HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:52:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.194255.243@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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.  

The quote referenced above says it is a distribution.

>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.

It looks like a duck, it acts like a duck, it smells like a duck, but
it isn't a duck. 

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024520.28473@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>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

Are you sure?  Some posting in a newsgroup that is suggested
reading for those new to the net now carries the force of law?
And not only the force of law, either, but it apparently
overrides actual law.  Well, I'm afraid even if it were a
contract (which it's not) it can't contravene the law.

>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. 

Which of course is no weight at all.  I'm glad we finally agree
on something.

> 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.

I don't think it's going to be too hard to convince a judge
that what's in that post is at best an outdated view of US
law.

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:476 news.admin:6328 comp.org.eff.talk:4963 misc.legal.computing:1579
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:52:22 GMT

In article <EeRzv7i00awJQ8UvA4@andrew.cmu.edu> pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger) writes:
>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.

Finally!  Here we have an analogy/metaphor/simile/whatever-you-want-
to-call-it that seems to fit the Usenet situation perfectly.  I mentioned
this shareware idea in passing; your post explains it exceptionally
clearly.  I would bet a small sum of money that all of those
in the ``public-domain or copyright-but-no-real-power'' camp
believe that shareware is protected.  Yet you see them screaming
their heads off about postings.  Why have I lost my effective
copyrights by posting this?  What if this *were* a piece of shareware?
Would you feel like it was okay to copy it and not pay me, just
because it was on the net?  What if it was on Compuserve?  How
about your local bulletin board? 

-rick


"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.004647.10224@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.155222.14412@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>>Finally!  Here we have an analogy/metaphor/simile/whatever-you-want-
>>to-call-it that seems to fit the Usenet situation perfectly.  
>
>Closely. If it was a perfect match, it would be called USENET instead
>of shareware.

Touche.  Point conceded.

>
>>I mentioned
>>this shareware idea in passing; your post explains it exceptionally
>>clearly.  I would bet a small sum of money that all of those
>>in the ``public-domain or copyright-but-no-real-power'' camp
>>believe that shareware is protected.  
>
>You lose.

Fortunately, it was a very small sum of money.  I was thinking
of perhaps 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 cents
(maybe less :-).

>
>>Yet you see them screaming
>>their heads off about postings.  Why have I lost my effective
>>copyrights by posting this?  What if this *were* a piece of shareware?
>>Would you feel like it was okay to copy it and not pay me, just
>>because it was on the net?  
>
>Absolutely. It is perfectly legal to copy sharware and give it to
>anyone you want to. You can make 45 copies and give them out to anyone
>you want. Many shareware licenses say you can even charge reasonable
>amounts for costs of copying (if they didn't, then the shareware
>distribution companies wouldn't be able to operate).
>
>>What if it was on Compuserve?  How about your local bulletin board? 
>
>It doesn't make any difference. Shareware is shareware.
>
>Or don't you understand the concept of shareware?

Sorry.  What I meant (and *should* have said) was use of shareware,
not the mere copying.  The copying of shareware is part of the
idea.  It gets on as many BBSs as possible so that the author
has more distribution points.  Do you still have the same answer?
And what about if there is some shareware posted, and I erase the
author's name, put mine in, and start collecting the money for
his/her work?  Is that still okay?

-rick


"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:44:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul30.122050.3217@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>I have often wondered if someone spray paints an "original" slogan or phrase
>or even a short story on a wall.......is it copyrighted?

So long as it really *is* original -- which means it has to have non-trivial
content of some kind; "Kill The Pigs" probably doesn't qualify -- it is.
The exact medium chosen for publication is irrelevant.

>... We all know our postings are echoed around the world in minutes. We
>post knowing that. People copy our posts and repeat them in an almost endless
>echoing process.....
>
>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!

There is a difference between abandoning control of distribution and
renouncing copyright.  When we post, we publish our text in a medium which
has extremely wide distribution that is well beyond our control.  (The
same is true of getting your letter published in Newsweek, actually...)
Claiming that some forms of distribution are legitimate and some are not
is silly, given the tremendous variety of forms already in use on the net.
(There *are* news feeds done via magtape, folks, even today.)  Claiming
that selective feeds are wrong is equally silly, since there are lots
of those too, and they don't all conform to your preconceptions of what
sorts of selectivity are legitimate.  (It's really pretty easy to set
up a feed that gives you only, say, the comp.std.c articles written
by Chris Torek that are under 10KB and contain at most 5% quoted text.)

However, there are still some things that aren't kosher, like somebody
claiming your writings as his own, or republishing modified versions
with your name still on them.  That sort of thing isn't legitimate
unless you truly and *explicitly* renounce copyright.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:491 news.admin:6384 misc.legal.computing:1626 comp.org.eff.talk:5015
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:28:59 GMT
	<1992Jul30.122050.3217@actrix.gen.nz>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> 
> I have often wondered if someone spray paints an "original" slogan or phrase
> or even a short story on a wall.......is it copyrighted?
>  
> I see USEnet as a wall and we are all spray-painting for the benefit of
>passersby. We all know our postings are echoed around the world in minutes. We
> post knowing that. People copy our posts and repeat them in an almost endless
> echoing process.....
> 
> 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!

Sorry, this is wrong.  For starters, let me point out the number of
programmers who distribute shareware on the net ... surely, you're not
suggesting that their works are in the public domain, or that they
don't deserve a profit because they "spraypainted on the wall."

All that is required for a valid copyright is 1) original 2)
expression 3) fixed in a tangible medium.  Computer disks/messages are
considered to be tangible media.  jj's messages are surely
copyrightable.

DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer.  Don't truss' me.

> Steve
>  
> 
> -- 
> Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
> withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
> **** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:24:42 GMT

In article <147nq8INN4ik@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> >By posting to usenet,
> >you have entered your "work" into an electronic queue which is 
> >automatically transferred to a CD ROM for sale: you know this and
> >you choose to post, therefore you are granting permission.
> 
> False.  Just because I *know* that there are pirates out there
> who will steal my copyrighted work and republish it in another
> medium does *not* mean that I grant them permission to do that.
> 
> Television producers enter their works into an electonic medium
> which is automatically transferred to thousands of video tapes
> by private individuals.  Those producers *know* that there will
> be a few pirates who duplicate those tapes and sell them.  The
> fact that they choose to distribute their works in spite of that
> knowledge does not in any way imply that they are "granting
> permission" for such pirating.
> 
> Eventually some Usenet pirate will violate the copyright of
> someone who can show substantial actual damages, making it worth
> the while of taking the issue to court.  In the meantime, the
> pirates will continue to steal other people's work, and the more
> foolish ones will continue to flaunt their actions.

Usenet is not television.  When you post to usenet, you instruct your
computer to transfer information onto the net where thousands of 
computers will replicate the information.  

Since you know that netnews is going to CD AND you continue to post 
AND you have not filed a lawsuit, you are instructing the computers
which copy files to CD-ROM to place your "work" along with all the
others on CD-ROMs.

If you don't believe me, call a lawyer: ask him if you could sue
someone for copyright violations if you have known that he has
been doing so for three years but have never tried to stop him.

Aside from all that, what is the difference between storing 
netnews on archive tapes or disk drives or CD-ROMS: all three
are electronic storage mediums.
-- 
"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,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:35:16 GMT

In article <seSIv2_00awJA9nXwf@andrew.cmu.edu> Peter Glen Berger
<pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: 
#Okay.  I do not give permission for anyone to copy this article onto
#or distribute this article on CD-ROM.

What happens if someone posts an article to usenet with a copyright
message of "copying to usenet prohibited"?

--
-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
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:24:29 GMT

In article <4855@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>What (he says, playing devil's advocate) if you've notified uunet
>in writing beforehand that you do not want them to copy any articles
>of yours they receive.  Or, more to the point in this discussion, you
>send such a notice to the people writing the CD distribution?

The answer to that is speculative.  It would depend on a judge's
ruling on what duty of care UUNET or others have to obey such requests.

UUNET effectively allows anonymous access to their machine, although in
most cases those who do access it do put on their real username.  So it
is possible, in a technical sense, for them to deny access to people
claiming to be a particular user.   Should they be forced to do so?
I would suggest not.

Remember, in this model, UUNET is a computer system that lets you dial
it up and copy files on it.  No user authentication is done.  You think
you should tell them "please stop me from being able to issue commands
on your system?"

-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:466 news.admin:6246 comp.org.eff.talk:4880 misc.legal.computing:1520
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 27 Jul 1992 19:37:32 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

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.
-- 
Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
				-- Vice President Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:513 comp.org.eff.talk:5069 misc.legal.computing:1671 news.admin:6443
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Keywords: locksmith door
Organization: Famed Parquet Floor
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:03:51 GMT

[Please note drastic reduction in followups.]

In article <1992Jul16.215834.7404@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>In <fcpH02fO19kR01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
>>Actually, that's not an issue.  CD-ROMs have a greater capacity if you
>>run a green felt-tip marker around their rims.
>
>Actually, you can just flip them over and record on the other side.
>

There is no physical reason that CD's and CD-ROMs cannot have data on
both sides, and no reason that two-sided readers could not be made.

The printed matter on the wrong side is of little import: you can't
see it when the disc is in the drive.  One-sidedness is a cynical
marketing ploy.

Phil

-- 
|play: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil                |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil            | Phil Gustafson                   |
| "Don't believe in ads.  Don't believe in government.  Watch yourself --   |
|  everybody is trying to screw you!"  Bill Gaines, 1922-1992               |
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:500 news.admin:6400 comp.org.eff.talk:5032 misc.legal.computing:1639 misc.int-property:800
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:20:57 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Jul30.175227.20370@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.  
>The quote referenced above says it is a distribution.

The quoye says it's a "not" distribution.  It isn't a "not" distribution; it's
a plain distribution, which means so-and-so list of sites.  Sure the list
happens not to include any CD sites, but then the distribution "nj" happens not
to include any Australian sites, either.

>>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.
>It looks like a duck, it acts like a duck, it smells like a duck, but
>it isn't a duck. 

The !CD looks like a negation, but the _software_ don't know this.  All they
have to do is to ask "Does this machine get the !CD distribution?" the same way
they ask "Does this machine get the na distribution?".
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:512 comp.org.eff.talk:5068 misc.legal.computing:1670 news.admin:6442
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:40:14 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Jul30.194834.531@Princeton.EDU> bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel) writes:
>Alternate views of creative work in general, and of software
>creations in particular, abound.  The entire GNU project is a
>standing example that (3) is not valid.

Not true. It is a demonstration that *for a certain class of software, with
software being a certain class of copyrightable material*, people will
create works. It simply means that for these people and for these works
non-monetary compensation (having the tools, getting their egos stroked)
is enough. For other software this is not true: how many killer end-user
programs have individuals done for free?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:475 news.admin:6327 comp.org.eff.talk:4962 misc.legal.computing:1578