🚀 go-pugleaf

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