Hi Folks, I see three issues here. 1. There's copyright law. I think copyright law as it's currently enforced in the U.S. is morally bankrupt. It's one thing to create and distribute content and be compensated for that fairly, and it's another thing to own the content and extract endless amounts of surplus value from the sheer fact of owning it. Take a look at prices on student textbooks if you don't believe me. It's all surplus value -- the press does a markup and then so does the university/college bookstore. http://www.negativland.com has a nice piece on the economics of CD pricing that I like to teach that makes a similar point. The fact that someone legally owns something does not mean that a) they are in the right for owning it; and b) that it should be owned. Moreover, FAIR USE is designed to facilitate precisely something like the forwarding of a message to a mailing list for discussion and the distribution of course materials to students as cheaply as possible for the purposes of learning. The fact that right now U.S. courts are interpreting fair use law very conservatively does not make their interpretation correct or even justifiable. Napster's a really tired issue, but it's the same kind of thing. Musicians should be compensated. The Napster ruling guarantees that record companies will be compensated, not musicians. 2. There's Jeremy. Given how copyright law is going in the U.S. right now, and given that he's supporting the list for all our benefit, I think we owe him the respect of playing it safe and not putting him in jeopardy if that's how he wants it. It seems totally reasonable to me. 3. There's the manners of forwarding. I'm of the "less is more" school of forwarding, but I know there are other points of view on the matter, and I know where my delete key is, so it's no big thing. My $.02, adjusted for inflation. Best, --J