🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1991Jun24.001311.11155@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> oz@nexus.yorku.ca
(Ozan Yigit) writes:

>I don't believe your position (within USENET context) as a moderator of a
>public newsgroup in a public network, re-posting public information [albeit
>after much effort] entitles you to a copyright on that information.

Before everybody starts talking at cross-purposes, let's make sure what
the term "public" means, at least in the USA.

In phrases like "public school" and "public road", the term "public"
means "government-funded" and/or "government-controlled."  (Nobody has
ever stopped me from transporting copyrighted material on a public
highway or using it in a public school.)

In phrases like "public place" when referring to, e.g., a restaurant,
the term "public" means "privately owned but open to anybody who is
willing to pay for service."  (I occasionally read copyrighted material
in a restaurant without invoking anybody's wrath.  Even the menus are
often copyrighted!)

In phrases like "public place" when referring to, e.g., a city or state
or national park, the term "public" means "government-controlled but
open to everybody who can squeeze in."  (I have never been stopped
from reading of carrying copyrighted material in a park.)

So think about which meaning of "public" is intended here.  Then tell
me why this meaning should prevent the posting of copyrighted
information to the net.  (We already have tons of copyrighted software
posted.)
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi