Subject: Quoting from newsgroups... From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:04:02 -0400

Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Somebody asked:

>What are the legal and media restrictions on lifting comments made in 
>newsgroups with the editorial purpose of including these comments in 
>feature articles to be later published in magazines and newspapers?

Here's some quick points which may be helpful in choosing a course
of action, separate from legal and media restrictions:

* Many, perhaps most, Usenet postings like this are done "shooting from
  the hip" and therefore may not reflect the author's full thoughts on
  the matter.  

* Much of the more pungent, trenchant material may be said in less than
  full earnest, particularly many threats.

* Usenet postings can be forged.  (And I'm not talking about 'forging
  a userID on behalf of doing a third-party cancel.)  It happens.
  Lots.  Even if the post you quote wasn't, the [alleged] author could
  also say it was.

* Users can create fanciful, often misleading names, job titles, companies,
  etc., even where the post content itself is the real thing.  Heck,
  I do it myself.  _Caveat user_.  Most of these are humorous and
  fanciful enough that you'll twig.  But perhaps not, especially if
  there are in-jokes involved.

* Postings that are part of a thread, or even reflect aspects of
  on-going debates, may lose meaning when taken out of context, e.g.
  when you grab a sentence or so from amongs multiple layers of
  quoted stuff.

* A lot of people say things that may, harumph, be less than accurate.
  Perhaps they believe what they say.  Perhaps they don't.  Remember,
  nobody gets tested for clue level before being given posting ability.
  For example, sort of, remember the Marty Rimm "study" of "nasty stuff
  online" and how well it *wasn't* fact-checked before a, ahem, major
  popular weekly magazine ran a cover story based on it.  ()

* If you can grab and use that quote, so can all your fellow/competing
  journalists.  Whereas if you follow-up (by email, phone, fax, psi-msg,
  whatever), you are likely to get anywhere from a better (and unique)
  quote to more pieces of the story, pointers to other people and stuff,
  etc.

* If you do quote without checking or getting permission, the net will
  know, especially in these days of archives and search engines.  This
  means that when you do post a query, or email somebody for info, if
  they do a look-up and find bad .karma complaints, there goes your
  access to people, .

* It's courtesy.

On the other hand, people who post and aren't prepared to see stuff
in unexpected off-net places didn't read the warning labels on their
cyber-mattress, or otherwise think things through.  But the twin 
concerns of factual accuracy and poster identity should be enough to
make anybody want to do some verification.

Daniel Dern,