Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: WASHINGTON POST ON LE Message-ID: <9508161552.0MAXX02@support.com> References: Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 15:52:36 -0700 Lines: 73 jcblal@clark.net (J C Blalock) wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) : >If they printed an article of special interest to a select few, : >the regular readers and debators of alt.religion.scientology, and : >somebody requested permission to post the article at ARS, and they : >refused permission, they are fools. Me: >: Right. Posting one or two of their articles relating to ars >: right in the newsgroup might even get them more subscriptions >: in the long run. A teaser for their e-paper. Jessie: > The correspondent, who is the one I asked, does not have the power > to approve the article's use. If I had gone "through channels" > I might well have gotten a legal OK, but I didn't expend the energy > to do so. OIC. : >What good is it to put out information that is then uslessly locked away : >from people? >: S'gonna get on ars anyway. Why don't they use it to look >: good, I wonder? Do they think allowing a few of the articles >: to run, they are obligated to lose their right to say no to >: other publication? > > Why do you begrudge the Post their right to copyright? They are > in the *legitimate* busines of generating information, and they > have the right to apply the current laws for its use. The > contents of the article were NOT being called something they > aren't, for instance a religious text, and they were NOT already > available for perusal at the courthouse. Whoa! I don't begrudge the Post any rights. Don't know where you got that idea. : >I simply would have no interest in an electronic newspaper that so : >shortsightedly managed to make itself so useless by insisting on : >monopolizing itself in this fashion. Simply useless. : >If I had a subscription to an e-mail version, and had been told : >upon request that I could not some days after the fact reprint ONE : >article to the newsgroup particularly in need of knowing the contents : >of this article, I would quickly terminate my subscription with any such : >paper so foolish and short sighted and determined to make their own : >efforts not useful to me in this fashion. >: > You have the right to read material that's free online and in the public > domain. You have the right to read the online Washington Post if you > choose to do so...if not, you have the right to spend all of 25 cents > for the hard copy version. No one hiding the contents of the Post from > you, nor are they charging you $100,000 a page to read it. > >: Not exactly trailblazers into the digital domain, I'd say. >: Lagging behind the times instead of getting out in front of >: the wave. >: > At least the Washington Post didn't sell themselves to AOL like > the New York Times and Time magazine did. Hey, Jessie. I'm not down on the Post at all. I was just pointing out a missed opprotunity to tease their target audience with their fine journalism. >-= Jessie Blalock jcblal@clark.net =- +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"