Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''

["Roy Murphy" <murphy(at)panix.com>]

'Twas brillig when Ron Gustavson scrobe:
>The question is what constitutes an "unauthorized copy of a 
>work"...having distributed it on USENET she now can't claim that any 
>copy is unauthorized. She might have a cause of action if someone were 
>to pick up a bunch of stories from that newsgroup, including hers, and 
>publish a book of them. But sending it out on USENET means that she is 
>granting permission to make and distribute copies. Furthermore, in 
>some sense using USENET forms a type of contract. In consideration for 
>giving her distribution of her work at no cost to her, others used 
>their servers, comm. lines, and time (moderators and system 
>administrators) as consideration. Contract fulfilled.

I don't know that contract is the best way to describe this 
transaction.  I think it's more likely that some form of implied, non-
exclusive license is created by virtue of posting to Usenet.  But it 
may not follow that the implied license extends to republishing Usenet 
content on the web.
 
-- 
Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html