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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------