Jonathan describes the situation perfectly. Jsmith (in my example) does
exactly what Jonathan outlined. So the scenario goes that jsmith the
subscriber says please mail this to my friend Chris.
Now looking at this from all points of view. It is in the economic
interest of the magazine to make sure that I have every opportunity to
subscribe and not just freeload on jsmith's subscription. It is in
jsmith's interest to keep sending me the articles (because they give us
something to talk about when hoisting a pint)m it is in my interest
because I am learning about something or seeing a point of view that I
have never had before.
So in some sense, I think that the piece should come jointly from the
magazine and jsmith. I have a consent agreement with jsmith, and this
item should be under that agreement. Of course getting the publications
to buy off is a different issue. I think it is probably quite important
that the consent agreement not hop from jsmith to the magazine. Just
because jsmith has emailed me something under our agreement does not
give the 3rd party license in any sense to use that agreement for
anything at all. (I suspect that some of the cleverer people in this
group can come up with great counter examples.)
Regards Chris
<snip> the content is from an entirely different source?
I think we're working on the assumption that the most recent
sender/forwarder is the entity that needs to be trusted.
But in that case, why do one publisher's articles have the magazine's
return address on them, if jsmith sent the mail? It sounds to me as
though jsmith has hit a button saying "send a friend this article",
rather than forwarding it himself. In that case, it's very difficult
to build a strong trust relationship of any kind (without permitting a
lot more mail from the publisher than you might intend), but a
hashcash
token might be sufficient.
<snip>
Christopher Bird (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net) (cbird@thenetworkeffect.net).vcf
Description: Vcard