HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:30:17 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Jul30.142813.20152@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>In article <157crjINNbl9@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>>forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>>The "Usenet Primer" contains terms and conditions
>>>which apply to your use of the net.
>>
>>Heh.  Exactly who do you imagine to be party to this unsigned
>>"contract" you declare to exist?  Good luck getting a judge to
>>enforce a "contract" that was never agreed to, and whose terms
>>have been explicitly rejected.
>>
>>Under U.S. copyright law, I own the rights to my works.  Despite
>>what you might prefer, I choose not to release those rights with
>>respect to my Usenet postings.  When you own Usenet, then you can
>>require me to release my rights as a condition of posting.  Until
>>then, I choose to retain those rights.
>
>However, if you post to USENET, you know that you have no reasonable
>expectation of restriucting distribution (or you should have known)
>and any such duplication, archiving, etc. would (IMHO) be viewed by
>a court as an implied contract (permission) that you gave when you
>posted.  Yes, you own the copyright, but any and all distribution by
>the network is (IMHO) an authorized copy you granted.  Similarly,
>you know or should have known that posting to the netwoek does
>NOT contain any methodology to restrict distribution (eg. you don't
>want a particular post to go to any site in Kansas) even if you 
>place such a restriction in your post.

Right.  Try taping "Thelma and Louise" from Showtime this month,
then renting an auditorium and charging people to come and see
your copy.

The owners of the copyright of the movie have given permission
for it to be broadcast by the cable channel.  I believe that
the courts have established that personal copies made from 
the broadcast may be kept for personal use.  HOWEVER you may
NOT then take that copy and organize a public showing of it
without violating the copyright and would be liable for damages
and fines from the owners of the copyright.

Your argument would have it that, since they allowed the
movie to be shown, more than once, on such an uncontrolled
medium as nationwide cable, they no longer hold the rights
to future public showings of this film.  Dream On. (oops,
sorry, that is probably copyright by HBO.... :)  All I can
say is that it you might like it if the world worked that way,
but the laws clearly state otherwise, and ignoring them won't
make them go away.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"186,000 mi/sec.  Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!"



Xref: sparky news.admin:6251 misc.legal.computing:1523 comp.org.eff.talk:4889
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:47:48 GMT
	<23323@alice.att.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

On further reflection, my comment on whether newspapers can be sued
for publishing books was ill-considered.  Harper & Row was really
about the right of first publication, a slightly different issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: news.admin
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: canceller's address again
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:20:44 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

>1) Child abuse was not the "real issue" under discussion -- it was 
>   copyright violation.  

THank you for acknowledging this. 

>   The "child abuse" business was drawing a parallel because it is
>   a real issue (in the real world) that many people would like
>   to ignore.

And the reason for the latter is those over-zealous self-appointed
child-abuse vigilantes who go WAY too far and accuse someone who
looks at a child the wrong way of sexual molestation.

Kind of like those people who would remove Bandy's net.access. 

>That sort of attitude about anything tends to push my buttons,
>I'll admit that.  However you are the one accusing me of not
>being able to hold a conversation (excuse me, "handle symbols").

Because you used imagination in a negative way. This pushes MY buttons.

>used to illustrate a point as the point itself.  The *point* is,
>and has been, copyright violation.  Not child abuse.  Not the
>death penalty.  If you cannot grasp the idea that the one attitude
>resembles the other, don't blame me.  

I'm not blaming anyone. I simply say "I do not believe in copyright
violation on USENET." That's my opinion. If you don't like it...
that's entirely your perogative. But don't compare it to something it's
not similar to. 

>of view is there is no reason for cancels to exist, and when
>given a reason your reply was a "I don't believe that copyright
>infringement on USENET."  

That reason does not necessarily span the complete set of my reason that
cancels shouldn't exist. Wake up.

>I still say "It exists.  It is against the law.  Whether you
>believe in it or not."

And I still say "So what?"

>I am just a figment of your imagination...
>			...what does that say about *your* mental health?

It has nothing what so ever to do with it. People who have lost that capability
of imagination...now there's some people who's health you should look at. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

A great deal of thought is only a substitute for the thoughts which the 
individual would really find useful at the time.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:14:49 GMT

In article <23307@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon and general grump) writes:
[...]
> Please let the police know where and when.  I don't need to be involved,
> and since the damages for THIS one appear to be entirely yours,
> and self=inflicted by yourself, don't bother me with it.  Just call
> the cops and tell them you want to be arrested for a copyright
> violation.

Now that takes the cake!  Arrest for copyright infringement?  Copyright
infringement is a civil matter (which means the police do not get involved
-- one party has to sue another in civil court).  

With a mind of that capacity, it is no wonder you are so confused about
the contract you entered when you started using netnews!



-- 
"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
From: dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:47:34 GMT
Organization: none

In article <1992Jul26.084749.15071@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
>My ten-year-old grand-daughter is on the net, and I see absolutely no
>purpose served in giving her access to the alt.sex groups. She is neither
>ignorant nor naive.... she simply has displays remarkably good taste.

_She_ displays good taste because _you_ see no purpose in giving her
access to alt.sex? If you really think this makes sense, you can't be
living in the same universe as the rest of us.
-- 
-- Paulo da Costa           /\/\   Minha terra tem palmeiras   /\/\
-- dacosta@prl.philips.nl   \/\/   Onde canta o sabia'...      \/\/
Xref: sparky news.admin:6206 comp.org.eff.talk:4847 misc.legal.computing:1501
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 26 Jul 92 10:40:12 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <13712.Jul2615.14.0692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) wrote:
> In article <mwm.1b85@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> > 2) Providing a mechanism that allows people who *don't* want certain
> > forms of USENET reproduction to happen (for instance, to cdrom) to
> > flag their articles.
> 
> ``Expires:'' would do the trick, don't you think? I'd call it
> ``Non-Automatic-Copying-Permitted-Until:'' but it's the same idea.

Expires is close to "Non-...". That is the opposite of the desired
mechanism, though. A new header would seem to be the obvious
candidate, but it should be called
"Restrictions-On-Automatic-Copying:", since the idea is to allow
automated mechanisms to catch and reject an article under conditions
specified by an author.

	<mike




Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:13:43 GMT

In article <08QHG06@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I don't know, but apparently Amateur Radio repeater operators have been
>held liable for the contents of messages they relayed

The recent situation with Amateur Radio had nothing to do with
copyright (nor with "liabel or slander" for that matter).  The
"violation" was the posting of a "commercial" message to amateur
packet repeater news.  The message was either an 800 or 900 number
for a commercial organization.  The FCC rules for ham radio
specific prohibit the use of amateur radio for any commercial
use and that was what the fine(s) were for.  The situation did
put amateur packet data node folks on notice that they were responsible
for the content of the messages their nodes stored and forwarded
(actually for only the forwarding/transmital of the messages.)

Again, the violation really isn't analogous to this USENET
copyright discussion.

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
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Beals - Third Strike
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:52:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)

In article <1992Jul23.000223.9571@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us (Richard Childers) writes:
>I really haven't wanted to mention the first incidence, bandy seems
>to have created enough trouble, but his friends' efforts to make him
>seem lily-white kind of force me to say *something*.

I for one am not in the category of bandy's friends, nor have I seen
anyone try to make him appear lily-white.  Try dealing with the stated
objections, not your rationalizations of them.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:02:36 GMT

In article <mwm.1b85@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>Since I agree with Brad, I wouldn't call it an "argument." More like a
>discussion, with some terminology problems.
>
>The interpretation that the poster makes the many copies created of a
>usenet posting is, in my mind, clearly a good thing. There are just
>two problems:
>
>1) Convincing the posters that this is the case. Failing that,
>convincing the judge of the first court case that calls it to question
>that this is the case. A written document that is part of a
>well-respected, widely-publicized series of documents would be useful
>in this regard.

Seems to me that it is the obligation of the poster to undersdtand
how USENET works and that all the copyright notices in the world won't
alter the thousands of automatic distributions (including auto spooling
to CD ROM) that happen when someone posts.  As to convincing
a judge, I think a simple technical description of the networking
and connectivity that is in place and that functions without any
human  screening of individual messages would be more thasn enough
to convince the him that any propogation through USENET automatically
to ANY site (commercial, private, etc.) was not subject to limitation and 
should be viewed as a granted (permitted) distribution by anyone that
posts.

>2) Providing a mechanism that allows people who *don't* want certain
>forms of USENET reproduction to happen (for instance, to cdrom) to
>flag their articles. This shouldn't change that the poster is
>responsible for any copies made by older software in spite of those
>wishes. In additions, the document describing the mechanism is a good
>place to state the interpretation for future reference.

Problem #2 - Why should USENET change to accomodate the user that
doesn't want his/her post reproduced in certain forums/media?  I
agree with and belive that you post and grant permissions implicitly.
If those that consider otherwise don't like it, they are free not to
participate.  I do not view my position as being against the
recognition of intellectual property rights, but rather the simple
acknowledgement as to what and how USENET works today.  There's no
need to "fix" USENET anymore than there's a need to somehow develope
paper copiers that wouldn't reproduce certain copyrighted works (assuming
that could even be done).

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: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.003305.14528@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>For the third of fourth time, (and no-one has countered this 
>yet) read the usenet primer from news.announce.newuser -- it 
>tells you point blank that what you post here is in the public 
>domain unless you copyright it.

This is the strangest argument I've ever heard.  You're quoting Chuq
as an authority handing out rules?   Perhaps the millenium is here, after
all.

I wrote a posting or two in the newuser group, too.  You going to quote my
words as gospel next?  Doing either is silly.   That primer is, quite
simply only somebody's opinion, and in the case of this particular
quote, it isn't even opinion, it's just wrong.   This has been posted
enough times that people ought to realize it.  Nothing creative and
original that is written today is in the public domain unless the author
expressly and explicitly says exactly that, as in "This work is donated to
the public domain" or "I abandon the copyright on this work."

Look, IANALTIPOOTN, but if you're going to participate in this discussion,
at least know what public domain means, what copyright is, what the
Berne convention means, what USENET is, and what the postings in
news.announce.newusers are.

And it seems as though it's time for some disclaimers in that group, before
somebody quotes it as an authority again, be it Chuq's, Gene's, mine or
anybody else's words.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.064847.8698@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>
>I agree with you compleatly except when it comes to child pornography ( the
>real thing NOT fiction). 
>

Yes, this is everyone's hot button.  It proves why censorship is good
and that the government should control what you read.

I'll make an interesting assertion.  Child pornography, per se, is not
bad, nor is it worthy of censorship.  It is the act of *making* child
pornography that is a crime.  I suppose you could stretch this out and
say that someone who sells kiddy porn is an accomplice of the makers.

On the other hand, why shouldn't existing child porn be in
libaries?  Why is the mere possession of pictures (merely
an arrangement of colored dies) a crime?

I submit that child porn is not worthy of censorship and censoring it
only distracts from the main point, which is child abuse.  Why shouldn't
we forget possession laws and get to the point, charging people with
being an accomplice to child abuse?

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS        [] Seattle News + Mail []         +1 206 937 9529
billmcc@seanews.akita.com                          Public Access

-------CUT HERE------  PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
begin 644 key.pub
MF;, :RX&*2U-8T-O<FUI8VLL(%=I;&QI86T@0BX@+2!B:6QL;6-C0&UI8W)O
M<V]F="YC;VW> P6K(=3;81O95TXWV"<CNQ+M)+:CI6F@1"G_]15^5MW&*U_>
M/TN?83RRF=O3*L0#N4B(ZU2 !/?F>,^J.LO%G*DA/Z\ '=!FL(5S7H2W;_T&
M$/;[OJV=/%6- WFVTR#(''.](%&>D+[#H)%X6^-*P\QHN$Q<DD >/'RJ"CH%
" !?[
 
end
-------CUT HERE------  PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
Xref: sparky news.admin:6357 comp.org.eff.talk:4997 misc.legal.computing:1607
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:26:48 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul28.041049.16373@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
> Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
> Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
> Date: 28 Jul 92 04:10:49 GMT
> Organization: gte
> 
> In article <23305@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon and 
> general grump) writes:
> > In article <1992Jul23.215550.29792@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
> Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> > 
> > >You will note that the network does include a copyright notice
> > >in their broadcast.  Now why would they bother when copyrights
> > >are automatic? 
> > Because they want to be able to sue for more than actual
> > damages.  Go read the law, why don't you?
> 
> Go read some case law, who don't you?  Lacking a copyright notice,
> there is a very good argument for claiming that the network's broadcast 
> to the public of a public forum (IE: the Demo Convention) actually
> places the content in the public domain. 

Andrew, I don't think this is the case, but I'm willing to be educated.  What 
are the cases that you feel support this?

jj's point is well taken: while copyrights are automatic as soon as a work is 
fixed in a tangible medium of expression (17 USC 102) without a need for 
notice (17 USC 401(a), I think), placing a notice means the defendant can't 
use an "innocent infringement" defense (17 USC 401(d), I think; on this and 
the prior reference, "401" might be off, but the subsections (a) and (d) are 
in the same section, which I _think_ is 401).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6071 alt.censorship:6177 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2369
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:21:34 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <Bs5r47.3y3@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <nu@byu.edu> gritton@byu.edu writes:
>>> On the other hand, why shouldn't existing child porn be in
>>> libaries?  Why is the mere possession of pictures (merely
>>> an arrangement of colored dies) a crime?
>>
>>   By making the posession a crime, it make it more difficult to make
>>and distribute the stuff. The idea is that by removing the customer
>>base, the producers will not make as much profit, and may find some
>>other hobby.
>
>A pretty silly business overall, since the consensus of expert opinion is
>that the child-porn business was miniscule and so were its profits.  The
>normal porn distributors wouldn't handle the stuff, so the market was tiny.
>Far more got spent on outlawing it!

The size of the child porn industry is not the issue, but rather
the practices involved.  Saying that *making* child porn is the
crime, but the porn itself should not be illegal is like saying
that growing pot is illegal, but possessing it is not....  If the
source is criminal, anything resulting from it is criminal.

However, more to the point, the children who are being used
to make this garbage are being subjected to various forms
of abuse in the process of producing it.  THAT is what we 
should abhor most.  Not the porn.  Not the wankers that want
the porn.  But the things that these people are subjecting
children to in order to produce this crap.


			-Richard Hartman
			hartman@uLogic.COM

Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:40:17 GMT

>>	Eh?  Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>>material they find offensive?
>
>     No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
>
>>  Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>
>     What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"?  It's a
>piece of violent erotica.  You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.

Would you care to provide some proof for this assertion or is
it just an unctrollable emotional reaction not subject to rational
thought.

You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps
the second (just to anticipate the usual attempt at supporting the
quoted argument above) ought to be the difference between correlations
and causal relationships. The third might be some education on bullshit
research by people with an axe to grind. Nahhh, might lead to critical
thinking and we wouldn't want that.

>--Jamie.                       ,
>  jamie@cs.sfu.ca           (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet"      `   (not)


Xref: sparky news.admin:6437 alt.censorship:6526 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2451 alt.flame:11552