[1350] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Internet Training (Not again!)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Kirby)
Wed Sep 30 17:18:51 1992
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:15:13 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Steven Kirby <kirby@athena.cs.uga.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9209292306.AA14797@athena.cs.uga.edu>; from "Thomas P. Vogl" at
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Maybe I'm a little too anxious because we just finished (I hope) a discussion
of the thrust of this message on NETTRAIN. Tom, the legality of commercial
use of the "net" depends on what you mean by the "net". There is already
significant commerical traffic on the Internet (e.g. Dialog, Lexis, DJNS,
MCI Mail, etc.) Since the Internet isn't a single entity, but rather an
almagamation of entities, it's kinda hard to make blanket statements about
what is and isn't permissible "on the Net". Truth is, it depends on which
"net" you're talking about. Before we take up huge chunks of bandwidth to
debate this issue, there is a discussion list that deals with commercial use
of the consitutent parts of the Internet. I don't have the address handy--
I deleted it, along with a lot else, already. But Glee Willis or Howard
Pasternack of some of the others who've survived (endured?) the other debate
might could pass it along. Any of y'all know what I'm talking about and have
the address handy?
--Steve
Steven Kirby
University of Georgia
kirby@athena.cs.uga.edu>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I found Michael Hart's message on the different perceptions of the new group
of
> internet users and the analogy with learning to drive a car most interesting
and
> very appropos. I agree with him on most points that he makes.
>
> However, I found his copyright notice, and unintelligible explanation of the
> need therefore totally inappropriate in its tone. The broad restriction,
indeed
> prohibition of showing his message to anyone else is contrary to the ethical
> spirit of the net. Even worse, it is clear that the point of the prohibition
is
> to allow a private publisher financial gain, and it is equally clear, that
"for
> profit" use of the net is illegal. It is one thing to ask the readers not to
> republish his words without attribution. It is equally appropriate to ask
> readers not to include his work in theirs even with attribution. But as
> written, the prohibition prevents me from showing this note to my colleage who
> happens not to be a PACS-L subscriber. Is this reasonable, ethical, or legal?
> I think not. Should I show it to my colleague anyhow? Any comments or
guidance
> will be appreciated.
> Tom Vogl
> vogl@helix.nih.gov
>
