🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Sigh.  USENET is *NOT* public domain.  It's not even a public network.
>It is *not* noncommercial.  Saying it won't make it so.  I have, and have
>given, counterexamples.  Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty
>darn good way of disproving a thesis.  So stop saying it!

Sigh. . .
	
	YOU seem to miss the point.  I quote 'How to Use USENET Effectively'
by Matt Bishop (10-19-86):

[Introduction]
	
	"USENET is a worldwide bulleting board system in which thousands of
computers pass articles back and forth.  Of necessity, customs have sprung
up enabling very diverse people and groups to communicate peaceably and
effectively using USENET..."

**	Customs of the net is the operative word here.  Not 'commercial'
vs 'non-commercial'.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that
customs is the 'co-operative' word.

[Section 2: All about USENET]

	"As a result, USENET has no equivalent of a "sysop" or a central
authority controlling the bulletin board.  What little control is exercised
is wielded by the person at each site who is responsible for maintaining
the USENET connections."

	How can you possibly say the USENET is not a public network, and
that it is commercial?  It sure doesn't sound like a business to me, but more
like a 'club' that lets anybody who isn't a jerk join, as long as he
abides by the 'rules'.  In this case, the 'rules' are the customs of the
net.  It also seems that anything that is set up to let just about anybody
who wants to get in is pretty darned public.  I grant you, we'd have to
be willing to admit jerks as well to be *TRULY* public.  If you can show me
where there is a financial interest on the part of USENET (whatever the
heck that ethereal entity is) I might buy your argument about it being
commercial.  If you can't find any (which I'm sure you can't), then it
by definition *CAN'T* be commercial.

>Some people are missing the point of shareware over a net like USENET.
>It's to benefit the *readers*, not just the poster and/or author.  If it
>didn't benefit the readers, then it would not be appropriate to post.

[Section 3.3: 'Be sure your posting is appropriate to USENET']

	..."And please don't quote the First Amendment, or the laws allowing
freedom of speech in your country; while the posting programs will not stop
you, the aftermatch could be very unpleasent - lawsuits and court trials
usually are, and the USENET would certainly collapse as sites dropped from
it to protect themselves from legal liability.  You wouldn't want that on
your conscience, would you?  Of course not."

**	This also extends to the laws covering copyrights, and the ones
related to telecommunications, etc. I take issue with the idea that the
shareware distribution is a 'posting appropriate to USENET.'  And, since
a great number of sites' involvement in USENET is completely unrelated to
their business or financial interests, any legal controversy about the
practices related to using the net could 'collapse the USENET'.  I take
this to basically mean that it is not in the co-operative interests of
the USENET to get into anything sticky.  Shareware is sticky, and is
therefore inappropriate.  It's also commercial, and I suspect that a lot
of business people at sites who offer courtesy connections wouldn't feel
that they should be involved in *any way* with something that could end
up costing them time and money (and possibly legal fees).  You wouldn't
want that on YOUR conscience, would you?  Of course not.


[Section 3.4:  Do not post other people's work without permission]

	"Posting something to USENET puts it in the public domain for all
practical purposes."

**	Not public domain?  I think the courts will have to reach some
decisions before you can be sure, but in the mean time I wouldn't think
of USENET as private.  In a funny sort of way, if USENET were a paid
bulletin board, your shareware arguments might hold some more water.  If
the bulletin board's customer agreed to honor shareware copyrights, then
they might be enforcable, and they wouldn't slip into the public domain.
Since USENET is *PUBLIC* (we've admitted a few jerks), and *NON-COMMERCIAL*
(we don't pay for a feed), and since there aren't any contracts signed
in advance regarding copyrighted material, I'm no legal-eagle, but it
seems pretty darned clear to me.  

>
>So to suggest that sites be paid as middlemen in a software distribution
>channel is silly.  It misses the point of shareware, which is that the
>users get to pass it around for their benefit.  The authors would be glad
>to send a disk to any customer in the mail who places an order.

	Stick to the issue.  If I sell a product, it's a commercial
enterprise (if you don't believe me, call your local city-hall, tell them
what you're doing with your home computer, and ask if you need a business
license).  You have NO right to take advantage of the fact that I am
providing USENET feeds to other sites to peddle your product.  If you
make me incur costs as a result, I want compensation.  If I'm not compensated,
then you are taking something from me.  Much in the same way that if you
are distributing advertising literature, and you decide to walk to my house
and stick it in my mailbox, you are violating the law.  I didn't give you
the right to use my mailbox for your commercial benefit.  Seems pretty
darned simple to me.
>
>The shareware concept came about to benefit the users as well as the author.

	If the primary benefactor is the user (as is the case with free-ware),
I'll spend my money to help the cause.  I don't think the author of share-
ware's primary concern is the 'user'.  If it were, he'd say "Here it is,
enjoy it, it's free".  I don't object at all to those folk who get together
and (using the net) get buying groups together to purchase something at
a lower price for the group.  Even if the person organizing the buy is making
a few bucks for his time.  It involves $$$$, but *THAT's* the kind of
commercial activity that IS appropriate to the net.


	As to your comment about counterexamples, I've presented them here
for every issue you raised in your posting.  I've also provided excerpts from
documentation which is regarded as 'official' within the USENET world.  All
you've said is it's *NOT* public domain, not a public network, *not* non-
commercial.  Where have you presented documentation?  Where have you
addressed the issues directly, and not gone off on tangents about such things
as the 'user is the benefactor'?  Saying it won't make it so, so *you* stop
saying it.



					Mike Levin
-- 
 _            _           
| | ___  ___ |_| ___   Michael Levin     SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles
| |/ ._\| | || ||   \  20732 Lassen Street,    Chatsworth  CA  91311    U.S.A.
|_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_|  E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com  {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml