jj) (02/08/89)
Well, as any number of posters have made utterly clear, they want Templeton to be responsible for rec.humor.funny, but they are entirely unwilling to allow him the AUTHORITY to regulate the entity that they wish him to be responsible for. This position, in and of itself, is utterly absurd, and without any redeeming sense, moral value, or consistant ethical position, and by itself, without any discussion of the contents of any moderated groups whatsoever, makes clear the fact that a moderator can be held responsible for actions that are completely beyond the moderator's control. If any moderator, anywhere, is ever sued as a result of this absurdity, a clear defense is to make a claim against the "system" that allowed the absurdity to happen, namely USENET. (Not being a lawyer, I cannot make any claims as to legal accuracy of this statement, I can only observe the cause and effects of a given issue. Legal claims often follow such, in the "but for" sense.) It is clear to me that one of three actions must occur: 1) All moderators must specifically give up any claims against all USENET sites, regardless of any individual site's negligence or punitive action. I regard this action as absurd and ethicly reprehensible. It may also be legally unsupportable, but I'm not an expert. 2) USENET must allow ALL moderators a compiliation copyright, EXPLICITLY, and with UNANIMITY. Each site, then, will take responsibility for their own actions, while not assuming responsibility for content of USENET (except as may be dealt with in other cases.) I view this action as responsible. 3) USENET must eliminate all moderated newsgroups immedately and with all due speed. This is also responsible, although unfortunate, given 2). However, if 2) cannot be accomplished, and with all due speed, 3) is obligatory. REGARDLESS of Templeton's previous actions, positive and/or negative, he does carry a compliation copyright, and his assertion of same does NOT, regardless of what countless posters have asserted, mean a change in midcourse. He may (I'm not sure of this) be the first to ASSERT this (Chuq? If you're listening?), but I can see absolutely no harm in asserting what has always been true. Clearly the assertions of "changing course" and "first time" are bogus, as my articles, starting about four years ago, or so, have carried a copyright notice and license (this from when Stargate first appeared as a "pay for play" service). My articles have not always carried such a limited license, ergo this is NOT the first time someone has previously asserted rights that they already had. I have, to date, recieved exactly ONE complaint about it, from a person who identified themself as being with Stargate, who said 'we have to reject them', to which I said "fine", that being the intent, because of the objections I have (had) to Stargate. (Is Stargate still alive? Duh?) I'm sure that many pay-for-play services include my articles, and I have yet to complain, because I have yet to DETERMINE injury. If you are a pay system, and you include my articles, I do wish you wouldn't, unless you've written me for permission. (One system, at least, has.) -- It's a Small World, After All! *Mail to jj@alice.att.com or alice!jj We're Not Satisfied, At All! *HASA, Athiest Curmudgeon Division Gonna Build One Not So Small *Copyright alice!jj 1989, all rights reserved, except As This Small, Small, World! *transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted.