kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (06/13/89)
Let me start by confessing my biases: I hope ClariNet thrives and prospers. I think that it is an important step forward. Now my question: How will ClariNet handle follow-up discussions? Currently, when people find a newspaper articles that they think are very, very important, they type the article in, posting it. This seems to violate the copyright of the newspaper, but it happens infrequently (because typing in an article takes some work), so it is not a serious problem. ClariNet will make reposting much easier. What should ClariNet policy be? I can imagine several alternatives but none seem completely satisfactory. (Note: Some of these alternatives are compatible.) 1) Perfect world: Via some magic payment mechanism everyone who reads a reposted ClariNet article cheerfully pays a reasonable amount to ClariNet. This would be wonderful. From the USENET side, it would mean that our endless discussions would be interspersed with some occasional facts. From the ClariNet side, it means that for the first time, people will be able to fully talk back to their newspaper. How many times have you read a newspaper article that you felt was incorrect, incomplete or biased? Now you could add information or register your opinion. 2) Fair use: ClariNet, following the fair use provisions of copyright law, would allows excerpts of ClariNet articles to be occasionally reposted. 3) With Permission: You could send e-mail to ClariNet and ask permission to repost a particular excerpt. They would respond quickly and reasonably. They would not consider these requests a bother, rather they would consider an important service. Also, the "Quoted w/ Permission of ClariNet" acknowledgment will be a wonderful source of publicity for ClariNet. 4) Paraphrase-only: ClariNet users would be able to write stuff like "I see from ClariNet that IBM is producing a fast new Postscript printer with up to 2Meg on board and a parallel port. Doe any know how it compares to the Apple LaserWriter II?". The users would not be allowed to quote directly. 5) Keep discussions on ClariNet. ClariNet users will be able follow up articles with their own comments, but this follow-up discussion will be restricted to ClariNet. (Many ClariNet users will filter the follow-ups out. Perhaps a arrangement between ClariNet and IN MODERATION will mean that only the most interesting follow-ups will be propagated. 6) Zero tolerance: No discussions based on ClariNet information will be allow on either ClariNet or USENET. So what do you think? What is the best policy? Carl Kadie University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ARPA: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: uiucdcs!kadie CSNET: kadie@uiuc.csnet