HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:12:12 GMT

In article <BvCpLy.9oK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:

>But, what is illegal under federal law, and what federal courts convict
>people for doing don't always overlap.  Although the letter of the law
>doesn't say it's illegal, I am fairly confident the creator would be 
>convicted if a case like this went to court, for one of many reasons:
>
>  It looks so lifelike, it must be a real person.
>
>  I don't care if it's fake, it's still immoral.
>
>  They meant pictures of children, not necessarily photos of real kids.

I would you say that your certainty in this regard is not based on any
ascertainable fact about federal prosecutions. I know of no case of
successful child-pornography prosecution in the federal system in which
there was no actual child.

>BTW, does anyone know if there have been attempted/sucessful prosecutions
>for child pornography involving paintings?

I've never heard of one, and cannot imagine a federal prosecutor's trying
one.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:09:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.190446.15136@nntp.hut.fi> Jyrki Kuoppala writes:

>I don't think there's such a clear distinction nowadays in the era of
>civil forfeitures where people working as informers (and perhaps also
>police officers?) get part of the loot.  Or do you disagree, Mike?

Civil forfeitures are a serious problem, as is paying informants for
criminal information (sometimes paying them by failing to prosecute
them for crimes they have committed.) This problem grows even worse
when search and seizure are based on hearsay evidence from such a
"confidential" paid informant whose name never appears in the records.

It is not clear at all that private sector employment offers greater
pay than government employment. Consider further the double dip taken
by many who are career military men for twenty years (entitling them
to full pension) and then work in another government capacity thus being 
paid a double pension. How many were instances of military men retiring
and returning to the same job, same deskm in civilian clothing the
following Monday?

All which is not forbiden is permitted. On the other hand, how much of
it is moral?????

Bill Vajk


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:44:42 GMT

In article <8176@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>In article <Bv5y95.B58@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>>BSD386............................................free
>Yes.. This was the reason I posted this:
>	A.Where can I get BSD386? (is there a BSD486? =)
>	B.Where can I find information about how BSD386 runs on the
>	  dos box. I.e. can it coexist with dos & os/2 (both of
>	  whom, along with windows, are currently on my poor abused
>	  disk drive) and other such related performace information.

You mean 386BSD, not BSD/386 (that is commercial).  You can find out
about it on comp.unix.bsd where we all hang out.  You can ftp it
(start with the files 386bsd/386bsd-0.1/INSTALL.NOTES and 
386bsd/386bsd-0.1/unofficial/terry/FAQ.09Aug92 <-- or current version)
from a variety of sites.  The fastest I have seen is azathoth.sura.net
but it is on wuarchive.wustl.edu in mirrors4 as well.

No there is no "486BSD".  Naturally 386BSD is faster on 486's tho.

Yes, you can have OS/2 and DOS partitions too.  OS/2 Boot manager
can be helpful, but 386bsd has a facility to shut down to DOS as well.
>
>>or, 
>>   A good 386 Unix..........................$200-$1000
>Money for unix? Support AT&T? Not if *I* have anything to say about
>it! I'd WRITE my own unix first! (And then get sued and spend the
>rest of my life in jail =)

Well said.  Unless I were after a VERY fancy GUI or some other
feature that a PD operating system couldn't offer (X is available, BTW)
like Solaris or NeXT Step, I wouldn't spend a cent.

So come join us on comp.unix.bsd where this discussion belongs. 
Other newsgroups of interest may be: comp.os.linux and
comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Mike.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Mike Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 03 Oct 92 06:41:26 CST
Reply-To: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message dated 02-OCT-92, Jyrki Kuoppala writes:

>> And obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be 
>>protected speech.

>The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
>USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.

>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
 
In the U.S., each branch of government has the responsibility to support
and defend, and therefore by implication interpret, the Constitution: 
the document itself establishes no one branch as superior.  At the same
time, it establishes the Supreme Court as just that--supreme--and it is
the role of the courts "to say what the law is."  Marbury v. Madison.
 
So, some 200 years later, it is well settled that the Supreme Court's
interpretation is the one that is final, although we see Congress and the
President taking, or rejecting, certain actions from time to time based
on their thoughts on the matter.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:30:59 GMT

In article <JTW.92Sep25203600@pmws.lcs.mit.edu>,
 jtw@lcs.mit.edu (John Wroclawski) writes:

| One might well ask what criminal intent has to do with the (civil)
| patent law.

One might.  I didn't bring it up.  Mr. Shein did.  I simply responded
to it.

| The fact that a law -can- be violated
| accidently certainly doesn't provide a strong argument for reform. If,
| however, a law -is frequently- violated accidentally, or the cost of
| avoiding these accidental violations is higher than the benefits the
| law provides, then there is a good strong argument for changing the thing.

The part of this following ``, or the cost'' is a clear statement of, I
believe, a valid point.  (And was certainly clearer than Mr. Shein's
statement, assuming that is what he was trying to say.)  I think this
certainly applys to things like speeding and adultery laws.  Whether
the ``cost'' of software patents outweigh the ``benefit'' is certainly
a valid point for discussion.

| The
| patent system exists to serve a specific, useful goal. That goal, as
| we all know, is to benefit the public good by encouraging innovation.
| If the system is not meeting its goal, it should be reformed.

Which requires that one show that the system is *not* benefiting the
public good.  And, of course, since you say:

| It does not matter one whit whether the system meets its goal in theory
| if the practical effect is different.

You must show that it is failing in practice, not theory.  Which is to say
that you must show that ``innovation'' has, in practice, been stifled.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5960 comp.unix.bsd:6426 comp.os.mach:1380 misc.int-property:1023 alt.suit.att-bsdi:347 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:641
From: JEFF.MILTON@f402.n2603.z1.fidonet.org (JEFF MILTON)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: introduction
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 14:29:00 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:2603/402 - FPX-change BBS, New York NY

Hello to all out there.

FPX-change/FPXNet BBS in NYC is now receiving this echo via
FidoNet.


 * OLX 2.1 TD * FPX-change: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!2603!402!JEFF.MILTON
Internet: JEFF.MILTON@f402.n2603.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.190446.15136@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>I don't think I understand what you mean here.  I was commenting on
>the passage of one Bruce's article, not his person.  I don't see the
>relevance of whether I have read his books or not.

It seemed that you were implying a certain one-sidedness on Bruce's part.

>>I think it is reasonable to draw a moral distinction between "working for
>>the U.S. government" and the Hannover Hackers' attempts to break into
>>American systems in order to get money and drugs.
>
>I don't think it is reasonable to do that.  If you work for the U.S.
>government (for example CIA or DEA) doing the same things "the
>Hannover Hackers" did it seems quite equal to me than working for the
>corresponding Soviet agencies.

You didn't mention the CIA or the DEA in your initial posting. If you're
asking whether we consider being a traitor to the East German government who
works for money and drugs supplied by the CIA to be the moral equivalent
of the Hannover Hackers, who worked for money and drugs supplied by
Eastern Bloc intelligence services, I can certainly agree to that.

>No matter what you get paid with -
>drugs, money, whatever.

Whether you get paid at all says something about the moral stature of your
act.

>I don't see a moral distinction.

>The point was that the Hannover Hackers chose to betray their
country in order to get money and drugs; most people would see this as
being morally distinct from simply working for the U.S. government. And,
in fact, there are some people who work for the CIA and the DEA out of
moral conviction.

>I don't think there's such a clear distinction nowadays in the era of
>civil forfeitures where people working as informers (and perhaps also
>police officers?) get part of the loot.  Or do you disagree, Mike?

This is the first you've mentioned about venal government informers. In
your last posting, you simply mentioned working for the government.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6213 misc.int-property:1123 alt.suit.att-bsdi:441
From: dgay@di.epfl.ch (David Gay)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:01:19 GMT
	<RLK.92Oct1161235@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Oct1.231728.8419@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of 1 Oct 92 23:17:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231728.8419@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
   In article <RLK.92Oct1161235@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
   >No, it's not necessarily a subroutine:  the backing store patent can be
   >violated in a single line of code.  Whether I accept the subroutine
   >model isn't at issue -- what the patent holder accepts is.  BTW, a 100
   >line subroutine is fairly long in a language like C or Lisp.  And the
   >patent might be violated only by combinations of subroutines.

   This just argues that the total number of patents is even smaller than
   I was allowing. 

A well known mathematical theorem (due to Georg Cantor) says that the
power set of S always has a greater cardinality than that of S. I'm
impressed that you have found a counter-example (and a very good one
at that, the cardinality of the power set is actually lower.  Really
impressive).

   >Perhaps.  Most other industries don't have the level of cottage industry
   >that software does.
   True, but most COTTAGE INDUSTRIES have a great many more DESIGN
   patents than software does. The ability to tell if one design is the
   same is even more of a judgement than is telling two algorithms. At
   least in the algorithm case you can run a putative test case. 

I'm curious. It would seem that you feel that two algorithms are
identical if they wield identical results for identical inputs (this
is presumably what your test case is for). This means that I can
patent the bubble sort (or more likely, invent some new and preferably
inefficient sorting method), patent it, and then sue every program
which sorts any data. This should make me seriously rich.

Of course, maybe you didn't mean that ? This of courses raises the good
question of when two algorithms can be considered identical.

   -- 

   Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
   President			tel: 408-985-1824
   Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
   3494 Yuba Avenue
   San Jose, CA 95117

David Gay			dgay@di.epfl.ch
Me flame ? Never!
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:30:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.142847.19633@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>U.S. Constitution.

I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
granted this authority.

Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
Supreme Court.

>Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".

Why? Almost everyone knows that when the subject is Constitutional Law,
one is talking about either the Constitution itself or aboutwhat the
Supreme Court says the Constitution says. No need for a continual
qualifier.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:08:32 GMT

In article <Bv9zq9.8wx@ibmpcug.co.uk>, gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> 
> Yes, but which bill?  I hadn't heard anything before this about the
> FBI digital telephone-tapping bill applying to bulletin boards.  This
> sounds like they want the same tapping rights to be implemented by
> computer service providers that they're after from digital telephone
> echanges.  I'm trying to find out of there's *another* bill here that
> hasn't been publicised or if the person I was quoting was merely
> giving garbled details of the FBI telephone-tapping bill.
> 
There is only one proposed bill. It is referred to as the Digital Telephony
Bill, but the wording of the proposal does not limit its scope to what I would
normally call "telephony". It applies to digital communications systems of any
sort. I don't see how this applies to a BBS, only to the phone lines which it
uses for connection. But, as I read it, it would apply to any computer network
from a 2 node LAN up through the Internet backbone.

As I am not a lawyer, I may not be "correctly" intererting the language of the
proposed legislation, but it reads pretty clearly and unambiguously to me.
Maybe Mike has some thoughts on the issue, since he IS a lawyer.

Just because we're almost a decade past 1984 doesn't mean that we can quit
worrying about big brother!

R. Kevin Oberman			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: koberman@llnl.gov		(510) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:17:39 GMT

In article <1adcdkINNljf@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.035812.124@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>
>Changing signals on a modem control line is a physical process, as is
>specific physical transformation that is performed using the result.
>That's what makes the physical transformation inessential.
I don't follow this. This seems to be saying that it is inessential
because it is physical. But this seems to be assuming that which must
be proved, namely that the algorithm is what is important and not its
reduction to physical practice.

>So, a modem that performs compression is a patentable device, as is a disk
>interface that compresses.  But the compression algorithm itself isn't
>patentable.  If I find a new use for this algorithm, I should be able to
>patent that as well, without infringing the patent on a compressing modem.

I agree. The patent should only be allowed to cover the end results
that it promises, not all end results that might result from any
application of some intermediate algorithm. 

>This raises a question about obviousness, though.  Given the well-known
>existence of data compression algorithms, is there anything unobvious about
>applying a particular one to any particular problem?  The LZW algorithm
>itself may be novel, but algorithms aren't supposed to be patentable.

I think that is a very fair criticism of what may be wrong with the
LZW algorithm.  It would seem to me that the issue would be the
special usefulness of that particular algorithm, and whether the prior
art taught away from applying that algorithm in that way.


-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:01:54 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <BvCpLy.9oK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>  I don't care if it's fake, it's still immoral.

Yes, that's what's so delicious about it!  I don't personally approve of
child pornography, but if the Moral Minority just plain couldn't find
a legal objection to them I'd probably keep a few in my ftp area just
for annoyance value :-)

I don't think that degree of photorealism is going to be around for
some time; I guess Mike doesn't have to worry too seriously about
finding an answer for the FAQ file ...

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:18:23 GMT

Robert Withrow writes:
> Patent law is just such a protection, balancing society's need for
> technological innovation with the property rights of the inventor.

No, it's advancing society's interest in technological innovation
by exploiting the inventor's interest in money.  The end is
increased innovation.  Protecting intellectual property is the means,
not another end to be balanced.

	The Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress
	of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times
	to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
	respective writings and discoveries.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5993 misc.int-property:1030 alt.suit.att-bsdi:354
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:38:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: underpri.RLK.92Sep28183832
	<1992Sep25.185314.8872@gvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM>
	<16862.Sep2705.07.5792@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
	<1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: witr@rwwa.COM's message of Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) writes:

   Patent law is just such a protection, balancing society's need for
   technological innovation with the property rights of the inventor.

This is a rather artificial "property" right, IMHO.  It's a much broader
concept than ordinary property:  if you own a chair, it's theft for me
to take the chair, but I'm certainly not infringing on your rights to
use your chair by making or buying one for myself.  Whereas with patents
you can deny me the right to make my own widget.  Why is intellectual
"property" (OK, I'm biased, see my .sig) worthy of such greater
protection than common property?  Why should the patent holder be
permitted to deny anyone else the right to make a copy?  How does this
infringe upon the right of the patent holder to use his widget?
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6030 misc.int-property:1051