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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

if it is a license then who did she negociate it with?...If USENET, then 
usenet has a whole set of conditions (as another post pointed out) and 
republishing stuff is part of it.....If it's a implied non exclusive 
license then she can't later try to make it an exclusive one. ...




"Roy Murphy" <murphy@panix.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
04/26/02 10:41 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''


'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