NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/news/sysadmin/1467

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1467 news.admin:8565 news.admin.policy:427
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!looking!brad
From: [e-mail] (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:13:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>   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

But the law says that your opinion about whether it is harmful is not
relevant.  I know that's hard for some people to accept.   The law says
that the copyright holder gets to decide who gets to copy it.  "I honestly
did not feel they were harmed" is not a defence.  One can say it until one
is blue in the face, but it is not a defence.

>>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.

According to reports I have read, Playboy has also required this BBS to
assist them in hunting down Playboy material on other BBs.  That may be
limited to material scanned and downloaded from Event Horizons, but the
fact remains that Playboy wants the material off systems that are not
claiming ownership of the images.

Playboy went after Event Horizons for many reasons, one of which was
their pretentious claims of owning the scans, but another of which was
that they were a suitable target to sue -- they were doing quite well,
financially (sadly, a large proportion of commercially successful BBs owe
their success to dirty [often pirated] graphics) and worth suing.
Both because of their money, and the easy damage calculation they could
do.

Indeed, no matter how much of an argument you can make for the low damage
caused by USENET posting of the playmate of the month, Playboy knows that
this damage will not stay low for long.  They just can't have a massively
growing network giving out their stuff for free.  If you think it is
below a threshold of harm today, it will not remain so forever.

>  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

Nah, it's just not causing enough harm to be worth suing.  There are bigger
fish to fry.  They won't get $500,000 out of any USENET site over this.
Anyway, those who claim to know their mind so well perhaps should call and
ask?   If they don't care, get permission.  Is it so hard to ask for
permission?

>   How much public domain pornography is there?

There is a lot of legit BB porn out there, though I doubt much is PD.
Good looking models charge money to be photographed in porn.  However, there
are people selling CD-ROMs of 100% legit sexual graphics files.  I met a few
at the BBSCon this August.

Penthouse also runs its own online service now.   You can bet that as that
grows in revenue that Penthouse will deal harshly with those who give
away their stuff for free, though they will go after those who sell it first,
for the obvious reasons.

>
>   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.

And what implies to you that this time is coming?  The net is for
discussion, where the members of the net share their own ideas.  It has never
been a net for ripping off other people's property.  The rule, "If you wrote
it, you can post it" is true and will continue to be.   Other nets exist
where people sell information.  I run one.  They're distinct, confusion is
minimal and things run fine.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366