In recent months I've noticed more and more Usenet posts that contain
some kind of copyright statement in the .sig, often accompanied by
statements that Alta Vista, Deja News, etc., etc., etc. are specifically
prohibited from archiving the post.  I've also seen .sigs that threaten
absurdly high monetary penalties if the post is archived.
 
I haven't seen anything like this on my own list, but I'm starting to
wonder about how things like this can be reconciled with having list
archives.
 
Why do people object to having their posts archived?
 
Is there something inherently objectionable about commercial archiving
services?
 
Are listowners reponsible if LISTSERV saves posts contaning "no archive"
statements in the notebook files?
 
I also note that a commercial service called Pangaea Reference Systems is
seeking to provide a free mailing list archive.  I got a note from them
several months ago asking if it was okay to subscribe to my list, and I'm
sure a lot of other listowners did too (it was mentioned briefly on
LSTOWN-L).  I just checked their web site, and so far they have obtained
permission to archive a mere 84 mailing lists, suggesting that most
listowners declined to give permission.  I'm wondering if this was due to
copyright considerations, or the ethical implications of allowing a
commercial concern to profit from a mailing list (and from the labor of
listowners).
 
steve
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Stephen Wright                                        Music Library
[log in to unmask]                          Northern Illinois University
----------------------------------------------------------------------