NO !
Please note this is a X-Header, so its use is free under all RFCs.
Nobody can rely upon it.
> 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.
I'm not a lawyer, but in Europe there's no such a chance.
Moreover, if the X-Copyright definition (an RFC, maybe) explicitly
states "The use of this header is for informational purposes only,
and cannot be considered, under any circumstances, legally effective",
there's no chance for suing even in the USA, I think. This because
there cannot be such a thing like a "reasonable expectation" for
something explicilty denied.
> > > 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.
It's their business.
If I want, I can put any X-header, but I *cannot* rely on people
even reding it, less than ever obeying it.
> 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.
I believe we can think of an easy way to do this.
1st of all, the list of identifiers will *not* get bigger than a few
identifiers. For a few I mean 10 (ten).
About changing the software: yes, this is true, but this change is
needed only once: you simply write a refuse routine based on the
Header content, matching NOT a hard-coded list (what an inefficient
way to do things!) but a simple match with a configure-file-supplied
entry. A thing like:
[configuration file]
...
#
# I want to refuse postings with "foobar" X-Copyright
x-copyright-refuse="foobar"
...
It's simple, isn't 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 *does* matter. I couldn't care less of users misinterpreting
this header. If I think the Path: header is the path to Heaven
I'm either drunk or smoking crack, but I think I can't sue anybody
for this. It's *my* fault.
> 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.
I don't want to educate anyone.
The X-Copyright header is a service.
> 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.
Hey, hey, wait a minute. You're *not* talking of me, are you ?
You're *not* bidding me to go, are you ? I *do* hope so, because
I sincerely don't want to see another flamewar on this list.
We are here to speak, discuss, even disagree *with* *fair* *words*.
It's clear you don't like this header, but be fair.
Bye,
-- # $Id: .signature,v 1.2 1994/03/24 16:18:53 piero Exp $ Piero Serini Via Giambologna, 1 <piero@strider.st.dsi.unimi.it> I 20136 Milano - ITALY
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved