richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/06/89)
In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, No Brad. The group ``belongs'' to the people that read it and post to it. You are the caretaker. And even if you were able to legally slap a compilation copyright on the group (my lawyer says no - this is not a ``centralized collection'') it may be legal, but it violates the spirit of USENET and will simply not be tolerated by the USENET community at large. -- ``Kern letters with a hacksaw'' decwrl!gryphon!richard killer!gryphon!richard elroy!gryphon!richard
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/06/89)
In article <1233@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >In article <2854@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>------------------------ OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT -------------------------- >> >>This is an official announcement of a discussion period (2 weeks) to remove >>rec.humor.funny from the Usenet. The discussion period begins now, Fri Feb 3 >>17:15:27 CST 1989, and will run until February 17, 1989. I'm sure you all >>know by now (if you really read this far) how I feel on this matter. >> [more deleted] >This is awful. It is worse than stupid. At least JEDR went to war >because he has irreconcilable differences with Brad. Now you and >several others want to go to war over a MISUNDERSTANDING. Will you >PLEASE wait until you are hurt before you start crying. You are going >to accomplish JEDR's purpose for him when he couldn't do it himself. >You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. > >Brad has apparently consulted a lawyer. It goes without saying that >the results seem rather bizarre as does ANYTHING when lawyers get >involved. Read an insurance policy sometime. Brad has provided >himself some insurance against further attacks by JEDRs. So far it >seems entirely harmless. All Brad's lawyer wants is to make it >legally clear that if you read rec.humor.funny you do so at your own >risk. If you get offended, you have no recourse. This apparently >requires some sort of announcements such as Brad has been posting. > >This is completely obvious to anyone who can think. > >If Brad starts trying to charge sites for rec.humor.funny or any of >your other fears actually materialize, THEN is the time to remove Brad >as moderator of rec.humor.funny, not NOW. Leave it alone. Brad says >that all of this is just for protection against JEDRs. From the >actual facts, this seems to be the case. Why not just trust him until >his actions prove otherwise? This was my guess for Brads motivation of slapping a compilation copyright on the group. HOWEVER - it sets a very dangerous precedent. Brads wording states the he ``wanted to reaffirm control over the group. The group is mine'' is not within the spirit of USENET. If brad want to save cover his ass from the JEDR's of the world he's going to have to find another way. ALSO, this is not a simple of case of defending himself from JEDR's. His idead that ``if anybody is going to make money of this it's going to me'' violates the spirit of USENET on a second count. Nobody makes a big fuss over alt.gourmand because Brian set up a corperation called ``the USENET community trust'' and slapped a compilation copyright on the group to PREVENT commercialization of it. -- ``Kern letters with a hacksaw'' decwrl!gryphon!richard killer!gryphon!richard elroy!gryphon!richard
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (02/06/89)
In article <1233@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> I wrote: If Brad starts trying to charge sites for rec.humor.funny or any of your other fears actually materialize, THEN is the time to remove Brad as moderator of rec.humor.funny, not NOW. Leave it alone. Brad says that all of this is just for protection against JEDRs. From the actual facts, this seems to be the case. Why not just trust him until his actions prove otherwise? In article <11661@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) replies: > This was my guess for Brads motivation of slapping a compilation > copyright on the group. > > HOWEVER - it sets a very dangerous precedent. Brads wording > states the he ``wanted to reaffirm control over the group. The > group is mine'' is not within the spirit of USENET. If brad > want to save cover his ass from the JEDR's of the world he's > going to have to find another way. > > ALSO, this is not a simple of case of defending himself from > JEDR's. His idead that ``if anybody is going to make money > of this it's going to me'' violates the spirit of USENET > on a second count. Well Brad's big mouth has gotten him in trouble before. He did pour gasoline on the flames of the JEDR flap with his "you kill 6 million and ...," which was, to say the least, unwise. He's done it again with this "if anybody is going to make money of this it's going to me," which is, again, unwise. The fact remains that until Brad actually tries to enforce such supposed copyright rights, which your lawyer tells you are unenforcible, no one is hurt. People say all kinds of stupid things on USENET and moderators are no exception. Why not just leave it at that? A lawyer's main tactic is to confuse the issue so that nobody but another lawyer can understand. If a case actually goes to litigation, you've half lost already. You really win big when your lawyer bluffs the other side out of even trying to sue. That's what all of this is about, I hope. If Brad has bought some protection from harassment with his policy postings, he should be allowed it. After all, he did us all a service standing up to the JEDR attack. Let's wait and see if there's in fact, not just in imagination, any problems caused by what Brad is doing. There's no need for any rush to remove Brad. If he actually does anything obnoxious, do you really think there will be any problem removing him?
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/07/89)
In article <11661@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <1233@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: >> >HOWEVER - it sets a very dangerous precedent. Brads wording >states the he ``wanted to reaffirm control over the group. The >group is mine'' is not within the spirit of USENET. If brad >want to save cover his ass from the JEDR's of the world he's >going to have to find another way. > >ALSO, this is not a simple of case of defending himself from >JEDR's. His idead that ``if anybody is going to make money >of this it's going to me'' violates the spirit of USENET >on a second count. The "precedant" has been set! About a month ago information about a package called UFGate (spelling?) was broadcast. This package is free to individual end users but commercial users who want support have to pay. Obviously the people who are supplying UFGate are violating the "spirit of USENET" right??? As USENET gets larger and more successful there will be a larger number of people who will use it one way or another to make money. Either by publishing information obtained from the net, or by using it for advertising, etc. BTW where is this "spirit of USENET" document anyway? My own opinion is that I believe that Brad is correct in assuming that he can enforce a Compilation Copyright on r.h.f. I am reserving my opinion on what he is trying to with be able to restrict the groups re-distribution. I think I know why he want's to be able to do it, I'm not sure I'm happy with how he's hoping to do it. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532