> Quoting from Mr Rhys Weatherley (Wed Apr 20 23:11:24 1994):
> > You don't realise the can of worms you are opening. If you specify a
> > header, then users will expect it to be obeyed.
>
> NO !
> Please note this is a X-Header, so its use is free under all RFCs.
> Nobody can rely upon it.
So what's the point of it? If no one can rely on it, then it's not very
useful is it?
> 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.
Unless the header has some kind of official and quasi-legal standing,
there is no requirement on service providers to use it, so the whole
scheme will be completely ineffective. But if it does have an official or
quasi-legal standing, then the service providers can get in a _lot_ of
legal trouble from users who expect it to work when it doesn't.
> > 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:
Yes, it is very easy to think of how to implement it. Now, I'll put on
the net.update.cynic hat: "if you think it is such a wonderful idea, then
you implement it and trial it in a corner of the net and if everyone likes
it, everyone will flock to it". While harsh, this is reality. Until
someone implements it and produces patches for every major news transport
in existence, none of the news transport authors will touch it.
USENET software is notoriously difficult to upgrade. Even if we
implemented copyright restrictions in C-news and inn tomorrow, it would be
100 years before the update was wide-spread enough to be useful. I'm
not exaggerating (not much, anyway).
> > > 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.
Unlike X-Copyright, Path has a long and well-documented history, and very
few people will quibble about its semantics and its legal standing. It's
also integral to the way news works. Without it, news cannot function
effectively. Since X-Copyright is not necessary for correct news
functioning, why implement it except to give some users a warm fuzzy
feeling about copyrights without really delivering anything legally binding.
> > 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.
Which people will very quickly want to use, and then will complain when
it doesn't work.
> > 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.
It wasn't directed at you, and it was a little out of place in this
discussion. But it doesn't make it any less right. :-) All Copyright
complaints seem to come down to "I don't like provider X doing Y. How
can we modify the software to stop them?"
As a matter of fact, I once thought that a copyright header was a good
idea, but certain people convinced me otherwise. If I remember
correctly, the infamous John Stanley was one of those. While John may be
harsh in his views, (and maybe it's rubbed off on me unfortunately), he's
rarely wrong when it comes to analysing the pitfalls of changes to USENET.
Cheers,
Rhys.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved