> Quoting from Mr Rhys Weatherley (Wed Apr 20 04:26:48 1994):
> > While a techically valid idea, it could be very legally dangerous to
> > USENET sites.
> [many examples]
>
> That X-header wouldn't cause *any* legal restriction.
> Its use would only be a way to help people to not download files
> on a per-copyright basis. For legal restriction, the actual Copyright
> must *always* be checked.
You don't realise the can of worms you are opening. If you specify a
header, then users will expect it to be obeyed. If it is not obeyed, then
they will resort to lawyers. There's a possibility (speaking as an
armchair lawyer) that a user could win a case based on "reasonable
expectations" or somesuch if they had a good lawyer.
> > Who is going to be the
> > keeper of the list of standard identifiers and how can we force people to
> > use them?
>
> //rtfm.mit.edu/some/path/X-COPYRIGHT.CODES
> FAQ maintainers should add that line, like they do with all the other
> headers, for news-answers-request approval.
Well, it may work for FAQ's, but it's only going to be a matter of time
before people want to put such headers on their normal articles as well.
"What? You only check the header for news.answers? If I put a
restriction on it, you will obey it no matter where I post it! I'm
calling my lawyer!".
As the list of identifiers gets bigger and bigger, service providers are
going to have to be forever changing their software to install new
filters. That one time they miss installing the latest identifier will
get them in legal hot water. They'll also be forever consulting their
lawyers to see if the latest identifier applies to them or not.
> > You'll destroy USENET rather than help it.
>
> Again, there's no legal restriction in a X-header. I hope I clarified
> my point of view, now.
It doesn't matter if it is legally binding or not. Users will think it
is and will get very upset when it doesn't work.
It is better to educate people what Copyright really means in a medium
like USENET rather than give them a crutch that shores up their
misconceptions. The problem in this whole FAQ thing is not the CD-ROM
manufacturers or providers that charge for access, but people's
misconceptions about the difference between news feeding and editorial
selection.
Anyway, this isn't about Copyright at all: it's about people with a grudge
against certain kinds of network providers. USENET is diverse. Live with
it, or go elsewhere.
Cheers,
Rhys.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved