[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna
Paul Francis Gilbert (pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU) wrote:
(Nathan points out that he wrote most of the FAQ text)
: If this is true, then you, Nathan, does indeed have the right to copyright
: the information that you've created. What you don't actually have is the
: right to discriminate against people that want to access your site. It
: would be legal for to block access if you were providing it as a paying
: service... ie. people getting what they pay for. But since you're making it
: publically available on your website, everyone has the *Right* to access it.
: To block access to certain people is discrimination, and illegal in at least
: the US [probably a civil offense, although I'm no lawyer].
: To re-iterate, as copyright holder you have the right to say that it can
: only be available from your website. Borland for example, recently released
: the TurboVision source for C++; a textual user interface system. They
: are allowing access to everyone, while still maintaing the copyright, and
: they have designated that the information is only be downloadable from their
: website. They, and neither do you, have the right to only make the
: information available to certain people (ex. the people on AOL).
: If you want to break the law, go right ahead. It will just give Turley some
: solid base for his law suit, if he goes through with it.
No, I don't think there is any legal reason that Nathan cannot restrict
access to his web pages for any reason he sees fit, and there isn't a
thing any of us can do about it. Would it be any different if his ISP
decided to reject all data packets from particular domains because those
domains had been the source of hack attempts? Is this any different from
"subscriber only" web pages, even those where no fees are charged?
The only issue here with regard to the access to the FAQ is whether Nathan
is conforming with the requirements of the c.s.a2 newsgroup charter. And
that is not a legal issue, merely one of Internet protocol. Something
tells me that the net.cops aren't going to break down the door, seizure
warrant in hand, and demand that Nathan hand over the FAQ. It just
doesn't work that way. Mr. Mates became FAQ keeper because he agreed to
do it, and the rest of c.s.a2 allowed him to take over those duties
because...well, he agreed to do it, and the community apparently trusted
that he would make those documents available.
As for the problem of the allegedly-restricted web site (I have no trouble
viewing the FAQ site, so I have only other correspondents rantings to go
by)...there exist newsgroups which have so many varied FAQ topics that no
one person has all of the answers (so to speak), and the complete FAQ
documents are seldom, if ever, posted to the group. Instead, a FAQ index
is published, and the index includes instructions for obtaining the FAQ
answers...by visiting web pages, emailing robots, or emailing people.
Now, I hate to speak for Nathan...he is certainly capable of doing that
himself, and I have never met him myself...but I imagine that someone not
on Nathan's $#!+ list who happens to be on a blocked site and who happens
to need a copy of the FAQ could probably send Nathan an e-mail asking for
it (what a concept!). Assuming Nathan to be a reasonable person
(although, quite frankly, I don't know if that applies to anyone involved
in this little dispute; that is another matter entirely), this
hypothetical '][ser' would receive a copy of the appropriate FAQ, probably
with the admonition that he isn't to give a copy to Turley.
So what is the problem? So for a few users, obtaining the FAQ is a little
more difficult...kind of like if was for me before my service added a Lynx
browser...
--Dave Althoff, ][.
--
/-\ _ _ *** Just a few more weeks!!! ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX