimental. ==
> == complain to ichudov@algebra.com  ==
> ======================================
> 



	- Igor.