I would argue that what USENET needs is a way for the cost of publication to be incurred by the publisher; storing the data in= your own repository (or repositories) while pointers get flooded=

through

the USENET distribution system would give publishers an= incentive to do garbage collection that they do not have today.

=09Like many Internet settlement schemes, this seems to not make= much sense. If a person reads USENET for many years enjoying all of its wisdom,= why should he get a free ride? And why should the people who supply that= wisdom have to pay to do so? A USENET transaction is presumed to benefit both= parties, or else they wouldn't have configured their computers to make that= transaction. =09Does it make sense for the New York Times to pay me to read it?= But perhaps it does for the Weekly Advertiser. =09The reason that automated schemes such as "publisher pays" will= fail is because determining who "should" pay is too complex for automated= schemes. You will just push around who takes advantage of who. =09If you ask a question, you should pay. If I provide you with= useful help, you should pay. If I suggest a commercial solution to your= problem, who should pay? If I harass you for not knowing the answer to the= question, I should pay. =09DS