🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec21.041439.24056@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:

>One thing I did ask Dave Small to clarify, though, was GEnie's
>compilation copyright. Obviously they cannot claim a compilation
>copyright on the compilation of comp.sys.atari.st articles, so they
>will be unable to stop GEnie subscribers from downloading all the
>c.s.a.st articles and putting them up on BBSes and whatnot.

This is the part that concerns me the most.  According to an author who
specializes in books on copyrights:

     ``The matter of Dave violating or not violating the law is totally
     up to USENET, not the attorney general.  You see, these laws are
     not enforced unless someone cries "fowl".  I assume USENET does
     not mind if their messages are reproduced and put on another
     system.
 
     If USENET doesn't mind, then there is no violation, because they
     have essentially licensed the use of their messages for other
     systems.  Technically, all BBS' messages are protected under law
     from reproduction, IF the system states that access to the system
     is conditional (ie: use of passwords).  Remember, an authored work
     is protected under copyright.  Each message is the property of the
     owner of the BBS.  It doesn't matter  if the BBS contains
     programs, messages, or "books", they are protected under copyright
     unless the author/owner claims they are public domain.
 
     Sure, it's wierd, but it's the LETTER of the law.  However, you
     know as well as I do, it would be stupid to enforce for just
     messages.
 
     I'm not saying Dave is a crook.  I happen to like his products
     and his magazine articles.  I'm just saying USENET could get him. 
     I'm saying this to perhaps inform him, not to threaten him.
 
     -- Richard Kelsch
 
     P.S.  How do I know all of this?  Well, I spent 3 years
     researching computer law and talking to about every type of
     lawyer you can think of, so I can write my book.  My book is  
     called "HACKING:  What's Legal & What's Not".  It's for sale 
     at E. Arthur Brown Company.''
 
It certainly does seem unethical for a network such as GEnie to upload,
basically, public domain messages and then place an anthology copyright
on them.  In fact, maybe the restrictions will become even greater when
one considers the overall effect of GEnie's legal system.  What about
non-profit BBS's which have read-only nodes established with Usenet? 
They may become liable to *GEnie* who owns the copyright ...I am not
saying that is the way it is, but that is the way it may become.

Regardless, the current GEnie-Usenet link does NOT represent an
exchange of information:  it is a hoarding of information.  Two things
must happen for this to become an exchange:  there must be a free
flow of messages between the two parties, all messages must carry a
permission to reprint, and the receiving party may not copyright
messages from the donor, or all messages must be placed in the public
domain.
-- 
Diane Barlow Close
      {nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada
      canada@crash.cts.com
      Free Canada -- Trade Mulroney