Charging the net...

[root@research.bdi.com Systems Research Supervisor]

In article <qLTk212w164w at mantis.co.uk> mathew at mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes:
=>
=>Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to
=>copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to
=>abide by the conditions of ownership.
=>
   But if a copyright holder posts the copyrighted work, he implicitly
authorizes copies to be made on every site receiving the particular
group, given the automated nature of news feeds. Further copying may
be restricted by the terms of the copyright, but it can't dictate the
fair use of the implicitly authorized copies.
   This doesn't deal with the issue of having a third party post the
work. It might be wise to include a clause in the copyright notice
preventing broadcast (implicit or explicit) of the work.
   Disclaimer: This isn't law (to the best of my knowledge), but I think
my statements are sensible, and reflect what I think the law should be.
As it is, I think I like being a hacker more than I would like being a
lawyer.

=>
=>mathew
=>

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration



-- 
                            gdtltr at brahms.udel.edu
   _o_                      ----------------------                        _o_
 [|o o|]   Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice.   [|o o|]
  |_o_|           Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc.          |_o_|