Wow, this usenet copyright issue has touched off a pretty heated debate. Let me just make a few points: In most usenet areas, there are no limitations on who may receive the group. By posting to such an area, you imply that you intend your post to be received by an unrestricted audience. This, of course, includes the possibility that some readers of the newsfeed will be reading it in a time-delayed manner, such as a dialup newsfeed over slip, uucp, or other protocol. A CD-ROM is just another form of delayed newsfeed. There are many areas availiable where restrictions are placed upon who may receive the feed. Many mailing lists, such as extropians, have this policy. Anyone receiving that list agrees that they will not redistribute the messages, and that includes selling CD-ROMs. If you have something which you would like to limit the distribution of, there are many forums availiable where the readers consent that they will abide by such a policy. The general readers of usenet have not consented to any such agreement. What offends me is that some hypocritical people would send a message to an area that they know is public domain, and then complain that they didn't want their message distributed. When you post, you should decide weather or not you want it public domain. But don't complain if you change your mind after the fact. I reccomend that everyone who is concerned about the distribution of some document that you wrote, (ie research paper, commentary, etc) post a message in a public forum giving a brief overview, and then state that it is copyrighted, and that anyone who agrees to respect your terms of non-distribution should send you email and that you will send them a copy. This also allows you to place an expiration time limit on it, so that someone won't find it reading outdated usenet news. To continue Lefty's cable TV analogy: A cable TV company can charge you a fee for assisting you in receiving a publicly availiable signal. However, they do not have copyright on that signal - they can't stop you from buying your own antenna, nor can they stop a competing cable company (if the municipality allows it). The cable company is selling you their assistance in receiving a publicly availiable signal. They do not own that signal or the copyright to it. They are merely a common carrier of the communication. In the same way, internet service companies like netcom are merely providing a service which aids you in receiving a publicly availiable signal. Selling the netnews feed either on a CD-ROM is no different. They are not selling the posts - they are selling their communications services which allow you to receive it. They have no copyright on the posts. They are NOT SELLING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL - they are SELLING A COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. If a TV station was to take the broadcast of a competing station, add their own commercials etc, and rebroadcasts it, then we have copyright infringement. They are taking someone else's material and using it for their own benefit - here we have copyright infringement. The cable company does not do this - they are simply distributing the signal unaltered, commercial advertisements and all. In the same way, if someone is selling complete, unaltered archives of usenet, it is a communication service. If they're taking posts, modifying for their own purposes, and selling at a profit, we have the possibility of copyright infringement. I hope you all understand the difference.