In article > (Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:13:29
-0600), Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:08:04 -0700 Hamilcar Barca
> > wrote:
>>
>> By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
>> license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission,
>> and storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.
>
> Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works" does
> *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

One cannot post one's copyrighted material through a system such as
Usenet, with its store-and-forward mechanism and then claim copyright
infringement because of it. One is implicitly granting some limited
license to copy by posting.

> In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that specific
> permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the entire article to
> anyone/anywhere else.

Sort of. The article is going to be copied and recopied in its entirety
as it propagates through the system. Netiquette recommends obtaining
permission before using the article in its entirety. What exactly is the
license granted by the (purported) copyright holder? I don't know.

Little or none of this, I presume, has any legal findings behind Usenet's
method of operation. Further, it's off-topic so I'll not abuse the
newsgroup further.

--
"Hollywood and the recording industry need to keep users from having
control over the sharing of data, and Microsoft needs to keep users
from being able to choose free software."
-- Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History. Columbia Univ.