NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/news/sysadmin/1464

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1464 news.admin:8559 news.admin.policy:418
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!rock!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!darwin.sura.net!udel!intercon!psinntp!news.columbia.edu!cubmol!dan
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cubmol.bio.columbia.edu
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:29:11 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>    The argument I make for keeping a.b.p.e is that it doesn't harm any
>>publisher. I can make that argument here, and I would explain it to the
>>publishers if any of them cared for my opinion.
>>    Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler at least, know about usenet, and have
>>had the option to sue for a long time now.
>
>People, be *very* careful about posting opinions like that.  Even though
>it gets repeated hundreds of times, people seem unaware of this fact --
>whether you charge for it or not has no bearing on whether a copyright
>infringement has taken place.  It comes into play only when damages are
>calculated.  Posting stuff like the above indicates a wilful disregard for
>the law and rights of the copyright holders.
>
   Oh, stop whining. The big bad world is so mean to copyright holders,
isn't it?
   My point is that a.b.p.e isn't harmful to pornography publishers. That
is my opinion, and I will defend it. I would argue it to the publishers if
they cared. I suggest that if you aren't harming anyone, then what you
are doing is OK. Do you want to argue with that statement?

>They do care.  They sued Event Horizons, a dirty-GIF BBS, and won big time.

   You willfully misread this event. Unless I am very wrong, EH was claiming
ownership of the images, and threatening other BBS's. It makes perfect sence
to me that Playboy would sue.

>They do think it does them harm and it is not up to us to decide whether
>it causes them harm.  The point of copyright is the author decides that, and
>if the author wants to give it away because he/she doesn't think it causes
>any harm, that is the author's sole perogative.
>
  I deny this (the first sentance). I believe they do not think usenet is
causing them harm, or they would have taken action before. All I am doing is
making the case that carrying a.b.p.e is OK. I don't pretend that it is free
from liability. Nothing is free from liability. But I don't see any reason
to think you have any particular liability.

>
>As soon as people create a group that contains nothing but photos posted with
>the permission of the photographer, and with model releases of the subjects
>on file, then everybody who wants it should carry it.  You're crazy to carry
>any other sort of group, particularly if your pockets are deep.

   How much public domain pornography is there?

   When the time comes that the net solely consists of determining who owns
what and how much you have to pay to get access to it, we might as well give
it up.

DanZ

--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.