HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu
Subject: DAT  TAX
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:51:24 GMT

Someone recently posted that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1991
(S 1623, Commonly called the DAT TAX) had been passed in the house.
This is not correct. The bill passed the Senate (on voice vote no  
less) back in July and was transmitted to the House. It was recently  
tabled in the House and is not likely to be heard from again during  
this congress. 


What I don't understand is the total lack of any opposition to this  
bill. Everyone should be upset about this travesty, if for no other  
reason than its being special interest legislation at its worst in  
that it effectively implements a federal excise tax on behalf of  
private interests, making the copyright office a de facto collection  
agency for the recording industry and paying them for the privilege.

Now that there is some breathing room, please call your  
representative and tell them to vote no on this bill when it comes  
off the table.

j.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:58:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.005727.12747@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:

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

>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.

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

>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.

Brad Hicks writes well, and writes most of the answers to this stuff I
would give if I would answer them.  I didn't read his articles closely
enough to be able to agree completely and probably would disagree on
some points, but I agree with him on roughly all the points he makes on
the issue.

>This is the first you've mentioned about venal government informers.

This was in answer to your comment about relative pay.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6007 comp.os.linux:11906
From: jem@SunSite.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:24:38 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.linux
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <WCS.92Sep27232803@rainier.ATT.COM> wcs@rainier.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.214442.15444@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>   You mean 386BSD, not BSD/386 (that is commercial). [...]
>   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.
>
>Has anybody done a DOS-on-top-of-UNIX for 386BSD or one of the other
>free UNIX Operating System derivatives or workalikes?  Does BSDI have it?
>It would be nice to be able to run the occasional DOS application
>while a real operating system goes on in the background, rather than

Umm. don't think so, for 386BSD  but for Linux, yes.

There is a partial DOS emulator... The newest version
is on sunsite.unc.edu /pub/Linux/Incoming/dos.tar.Z.

Linux like 386BSD is a free UNIX-like operating system.
unlike, 386BSD was written from the ground up for the
the Intel 386/486 architecture.

it supports (in various levels of completeness, some of this
is still at a Beta stage) virtual memory, shared libraries, X-windows,
tcp/ip, floating point emulation, and mountable DOS partitions)

It is not *too* difficult to get going. expecially if you 
use the SLS distribution that is available on sunsite in /pub/Linux/SLS
or on tsx-11.mit.edu /pub/linux/packages/SLS.

for more info, finger torvalds@klaava.helsinki.fi (the author
of the kernel) and read comp.os.linux.

check it out. 

followups to comp.os.linux.
jem.




-- 
Jonathan Magid     jem@sunsite.unc.edu       SunSite Administrator
Virtual pizza Delivery (tm)::faxed in 30 cycles or less or you get it
----------------------------------------FREE!!!-----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
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)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:46:20 GMT

In article <FRIEDMAN.92Oct4150259@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
>> I don't think we need to abolish speed limits
>>out of the fear that everyone will get imprisoned.
>
>   I think we do. 

Of course you are welcome to hold a differing opinion. But the past
ten years do not give any example indicating that we have even got
close to imprisoning everyone for this crime. (Nor has there been any
situation where major numbers of individual programmers have been
found liable for software patent infringement over that time).

>   We should have laws that citizens can respect and live by, and not
>pretend they don't exist just because minor infractions happen to be
>ignored.

This is desirable in theory. But we have to remember that writing and
enforcing laws are imperfect sciences with real costs.  Because lawmakers 
realize this they rely on the practical aspects and financial incentives of
the commercial world to write simpler statutes.  Sometimes this
entitles a person to something without enforcing it.  The lawmakers
may rely on the financial incentives to be sufficient to allow you get
what they have entitled you to in cases where it is important, while
relying on the financial costs and difficulties to dissuade you in
cases where it is not important.  I think that this is one of the
reasons for the distinction between criminal law and civil law, and
their different requirements in terms of doubt in order to render a
decision. It is not criminal to infringe a patent unintentionally,
though it is criminal to drive above the posted speed limit. Neither
system requires you to actively identify all posted limits in advance,
but both expect you to abide by them when you notice them. The
difficult cases remain those where you it is reasonable to expect that
you would have seen the sign or known the limit but claim you did not.




-- 

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


Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6262 comp.admin.policy:1214 alt.censorship:7855 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3060 alt.society.civil-liberty:6145 alt.politics.usa.constitution:513
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>meaning of the Constitution.

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.

>Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>with something to the effect of "IMHO..."

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".

//Jyrki
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: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.150244.21697@wixer.cactus.org> george@wixer.cactus.org (George Wenzel) writes:
>In article <Bv5y95.B58@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>Nice Generic PC-Compatible ......................$2500
>I hope this is a 486-50 with a big hard drive and a good quality monitor...
>otherwise that isn't a cheap price.  386-40 motherboards only cost $200 to
>$250.
>>BSD386............................................free
>>or, 
>>   A good 386 Unix..........................$200-$1000

A 386/40 will run 386bsd in great style.  If you want to see one in
action, check out the ftp site, redspread.css.itd.umich.edu.  It has
built-in TCP/IP (some don't) and runs the whole shebang with
a 125Mb HD and 4Mb RAM.  The entire system (including the OS, of course)
cost under $1500 (plus one borrowed Etherlink II card).


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: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:13:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.202344.29486@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.154656.1522@nntp.hut.fi> Jyrki Kuoppala writes:

>>Now, what makes me annoyed to this discussion is your use of rhetoric
>>such as "fantasy", "herous", "drugs" etc.

>Well, look, Jyrki, it would be far more hypocritical of me to use
>euphemisms, wouldn't it? Brad Hicks's theory is a fantasy in the truest
>sense of the word. It's something he made up in order to comfort himself
>in his views, and it has no correspondence with the real world.

I think anyone who has followed this newsgroup for a while sees the
repetitive argumentative pattern in Mr. Godwin's articles. Whenever
he disagrees with something, he eventually falls back on his infamous 
"he made it up" routine. 

Perhaps Mr. Godwin makes up things to comfort himself in his own views. 

I still see pompous and arrogant as hallmarks.....

I must say, in all fairness, that he is becoming just a tad more polite
though. Perhaps the effects of a civilized Boston are having an effect. Or 
is it the introduction of a San Francisco factor? Whatever the cause, keep
up the good work.

Bill Vajk

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!shiva@cactus.org (System Smof)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: 28 Sep 1992 01:46:12 -0500
Organization: The SMOF-BBS: Science Fiction Online Since 1985 [512-467-7317]
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Is this BSD386 "free" if you already have ftp capability and "not free" if
you can't use ftp?
 ____________________________________________________________________
/                                |                            |      \
|SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |"The World's First Online   | __|__ |
|    Proline:  shiva@pro-smof    | Science Fiction Convention"| \_|_/ |
|    Internet: wixer!pro-lep!pro-smof!shiva@cs.utexas.edu     |   |   |
\________________________________|____________________________|______/


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Sep25214624@ussr.std.com> <1992Sep26.171807.24908@rwwa.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:12:45 GMT


From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
>If in fact you
>believe software *should* be patentable, then please accept my
>appology for imputing the opposite.

I do not know if there exists any software which should be patentable.

I don't think that "software" per se is being patented. I think what
is being patented are algorithms (i.e. the idea, not their expression
in software.)

It's a very important distinction when trying to think about all this.

One reason is that "software" sounds like someone's huge conglomerate
of work (i.e. an engineering accomplishment, like patenting a bridge),
while "algorithm" sounds like a focused bit of inspiration, a very
specific method.

To my knowledge what has been patented have been algorithms, not
software.

One question is whether algorithms exist as universal truths, more
like discovering some scientific or mathematical law (F=MA) rather
than as 'handy devices' which is more often the stuff of patents.

I think most algorithms fall somewhere in between these two concepts.

The patent laws currently do not allow the patenting of what are
described as ``natural laws''.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wcs@rainier.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart)
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Interesting Projects Organization
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:28:03 GMT
X-Trademark: UNIX is a registered trademark of Unix Software Laboratories
	<8176@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
	<1992Sep27.214442.15444@terminator.cc.umich.edu>

In article <1992Sep27.214442.15444@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
   You mean 386BSD, not BSD/386 (that is commercial). [...]
   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.

Has anybody done a DOS-on-top-of-UNIX for 386BSD or one of the other
free UNIX Operating System derivatives or workalikes?  Does BSDI have it?
It would be nice to be able to run the occasional DOS application
while a real operating system goes on in the background, rather than
have to reboot to switch between partitions.  
Quarterdeck's latest stuff appears to make it possible to run DOS apps
remotely over X Windows, as long as one machine can be dedicated to DOS;
I may try that.

   In article <8176@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu
   (The Jester) writes:
   >>   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 =)
Oh, come on.  (Disclaimer: As an AT&T employee, I'm in no position to
speak for the management of USL, and there are too many lawyers
running around for me to run 386bsd on our DOS boxes :-)  
Back when I started using UNIX, a system with *source* fit on a
machine much less powerful than a modern midrange laptop, and I wish I
had source on all my systems today.....)
Even if you're mad at AT&T, you may want to buy one of the commercial
versions which provides support, or buy Minix and get the nifty Minix book.
Also, you may want to look at Linux as a different free OS.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6023 misc.int-property:1047 alt.suit.att-bsdi:371
From: menden@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Menden)
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 14:15:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Originator: menden@hphalle0a.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


In article <1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>, jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
|> Robert Krawitz asks:
|> 
|> > Why should the patent holder be permitted to deny anyone
|> > else the right to make a copy?
|> 
|> She isn't; she's just permitted to deny others the right
|> sell it.
|> 
|> > How does this infringe upon the right of the patent holder
|> > to use her widget?
|> 
|> It doesn't.  If she fails to patent it and someone else
|> patents it, however, she may find she still has the right
|> to use her widget but has lost the right to sell it.

Sorry, I'm not very good in understanding. Do you mean, I can
use any (software-)patent I like, as long as I'm not selling 
a product (programm) using this patent?

Imagine the following:
Let's take a group of people, who are developing software
for public use, but are not selling anything (let us call
them FSF, but any other name would do). Do you mean, these
people, called FSF, can use any patent they find in their
programs, because they aren't selling them? I think that's
confusing.

jjm

-- 
Juergen Menden			menden@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
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: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:26:01 GMT

In article <WCS.92Sep27232803@rainier.ATT.COM> wcs@rainier.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart) writes:
>Has anybody done a DOS-on-top-of-UNIX for 386BSD or one of the other
>free UNIX Operating System derivatives or workalikes?  Does BSDI have it?
>It would be nice to be able to run the occasional DOS application
>while a real operating system goes on in the background, rather than
>have to reboot to switch between partitions.  
>Quarterdeck's latest stuff appears to make it possible to run DOS apps
>remotely over X Windows, as long as one machine can be dedicated to DOS;
>I may try that.

To my knowledge, Linux does support some degree of DOS emulation, but if
you really *want* DOS you should do as you say with the Quarterdeck
stuff (Desqview X?).  Both Linux and 386BSD have X available.

>Even if you're mad at AT&T, you may want to buy one of the commercial
>versions which provides support, or buy Minix and get the nifty Minix book.
>Also, you may want to look at Linux as a different free OS.

I don't know whether to be mad at AT&T or not.  I don't really
follow those debates that much.  From what I can tell, Minix really
stinks compared to the full-featured operating systems like 386bsd
and Linux.  Support for these products is interactive, and on the
net.  If I didn't have net access I might wish for something like
a Minix book specific to the OS that I am using.  Thankfully 386bsd
is close enough to "real" BSD that I can fake it pretty well with
garden-variety BSD books.

My point about going for free operating systems is purely economic.
I have found 386bsd to be well-supported by the community of
users, quite stable, evolving in an exciting manner, and containing
everything I would look for in a commercial operating system.
Why pay?

Doesn't this thread sort of belong on one of the technical groups?

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,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jem@SunSite.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:00:54 GMT

In article <v_+pvad.mcgregor@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>In article <29581.Sep2900.20.3792@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>
>>In 1984, Miller and Wegman at IBM invented a compression algorithm often
>>called MW2. At the same time, independently, Welch at Unisys invented a
>>compression algorithm often called LZW. Both IBM and Unisys filed for,
>>and received, patents. Surprise: MW2 and LZW are the same algorithm.
>>Explain how innovation was encouraged here.
>
[much stuff deleted]
>
>This is also true in the Storer/Bernstein case. What may be different
>in that case is that we know that IBM and Unisys were motivated by the
>possibile advantages of developing products in a patentable area
>(after all, they also paid the costs to secure patents. 

[even more stuff deleted]

Just a word on this point specifically.  Although I have never been
an employee of IBM, I know that it is a solid IBM policy to patent
any possible thing that comes out of its research.  It gives large incentive
to its employees to develop patentable things (in the form of "patent points")
which it patents rather indescriminately. Employees get bonus "points" for
having a patent used in a IBM product.  

There several things that should be concluded from this:

1) IBM doesn't do research in an area to specifically claim patents; it
looks for patents from all areas of corporate research.

2) IBM's policy on many of these patents (esp. software/algorithm patents)
is that they are for the purpose of cross-licencing with other people
that have layed claim to useful algorithms, etc.

3) IBM's corporate incentive to use patented processes and inventions in
IBM products occasionally (at least) has negative consequences on IBM
products.  I know of a couple of anecdotes on products that either
failed or performed badly because methods owned by IBM rather than
the canonical method was used.

jem.

-- 
Jonathan Magid     jem@sunsite.unc.edu       SunSite Administrator
Virtual pizza Delivery (tm)::faxed in 30 cycles or less or you get it
----------------------------------------FREE!!!-----------------------
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:31:51 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1992Sep28.032532.3841@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>And if the whole image is completely computer-generated?  (Sorry, I know
>>we're getting sidetracked; I'm just amused at the concept and wondering
>>how many lawyer-hours might be expended on it...)
>
>I'm not sure how your question raises a different legal issue. Could you
>elaborate? What different legal issue do you think your question raises? 

Well, if the image is 1) of a child, but with simulated nudity - then
there are possible civil offences which that child or its parents
could sue for over use of the image.; if the image 2) includes a
photo-montage face of several different people, then either it makes
such an action harder or it lays open the possibility of a class action,
but if 3) the picture has been completely generated from a 3-d modelling
program to a high quality of photo-realism, there is no child or
parents to initiate a suit, and no child involved in pornographic
acts, so who would be legally at risk for what?

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: alex@otis (The Console DJ)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Novell Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:18:48 GMT


Does anyone here know about patent-pools? "Sure you could take us to court but
you are using 3 of our patents now and that makes us even."  I havn't heard
of this aspect from anyone.
-- 
<blah blah Employer blah not blah blah responsible blah blah my blah opinion>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy