I recently started Judges-L and have attempted to structure the list
as a minimal judicial mechanism using, most recently, copyright.
However, Winship says I can't do this, any suggestions? (I don't
really care whether copyright is used or not, as long as the List can
function effectively.)
I first quote Winship, then the New Judges-L Frequently Asked Question,
and finally the Judges-L Welcome / Frequently Asked Questions List to
give context.
dss
>
> X-From: Winship <winship[_at_]TENET.EDU>
> Subject: Re: No "fair use?"
> X-To: Multiple recipients of list LSTOWN-L <LSTOWN-L[_at_]SEARN.bitnet>
>
> Well, valid "fair use" cannot be unilateraly restricted, despite what
> a lot of publishers want you to believe. On the other hand, the
> Judges-L folk might claim that by subscribing, and not immediately
> unsubscribing when you learn the terms, it falls under license or
> contract law, rather than copyright. But as far as copyright law
> goes, they cannot say there is no "fair use" as the law says there
> is. Take it up with the copyright list (cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org)
>
>
> ================= New Judges-L FAQ =======================
>
>
> Can a message that has appeared on the Judges-L be reposted?
>
>
> Only your own words can be reposted and only by you. Authors retain a
> non-exclusive non-transferable copyright on their own writing sent to
> the List. The only "fair use" is no use at all.
>
> Privacy of messages sent to the List is crucial for the List to be
> able to perform its conflict resolution functions. Privacy makes
> uninhibited expression more likely, thus aiding in fact finding and
> resolution of disputes. It also protects authors from having their
> words used out of context. Finally, it inhibits persons not satisfied
> with a List decision from taking their complaints to another forum.
> The ability to achieve a final resolution of conflict is one of the
> major advantages of a judicial ruling.
>
> The non-exclusive transfer of copyright to the List Registrar ensures
> that the author can continue to use the words they have sent to the
> List, while at the same time those words can be used in a well
> controlled manner, for example, in an opinion issued by Judges-L.
> This is essential to the function of the List, since a participant in
> a dispute might try to block publication of an opinion by asserting
> copyright over crucial writing, if not pleased with the decision.
>
> The non-transferability of the copyright retained by the author makes
> it impossible for List policy to be circumvented by a (legal) person
> who collects copyrights from various authors. It also ensures that
> only persons bound by the List copyright policy can use material sent
> to the List in other contexts. This could also be crucial in stopping
> misuse of writing sent to the List.
>
> There is no "fair use", because "fair use" permits the circumvention
> of List policy. First, messages to the list may only contain a few
> lines, so the normal definition of fair use, would, in reality,
> permit copying of an entire document, or at least the wording added
> by the author in a follow-up to a previous message. Second, repeated
> "fair use" of even a single line could easily lead to the entire
> message being transferred beyond control of the List. That is, if
> different lines of a message were transferred under "fair use", one
> line at a time to another forum, the original message could easily be
> assembled from the machine readable fragments so transferred.
>
> "Fair use", of materials explicitly made public by Judges-L is
> permitted, provided the source is cited and copyright statement is
> reproduced in full.
>
> Any subscriber posting messages to the Judges-L is bound by this
> copyright policy. Material posted by others falls under a Judge-L
> compilation copyright. Writing by persons not posting to the List
> themselves is covered by a compilation copyright held by the sender
> and the List, and subject to the same restrictions, where ever
> applicable, as original writing. The terms "writing" and "words" are
> construed to include all forms of expression subject copyright, such
> as drawings, recorded sounds, and so on.
>
> External archives of Judges-L messages and opinions can only be
> maintained if explicit written permission is given. Subscribers may,
> however, maintain archives of messages they have received while
> subscribed to the List, but only for their own private use.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
>
> Welcome to Judges-L
>
> The following Frequently Asked Questions with answers are
> designed to assist you in interacting with other subscribers
> to the Judges' List and thereby assist users of the NetNews
> system in dealing with certain types of abusive messages.
> Please do not post to the List until you have been a
> subscriber for a couple of weeks, so you can avoid the most
> common mistakes made by new subscribers. Alternatively you
> can review the activities of the List by retrieving archives
> of recent discussions. You can retrieve the list of archives
> by sending "INDEX Judge-L" (not including quotation marks)
> to LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.BITNET).
> You can then order these files with a "GET Judge-L
> LOGxxxx". For example, to get the first month's archive, send
> the command "GET JUDGES-L LOG9409" to retrieve the archive
> for September of 1994.
>
> You can unsubscribe by sending the command "UNSUB JUDGES-L"
> in the body of a message to LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or
> LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.BITNET).
>
> Please retain this message for future reference.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Judges-L: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
>
>
>
> What is the Judge-L?
>
> The Judges' List (Judge-L[_at_]UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or JUDGES-
> L[_at_]UBVM.BITNET) is a LISTSERV mail distribution list. Messages
> for distribution must be sent to one of these addresses.
> Subscription and other LISTSERV commands must be sent to
> LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or LISTSERV[_at_]UBVM.BITNET.
>
>
>
> How does the Judges' List work?
>
> The List distributes messages to a panel of Judges who cancel
> multiple posts to NetNews immediately. The List is used to
> help Judges organize themselves, finalize policy, and set
> procedures to enforce rules. It is primarily directed to
> those who issue cancels. Secondarily, to those who survey
> cancels issued, in order to ensure that the cancel facility
> is not being abused. General policy discussion is conducted
> in the USENET newsgroup news.admin.policy. A periodic post in
> that newsgroup gives the current policy consensus.
>
> In is not the intention of the Judges to regulate the content
> of articles posted. The protection of the NetNews system from
> overload by posts to multiple newsgroups is the focus of the
> activity. Widespread posting of off-topic material and
> overloads of individual newsgroups is a secondary focus of
> discussion.
>
> Mechanisms for the control of automatic posting software or
> automatic cancellation software is within the scope of
> discussion. Security mechanisms to facilitate the
> cancellation of abusive posts is also within the scope of the
> List.
>
> Certain activities, such as voting, are restricted to
> registered Judges. The List Registrar must confirm that a
> Judge is registered when requested to do so. A Judge
> registers by supplying verifiable identity information to the
> Registrar. This information must be traceable to a primary
> identification document, such as a birth certificate.
> Supplied information is used only for the registration of a
> Judge. A digital signature, signed by a recognized
> certification authority can satisfy this requirement. The
> Registrar will acknowledge that certification has succeeded.
> Another option is transmission of a verifiable name, address,
> and telephone number (including best times to telephone). Any
> finger, X.500 directory, or Network Information Center
> entries, should also be supplied, in order to reduce the need
> for telephonic contact (use the form at the end of this
> post). Random checks may be undertaken from time to time to
> confirm the integrity of registration information. The List
> Registrar is currently David S. Stodolsky at address:
> david[_at_]arch.ping.dk.
>
>
>
> How are decisions made?
>
> There are two types of messages distributed via the List. The
> first type is an informational message. The second type is an
> action message, which notifies readers that an official
> response is requested or pending. A response to a previous
> message must begin with the characters "Re: " (note the
> trailing space). A message that starts a new discussion must
> not start with these characters.
>
> Action messages must be indicated by a message subject that
> starts with all capital letters. Current message subject
> precursors are:
>
> :"COMPLAINT: " - a complaint about a message that someone
> wants cancelled
>
> :"CANCEL: " - a complaint about an inappropriate cancel
> message
>
> :"DRAFT: " - a request for preliminary input on a proposed
> action
>
> :"OPINION: " - a proposed action not directly related to a
> complaint
>
> :"ACCEPTED: " - an accepted action
>
>
> Decisions are preferably reached by consensus. The consensus
> is indicated by at least one week passing after an action
> message, or the last comment on an action message, has been
> distributed. Thus, if an OPINION message is posted and no
> comments are made in response to it for a week, it is
> considered to have achieved a consensus. The message will
> then be redistributed in exactly the same form, but with the
> ACCEPTED message precursor. If no objections are registered
> within a week, then this opinion becomes valid. (Objections
> at this stage can only be procedural, such as failure to
> incorporate corrections or not allowing adequate time for
> comments.) If comments are received, they must be answered or
> incorporated into the accepted message. In the case of
> extensive revision, the message should be distributed again
> with an OPINION message precursor. Accepted messages are
> transferred to the file area for permanent storage. Accepted
> opinions are also posted to USENET with "Judges" as their
> sender.
>
> In the case that a consensus is not reached within three
> weeks after the final posting of an action message, the
> author of the message can call for a vote. After the call,
> the List Registrar will post the email addresses of
> registered voters. A voter is registered if s/he supplied
> certification information to the Registrar prior to the first
> presentation of the action item. Votes are directed to the
> author, or other designated vote counter, and may include a
> statement. After a week, all votes and comments are posted.
> If a complaint achieves majority support, it can be reposted
> as ACCEPTED. Contributed statements must be included.
> Opinions require two-thirds support to achieve acceptance.
>
>
>
> Do I have to wait a week before acting on a complaint?
>
> No. Any Judge can act on a complaint at any time. The List
> and the person who submitted the complaint must be notified
> immediately. If a complaint receives no response, it is
> assumed to be invalid. A week after the final comment on a
> complaint, it may be reposted, including all comments, with
> an "ACCEPTED: " subject precursor. This is normally done by
> the Judge who initially responded to the complaint. Unless
> there are objections, it is transferred to the file area one
> week later. A Judge must not be the first respondent to a
> complaint submitted on her/his behalf.
>
> A Judge should only respond to a complaint if confident that
> the response is appropriate. New Judges can develop their
> reputations by closely monitoring the List. This permits
> routine abuse to handled promptly by new Judges. More
> experienced Judges can then concentrate on handling
> complicated complaints or on incorrect responses made by
> novices.
>
>
>
> What is the correct style for a message?
>
> Messages to the List must follow USENET guidelines. See
> "Guidelines for posting on Usenet" and "Hints on writing
> style for Usenet" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers".
> Specifically, spell check your message and review it for
> accuracy. If you are irritated or upset, put it aside for a
> day, and then read both the message you are replying to and
> your response again. All messages to the List are archived
> and permanently available to subscribers.
>
>
>
> What should I do about inappropriate messages?
>
> Faulty or inappropriate messages should be ignored. You may
> notify the sender directly by email that there is a problem
> with such a message.
>
> Since action items cannot be ignored, inappropriate messages
> of this type may result in censure of the sender. When in
> doubt as to the type of a message you are sending, do not use
> an action precursor. If it definitely is an action message,
> post it using the "DRAFT: " message precursor first, and
> allow at least a week for feedback. Draft messages should be
> used in all cases except where time is of the essence.
> Posting of a draft message immediately fixes the registered
> voters on the item, but reduces the risk of repeated updates
> while in the "OPINION: " phase. Since opinion messages
> require responses within a week, it is more likely that the
> feedback to them will be negative and will be less complete
> than feedback to a draft.
>
>
>
> What if I do not follow these guidelines?
>
> Failure to provide certification information can result in
> unsubscription without notice, if there is an incident
> related to List security. Any person who provides false
> certification information will be prohibited from any use of
> the List for a period of five years and their postmaster,
> employer, or service provider will be notified thereof.
>
> If you abuse the List you may be asked to stop sending
> messages for a period of six months, by issuance of an
> opinion. If you fail to honor this request, then your
> messages will be automatically rejected for a period of one
> year. An abuser may reapply after that time by sending a
> request to Dimitri Vulis (dlv[_at_]dm.com). In extreme cases,
> abusers will be unsubscribed from the List for a one-year
> period. Further problems will result in an abuser's
> postmaster being notified, or if the abuser is a postmaster,
> the notification will go to an employer or service provider.
> The Judges reserve the right to counter any continuing abuse
> of the List without further notice.
>
> Severe abuse can result in immediate action by a List Owner
> or Site Administrator. The Judges' List must be notified when
> any such action is taken.
>
>
>
> How do I request censure of a Judge?
>
> A registered Judge can submit an OPINION message to the List
> requesting that an abusive Judge cease, for example, sending
> to the List. Alternatively, the message can be directed to
> the Registrar, who will post it to the List, confirming that
> the message was submitted by a registered Judge, who wishes
> to remain anonymous. Other comments on the case may be
> directed to the Registrar if authors wish to remain
> anonymous. Only comments by registered Judges will be
> forwarded to the List. In the case that a vote becomes
> necessary, the Registrar will randomly select nine registered
> Judges, if that many are available. They will be privately
> requested to deliver their votes to a designated Vote
> Counter. If three-fourths of the votes support the request,
> it will be posted as an ACCEPTED opinion by the Vote Counter.
> Dimitri Vulis (dlv[_at_]dm.com) will receive such votes, until
> further notice.
>
>
>
> How is conflict of interest avoided in censure cases?
>
> Any selected Judge directly involved in the dispute must
> notify the Registrar that they are not available to vote. In
> the case this withdrawal could affect the vote outcome, a new
> registered Judge will be randomly selected. The accused may
> advise the Registrar that certain Judges are directly
> involved and should not be selected. No more than one-third
> of registered Judges may be designated as unsuitable. Neither
> the Registrar nor the Vote Counter may serve as voters in
> censure cases.
>
>
>
> Why should I use this List instead of a newsgroup?
>
> Discussions of abusive practices also occur in the
> newsgroups, for example, news.admin.policy. That newsgroup
> has over 50,000 readers and over 50% of articles are
> crossposted. Each post, therefore, uses a minimum of 20 hours
> of readers' time, even if each reader spends only a second
> reading the subject line of an article. Examination of the
> post itself can lead to ten times that amount of time being
> used, or even more. It is suggested, therefore, that posts
> to newsgroups be limited to novel incidents, with the
> potential for generating a new policy consensus. Routine
> abuse can be handled in a much more economical manner, if it
> is referred to this List.
>
> Another advantage of using the List for cancel notifications
> is the almost immediate delivery of email. Newsgroup
> propagation is significantly slower, meaning that duplicate
> cancels may be issued. This can create problems, relating to
> the propagation of cancel messages, and certainly means
> unnecessary work for administrators.
>
> Consensus rarely occurs in newsgroups, if there is even the
> slightest disagreement on an issue. In order to create an
> alternative to arbitrary cancellation, cancellation wars
> between posters and administrators, etc., it is important to
> reach a consensus through a process that is open and fair. A
> list makes it more likely that every person sees the same
> material, which cannot be assured with people browsing
> newsgroups. Also, lists are less "public", so there is less
> incentive for people to defend positions, merely because they
> have taken them. This is a well know problem in international
> negotiations. These factors, when combined with the
> procedures suggested here, make reaching a consensus on the
> List much more likely than in a newsgroup.
>
> Another advantage of List operation is the privacy of the
> List archives. This makes it less likely that disputants
> seize upon details of statements made by Judges as indicating
> support for their position. The transfer of completed
> decisions to the publicly assessable file area, on the other
> hand, make them more likely to be used as guidance in dispute
> resolution. These completed decisions can also be used as a
> database of known offenders, in order to facilitate dealing
> with repeated abuse. This effect is even stronger in the case
> of accepted opinions, which are posted to USENET.
>
> Finally, there are some people who cannot understand that it
> is not OK to do anything that is not explicitly against some
> "law." These people need some "legal" decisions to abide by,
> because they will not stop abusive activities otherwise. They
> may also view cancellation of their articles as abridging
> their "free speech" or "restraining their trade" and take
> their complaint to a court. The Judges-L can be the court of
> first instance, thereby reducing the risk of interference by
> governmental authorities with activities on the Net.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Judges-L Registration Form.
>
>
> Replace underlines "____" completely (in relevant items) with
> your information and return to:
> david[_at_]arch.ping.dk
>
> Last name __________________________
> Other names, initials, titles, etc. ________________________
> Address __________________________
> City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
> Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
> Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
>
> Work or other address __________________________
> City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
> Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
> Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
>
> Finger entry _________________________
> X.500 directory listing _________________________
> Network information center entries _________________________
> _________________________
> Other directory entries _________________________
> _________________________
> _________________________
> _________________________
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ===========================================================
David S. Stodolsky, PhD Internet: david[_at_]arch.ping.dk
Tornskadestien 2, st. th. (C) Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30
DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80
Received on Sun Dec 11 1994 - 23:14:10 GMT