🚀 go-pugleaf

>True, but untrue.  English isn't for sale either, nobody owns it, but
>one can, under law, get ownership of particular words (made up or otherwise)
>used in specific contexts.

>We, for example own the trademarks "clari" and "clarinet" when it comes to
>newsgroup hierarchies -- (though a newsgroup of the form rec.music.clarinets
>would probably not infringe this mark.)

>We also control that hierarchy under contract with our customers, but
>trademark law also gives us ownership of it in the sense that we can
>prevent non-customers from making use of it against our will.

>To say one "purchases" the rights to a hierarchy is not quite right.
>(Not yet.)   One gains rights through the act of creation, which one
>might sell down the road.  It's not a matter of taking something from
>anybody, but of creating something new, and owning/controlling it after
>you do.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
>The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

I suspect that under legal test , Brad, you would find that you own the 
copyright to all materials which you distributed under the clari heirarchy.  
The heirarchies themselves are, however, a product of the netnews environment 
created by usenet.  It would undoubtedly make for interesting law, but the 
reality is you could not enforce nonposting to the clari heirarchy if you 
tried.

Rather it is impolite and inconvenient to others to post to the clari 
heirarchy.

It is probably in everyone;s best interest to:
 
     1)  not overstate one's ownership
     2)  be polite

The law is a very dull instrument and resolution of these kinds of questions 
will require a careful use of a scapel! 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph w-rolph@ds.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263