🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DM30qL.Gn@world.std.com>,
   boursy@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>In article <kjfair-3101961540590001@ngrh-34.rh.uchicago.edu>,
>Kenneth Jason Fair <kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>In article <DM18sp.HrD@world.std.com>, boursy@world.std.com (Stephen
>>Boursy) wrote:
>>>
>>>        The very notion that you'd view a usenet post sent out to
>>>a potential audience of millions to quote and follow up on as 
>>>'your own property' is extremely amusing.
>>
>>
>>Danielle Steele still owns the words in her books, even though she's 
>>sold 130 million copies of those books.  The copy of her book that you
>>buy is your property; the right to use, modify, change, or eliminate
>>the words is her right and her right alone.  That's intellectual property.
>>
>
>
>	I agree.  And that has nothing whatsoever to do with a usenet
>post.  If Danielle Steele engaged in interactive discussion in this 
>newsgroups she'd have no claim to copyright--at least an enforceable one.
>Hell--you just quoted me without my consent as I've done with you and 
>you can by commercial CD's with the entire contents of newsgroup 
>discussions.  I'm writing a book on the cabal with Dr. Grubor and there 
>is virtually no concern over the use of posts (and they're being in some
>cases quoted in full--and always without permission).  In fact if you
>get the CD version you'll have even more to sue over.  The only thing
>we are being very careful about is to quote accurately and not out
>of context.
>
>				Steve
>
And we should include all of the "correct" names then, too.

DrG