HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: imminent death of net predicted : -)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.213137.1403@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <147o8iINN4js@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>> 
>> You are demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. copyright law.
>
>And you are demonstrating your ignorance of usenet!  When you
>give something to the public, it becomes public domain.  Posting
>to usenet is giving to the public.

Please. It is not the case that what is published to Usenet becomes
public domain. Copyrighted material posted to the Net remains copyrighted,
and any expression is copyrighted, under U.S. and international law, as
soon is it is instantiated anywhere in a tangible medium, regardless of
whether it includes a copyright notice.

It is indisputable that it is *difficult* to apply copyright law in this
medium. But the difficulty has not resulted in any amendment of Title 17
of the U.S. Code, which still applies in the United States, or in
amendment of equivalent legal provisions in other countries.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:493 comp.org.eff.talk:5017 misc.legal.computing:1628 news.admin:6386
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:37:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EeRzv7i00awJQ8UvA4
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

A question for all of you out there who are (very cavalierly, I think)
claiming that any post on the net which follows "normal usenet
distribution patterns" is in the public domain:

Are all of the "shareware" programs that are on the net now "public
domain?"  If so, than "shareware" really is "free".  Now, last I
understood, using a shareware program without paying the author the
requested fee within a reasonable amount of time was a violation of
copyright.  If, however, by distributing such programs on Usenet (say,
through comp.mac.binaries or somesuch group), these programs are
converted to public domain, than the authors have no legal recourse,
and have sacrificed their copyright.  Probably completely
unintentionally.

In addition, please realize that there is no principled difference,
from the perspective of copyright law, between an extremely long
shareware program and one of jj's or mine, or anyone's posts (unless
the post consisted of only one or two words, or something similar).
If you can see such a difference, please enlighten me.

The Subject: line of this post was taken from the title of a song by
the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, and was used only for
educational, nonprofit purposes.  This post is (c) 1992 Peter G.
Berger, and distribution for commercial use is expressly forbidden.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger		       ||  ARPA:     peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student	       ||            Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law ||  UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will _croak_ you little clown, when you mess with President Brown!
 California Uber Alles! California Uber Alles! Uber Alles, California!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-pr
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:28:01 GMT

In article <T9HFoB6w164w@lorc.UUCP> lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:

long discussion about providing routing constraints to USENET deleted.

>It all boils down to one issue: which is more important, the poster's right
>to restrict an article's distribution, or the reader's right to read any and
>all articles?

For me the answer is simple:  The poster should NOT be the one that
controls the network.  USENET is fine the way it is.  Area
distribution codes are not sacrosanct today and shouldn't even
be relied upon by any poster as a guarantee that their post will be 
restricted in distribution.  Area distribution codes seem to be
a totally voluntary thing.  The network does NOT need additional software
aspects (and with that additional processing time burdens) to accomodate
those that might want to place absolute limits on where, who, what
medium, etc. the network might automatically distribute their post.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:12:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.093016.27543@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
[...]
> Scenario 3) Lotus 1-2-3 is posted without permission.
> 
> 	A) The poster is liable for violation of Lotus' copyright.  The
> 	sites that allowed the copying are only liable if the courts
> 	decide that granting open access to your computer for copying is
> 	not a good thing to do.
> 
> 	B) All sites that copied the article under the assumption of
> 	permission are instead liable as copyright infringers, since
> 	permission was not present in this case -- it is not within the
> 	poster's power to give.   The poster is also still liable.

In actual fact, the attourney for the claimant would first notify the
net of the copyright infringement and then sue if sites did not stop
(I don't remember if this is a requirement for securing damages or
just a matter of practice/an extra step to insure that the defendant
cannot claim ingnorance?)


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:516 news.admin:6447 comp.org.eff.talk:5072 misc.legal.computing:1674
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:00:43 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> In article <Ns1koB10w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >            When you broadcast to the airwaves, you instruct your
> > video machine to transfer information onto the airwaves where thousands of 
> > video recorders will replicate the information.  
> > 
> > Since you know that programmes are going onto video tape AND you continue t
> > broadcast AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the videos
> > which copy programmes to tape to place your "work" along with all the
> > others on tape.
>  
> Cute, but the difference is that the people at the other end tell their
> VCRs to record whereas the computers are waiting for you to tell them
> to "record." (IE: there is no person who sits down and says, "Oh, here is
> a post, I must copy and send along.")

Great!  It seems we are unexpectedly in agreement after all.

You agree with me that with Usenet, the only *person* in the loop is the
poster.  And hence that the only *person* copying things is the poster.

And hence that for normal Usenet functioning, the only *person* who needs to
be able to copy articles is the poster of those articles.  And the law does
not consider machines to be entities requiring permissions.  So the only
copying permission required is that required by the poster.

Hence the normal legal assumption, that the author (poster) has the copyright
on the work (posting), is completely compatible with normal Usenet
functioning.

Everything proceeds as normal.  But if some other *person* comes along and
picks a bunch of articles and copies them without permission, he's breaking
the copyright.  But then, that isn't the way Usenet usually works.  Not even
if you're feeding articles on tape.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:465 news.admin:6242 comp.org.eff.talk:4872 misc.legal.computing:1519
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Keywords: imminent death of net predicted : -)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:23:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul27.112207.14703@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
#Please. It is not the case that what is published to Usenet becomes
#public domain. Copyrighted material posted to the Net remains copyrighted,
#and any expression is copyrighted, under U.S. and international law, as
#soon is it is instantiated anywhere in a tangible medium, regardless of
#whether it includes a copyright notice.

Is there a legal definition of what it does mean by placing something
in the public domain? And what actions are necessary for such to
occur? 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: roberts@frsbfs.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions _et al_, _ad infinitum_, _ad nauseam_
Organization: IC Software AG (on contract at DEC)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:22:57 GMT


I am getting to the point where I am considering unsubscribing to
eff.talk. This copyright discussion was vaguely interesting at first,
but now it's just completely tedious.

I do wish someone would start an alt.usenet.copyright.discussion.futile
so I could tell you all to take it there.


Nigel

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nigel Roberts	    |  nigel@frsbfs.enet.dec.com  | Tel. +44 206 396610  |
| European Engineer |  roberts@frais.enet.dec.com |  &   +49 6103 383489 |
| (G4IJF)	    |  "Life is but a tale ..."   | Fax  +44 206 393148  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:518 comp.org.eff.talk:5076 misc.legal.computing:1678 news.admin:6451
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:28:21 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> Actually, I think there are three (maybe more) positions that are
> being promoted:
> 
> 1. Posting to the network puts the post in "public domain."
> 
> 2. Posting to the network does not eliminate your copyright, BUT
>    does grant an implied permission to copy almost anywhere by
>    almost any method (I fall in this camp).
> 
> 3. Posting to the network retains copyright and the network should
>    honor/accomodate/etc. any distribution constraints a poster may
>    include AND if the network does not, then there is copyright
>    infringement.  (I think that position would not be sustained
>    if it ever got to a court case.)

4. Posting to the network retains copyright, and *people* should
   honour/accomodate/etc. any distribution constraints a poster may
   include.  If *people* do not, then they have infringed copyright.
   Machines cannot infringe copyright or be given permissions; only
   people can.


mathew
[ "Artificial intelligence is fine in its place, but I wouldn't want my
   daughter to marry one." ]
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:489 news.admin:6377 comp.org.eff.talk:5010 misc.legal.computing:1622
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.122050.3217@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>Aren't we counting angels on pinheads when we talk about postings on USEnet -
>or any net? If you want to control distribution for the purpose of making a
>profit, then you don't want to post anything on the net!

Without saying that USENET is broadcasting, what happens when we apply that
argument to broadcasting?   "If you want to control distribution, don't
broadcast it to everybody over the ether!"

Indeed, that's how it might have been, but copyright law was created precisely
so that people could put their works out in wide distribution and still
retain rights in them.  It is the whole point of copyright law.

When you have physical control over all the copies of your work, you don't
need copyright law.  The whole purpose of it is to let you retain legal
control when you give up physical control.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:45:20 GMT

In article <151j9sINN1iu@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blathered:
> >> > anything lacking an explicit copyright notice is given to the
> >> > public domain
> 
> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) observed:
> >> You are demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. copyright law.
> 
> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blusters:
> >And you are demonstrating your ignorance of usenet!
> >The following is from the montly-posted primer on usenet.
> >->
> >->              A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
> >->                             Chuq Von Rospach 
> >[blah blah]
> 
> I hadn't realized that Chuq was now leading the Supreme Court.

Nobody said he was.  The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
which apply to your use of the net.  You would do well to read those
documents in news.announce.newuser.  They are put there so that
new users have an opportunity to understand what they are doing
when they post to usenet.  

By using usenet, you are entering into an agreement with all the owners
of the computers which propagate netnews.  The articles in n.a.n are 
put there to inform you of the conditions of the contract.

Denying what those posts say does not change the weight they will carry
in a court.  And I think you will have a very tough time convincing the
judge that just because you did not believe what is in those posts that
they do not consitute part of the contract: you will also have a tough
time convincing him that posting does not form a contract.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumption!
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:38:20 GMT

In article <151j9sINN1iu@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blathered:
>>> > anything lacking an explicit copyright notice is given to the
>>> > public domain
>
>dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) observed:
>>> You are demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. copyright law.
>
>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) blusters:
>>And you are demonstrating your ignorance of usenet!
>>The following is from the montly-posted primer on usenet.
>>->
>>->              A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
>>->                             Chuq Von Rospach 
>>[blah blah]
>
>I hadn't realized that Chuq was now leading the Supreme Court.

I hadn't realized the US Supreme Court now has world-wide juristiction(sp?)

well, maybe since the US started invading sovereign ground to kidnap criminals.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.175238.29345@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>So, in theory at least, if you specifically didn't want CD distribution, you
>>might put a distribution: !CD in you message. It would then be up to the
>>CD admin to properly configure the software to reject articles with the
>>distribution: !CD header in them.
>There is no mechanism specified in RFC 1036 for "not" distribution.
>There is no "CD" distribution to be complemented.

!CD is not a complement of a distribution, it's a distribution itself.  It
happens to look to human readers very much like the name of another
distribution with a ! put in front to indicate negation, and its meaning is
what many humans would expect from such a negation, but it's not a negation.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)


Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: rrveerab@unity.ncsu.edu (Radhakrish Veerabadran)
Subject: Re: Desi friends
Organization: North Carolina State University Project Unity
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:08:37 GMT

Most of the people, who are against arranged marriages, am sure would have been 
born to  parents who would've arranged married themselves. Maybe if they hadn't these people wouldn't be here to talk about. Is it not an irony!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: mvij@novell.com (Manish Vij)
Subject: Re: Lighten up people!
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.012458.26765@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> baindur@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Satyen G Baindur) writes:

>It is easier to rationalize failures to succeed to the extent 
>previously thought possible, to personal shortcomings, than to hold the 
>system responsible, and thus bring into question the original choice 
>to immigrate. This logic is similarly extended to minorities in the 
>US, who, to the extent they do not 'succeed' are viewed not so much 
>as having been victimized by the 'system', but instead as having 
>failed individually or collectively, as a result of value systems, 
>lifestyle choices, or personality defects. That this argument finds 
>
>Satyen

Good point!  Many of the immigrants I know espouse their belief in
the American dream -- the land of wide-open opportunity where anyone
can be anything s/he wants to be, if s/he wishes -- more stridently
than those who have been here awhile.  They don't see, or wish to acknowledge,
the barriers to advancement which make this society less than a level
playing field.  I don't wish to imply that America is horribly unfair
compared to the rest of the world; on the contrary, it is relatively
a freer society in terms of opportunity for socioeconomic advancement.
However, it would be a mistake to ignore the very real glass ceilings,
racism, and discrimination in this society.

Manish
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   Manish Vij                               /-\o /-()
   UC Berkeley:  mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu      \_/ \\/ )
   Novell:       mvij@ka.novell.com              |/_\
                                                  \_/.  .  . . ........
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: csv25@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Manu C)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Info. required
Date: 21 Jul 1992 09:07:35 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
X-Unparseable-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 15:01:18 WET DST

Fellow desis:
	
	Can some very kind person please email me the addresses and 
phone numbers to the following places;

	1. Bajaj Institute of Management
	2. NMIMS
	3. Bombay University
	4. JN University (Delhi)
	5. Univ. of Poona

	Thank you in advance.




******************************************************************************
	Manu Chopra			 Do not say, "It is morning," and
	Barnes, University of Keele     dismiss it with a name of yesterday.
	Staffs.     ST5 5BJ		 See it for the first time as a new
	United Kingdom			born child that has no name.
   email: csv25@seq1.keele.ac.uk                   - Rabindranath Tagore -
******************************************************************************
From: sundar@Autodesk.COM (Sundar Krishnamurthy)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Boy proposes, Girls' brother disposes
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:39:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

Have you ever been to India?! Imagine some guy on the street writing
a letter to your hypothetical (or real), pretty (hypothetical/real)
sister? I can see you and the rest of the family loading up the
ancestral bazookah to nuke this guy! Come on! It is a natural gut
reaction. Just because they are in US and they threatened your
friend it doesn't alter our basic tendency to overblow something
like this. But then again, think of all the women who get stalked
but psychopaths waiting to rape and/or kill them someday...Welcome
to the 90s.

It doesn't matter where they are born. Get out of this ABCD-means-
dumb knee-jerk reaction. People are pretty much the same. Actually,
it is you who would like that girl to "meet/flirt" with your friend,
the very actions which are regarded Western and therefore, decadent!

Sundar