This book analogy is not accurate. It is my contention that usenet postings are not copyrighted. Our postings are not disseminated like a book, we are paid nothing for the use of our postings on the multitude of machines that our postings appear. Or, in the alternative, if copyrighted, by posting them in the electronic ether, we give up most of our rights regarding dissemination, copying etc. Perhaps we may still have some residual rights regarding accuracy and the like. Also the posting regarding the legal blurbs on software, really was off point, since what they they were refering to was a "license", and again there is some doubt about how enforceable the individual licenses that the software companies give. That is, some of these licenses may have provisions that are not enforceable. Kirk Sheppard kshep@netcom.com P. O. Box 30911 "It is Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Bethesda, MD 20824-0911 Live On Your Knees." U.S.A. - Emiliano Zapata On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Lefty wrote:

Kirk Sheppard asks

...

Finally what is the tangible difference between storing usenet postings on a hard disk for an indefinite time, or on a cd-rom, or a cd that is re-writable, or tape or any other storage device? Not very much I would argue.

I don't believe that _storage_ is the issue at all. If I purchase a copy of a book, I don't believe that I'm violating copyright by making an archival copy of it _for_ _my_ _own_ _use_.

If I start distributing or selling copies to other people, however, that's a different matter.

-- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.