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 15:53:13 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <0e7d021W1c4U01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
.....
>Probably is fair use.  Depends on the circumstances and facts.  If someone 
>posted a fictional story, and you quoted the entire thing into another 
>newsgroup, that might not be fair use (fiction, quoting all of it, and the 
>non-educational environment work against fair use; but the fact that the re-
>posting didn't affect the market for the work is in favor of fair use).  BUT: 
>I think you wouldn't need fair use because of an implied license to do 
>exactly that.

I don't think so.  If the article (work of fiction) is posted to 
newsgroups a b and c, and I copy it in it's entirety and repost to
d and e, this is an act of distribution beyond that "authorized" by
the poster, who explicitly limited his distribution to a b and c, 
fair use may cover the other things mentioned (archival copies, 
printed copies for personal use, excerpting for replies), but 
(I don't think) wouldn't cover a redistribution.  Even if the
groups d and e may be perfectly appropriate for the work of
fiction involved.

On the other hand, given the nature of the usenet I doubt that
most people would object to their works being redistributed to
other appropriate newsgroups of which they were not aware at the
time they posted the original article, or to which they do not
have access at their site.  For example if someone were to repost
this reply to comp.org.eff or misc.legal.computing (which my
site does not subscribe to, and to which, thanks to b-news, I
cannot post) I would not have any objections.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moderation in all things....		         ....especially moderation.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones)
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Organization: Caere Corp.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:21:00 GMT

To me the point of protecting children from exposure to certain
subjects is to allow their parents the freedom of choice in how to
raise their children.  Freedom means freedom with responsibility --
including how to raise your children.  Adults should not and must not
have such restriction to access.

Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Caere Corp.
mojo@caere.com
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:50:48 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <136@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) wrote:
> In article <CKD.92Jul20182021@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> >How is a CD-ROM different than a magtape?  Or an Ethernet?  Or the
> >invisible virtual perfectly reliable serial line that NNTP runs over? :)
> >What if my site does backups onto WORM?  What if a site that gets USENET
> >over UUCP or NNTP also gets NetNews/CD?  How does that differ from
> >backups on WORM?
> 
> It is not the medium, but the usage.  Backing up to a CD-ROM (ok, WORM)
> would not be wrong.  Selling copies of the magtape for profit would be.

Why does everyone focus on "selling copies for a profit"? It's been
pointed out *repeatedly* that a number of organizations sell newsfeeds
for a profit.

Likewise, why should you keep me from replacing my magtapes by CD-ROM
if I find them more convenient/economical/etc?


	<mike
Xref: sparky news.admin:6321 alt.censorship:6429 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2433
From: kelly@nmt.edu (kelly)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:39:03 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Jul27.184811.20064@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|In article <1992Jul27.025503.6884@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
||
||Sexual buttons?
|
|     Yes, sexual buttons.
|
||  What are those?
|

They're a new subset of the Athena Widget set.  It's got buttons,
levers, and other gushy things.  There's even a special XG_Spot()
routine.

--k

PS:  :)
Xref: sparky news.admin:6382 misc.legal.computing:1625 comp.org.eff.talk:5014
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:21:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.keRzfM_00awJ08Ut4i
	<1992Jul29.191255.17758@xenitec.on.ca>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.032455.23496@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick D\
> uggan) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul29.002241.16018@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer\
> ) writes:
> >>but don't expect the whole network, which existed long before your brain
> >>damage, to bend to your will.
> >
> >Look, copyright existed long before the net did.  Why does the 
> >net get special privileges to violate jj's copyright?  It is
> >the responsibility of those wishing to make use of copyrighted
> >materials to get permission to use that material.  Just because
> >the net exists in a certain state doesn't mean that copyright
> >law doesn't exist in our semi-mythical Usenet.  For all we know,
> >current Usenet practices might be found to be in violation
> >of copyright laws.
> 
> i didn't ask to make use of jj's articles, someone in effect is photocopying
> them and stuffing them under my door.

But that doesn't change the nature of the problem.  If I photocopy the
entirety of Dave Touretzky's book on LISP (sorry, Dave) and stuff the
copies under your door, that STILL doesn't give you the legal right to
violate D.T.'s copyright.  Not unless Dave himself stuffed it under
your door WITH A NOTE SAYING "I hereby put this book in the public
domain."  Copyright exists unless it is specifically disclaimed.  

> [ 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!               ]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: crime and punishment(was canceller's address again)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 16:23:39 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

timk@tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
> Punishment, in order to be an effective deterrent, should be *greater*
> than the damage done.

I think you'll find that such simplistic views on crime and punishment are no
longer held to be valid outside of right-wing newspapers and casual
conversation... (That's not intended to be an insult, even if it sounds like
one.)  It seems intuitively obvious that draconian punishments will have a
better deterrent effect than softer treatment, but I think the statistics
suggest otherwise.

The risk of loss of limbs does not prevent shoplifting in Iran.  The risk of
death by public hanging did not prevent pickpocketing in England in the
middle ages; in fact, pickpockets used to steal from the people who turned up
to watch the hangings.  On the other hand (Iranian shoplifters excepted), my
personal experience is that arresting a shoplifter, questioning him, making
him sign a police statement, forcing him to telephone his parents and tell
them about it, and then releasing him after several hours is quite often more
than sufficient to scare the crap out of him enough that he doesn't try to
repeat the offense. (Naturally some 'hardened criminals' require more than
this as a deterrent.)  This is in spite of the fact that he has suffered no
material loss from the 'punishment' comparable to the gain he would have made
from committing the crime successfully.

History and psychology suggest (or so I gather; I'm not an expert) that what
really prevents people from doing something 'naughty' is not so much the
severity of the punishment, but their estimation of how likely they are to be
caught and put on trial.

The most effective way of preventing future Mad Cancellers is not to punish
Bandy; it's to demonstrate how quickly and easily he was caught and made to
account for his actions.  Of course, doing this may require that he be made
to account for his actions.

Of course, all this is somewhat orthogonal to the questions of whether he
should apologize, and whether his identity should be revealed.


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Xref: sparky news.admin:6179 comp.org.eff.talk:4831 misc.legal.computing:1486
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles - use 'Expire:'?
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:17:46 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul25.101517.11480@ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>Anybody can get a feed of current articles if they wish to.  Standard
>Usenet practice includes archiving for an unlimited period, so anybody
>can obtain copies of old articles if they wish to; there is thus no
>requirement that the copying be automatic.  The poster of any article

Aha!  I have the answer!  The CD distribution should *not* carry
any article with an "Expires:" header, and people not wanting their
works permanently archived should put one in, along with whichever
fatuous copyright notice is popular at the time...

G
From: nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk (Nigel Metheringham)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: That weary feeling of deja vu!
Summary: Someone is recycling news again
Keywords: recycled junk
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:25:13 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

I just fired up my news reader and got this distinct feeling that I
was back in last week!

It appears some site is re-injecting a whole bunch of news articles
with slightly modified Message-IDs.

It looks suspiciously to me as though the notesfile to usenet
gateway in the headers may be responsible for this, although I don't
have too much evidence for this yet.  I'm going to contact them to
see if they know anything about it....

Anyhow, here are a set of original message IDs and their modified
forms:-

Original                                Modified
--------                                --------
<1992Jul17.150429.22485@news.yale.edu>  <1992Jul17.150429.22485@news.yale>
<1992Jul17.151837.22943@news.yale.edu>  <1992Jul17.151837.22943@news.yale>
<1992Jul17.191014.28954@news.yale.edu>  <1992Jul17.191014.28954@news.yale>
<1992Jul18.104906.17404@news.yale.edu>  <1992Jul18.104906.17404@news.yale>

There are probably others - I'm sures I've seen several others today
- it just took me a while to realise that someone is recycling this
stuff.  I have only got the yale ones becuase thats what I used to
search into the history file!

Also, here's the header off one message - a recylcled one - the
original has expired off my system.
From: shin-jungshik@CS.YALE.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: More than one name in Alias line ?
Date: 18 Jul 92 01:04:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:1992Jul17.150429.22485@news.yale:-110118737:001:1460
Nf-From: CS.YALE.EDU!shin-jungshik    Jul 17 19:04:00 1992

	Nigel.

-- 
# Nigel Metheringham   # (NeXT) EMail: nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk #
# System Administrator #######  Phone: +44 904 432374        #
# Department of Electronics  #  Fax:   +44 904 432335        #
#     University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO1 5DD      #
Xref: sparky news.admin:6112 comp.org.eff.talk:4780 misc.legal.computing:1447
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
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: 23 Jul 92 20:26:29 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <2A6F2787.22282@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, dwatanab@mothra.nts.uci.edu (Dana Watanabe) wrote:
> (or is it just too much fun to argue and we dotn really 
> want to find out a real answer?)

How about "we don't think the real answer would be good for the net."

	<mike
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.155610.2494@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>And are not they wrong for having done so against my
>instructions?  I've clearly indicated where I think my
>posting should be going, what more do you want?

What you indicated is not what you think you indicated. What you
indicated is that you don't think the posting is of interest outside
that area. That doesn't mean nobody outside that area will read it.

If you want another analogy (no, stop me...), when you write a letter
to the editor of the Toronto Tattler someone in Los Angeles who subscribes
to it will still get it.

>Remember, when Usenet goes to court and is found in
>violation of some law, it is the law that will prevail, no
>matter what the Usenet idealists might prefer.

This is true, but there is a serious question as to what Distributions
mean and what the law will decide.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Keywords: copyright
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:28:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.083748.21297@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.160324.15844@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>:It seems like you are implying that if these CDs cost more than
>:$10 or $20 then the distributors are no longer charging just
>:a modest packaging fee.  But what is your musician friend going
>:to press on those CDs?  Is he going to press 1000 blank CDs?
>:Or is he going to write some music, buy some instruments to play
>:that music on, and pay for some studio time to record it?
>
>Well let's say I've got a DAT tape drive and a nice fat hard disk
>already being used for backup and Usenet. So I start writing
>compressed Usenet to a backup tape. That's not hard. No one even has
>to be there! So I send a tape to the CD company, who charges me...? My
>guess is $2-4 per CD in quantity. Oh, maybe $6 if it's packaged
>nicely.
>

How much did that DAT drive cost?  How much for the big fat hard
disk?  [If it's an ESDI drive, about twice as much per megabyte
as any other kind as I've just recently found out.]  Cost of the
machine/software you are using?  Cost of the building it's in (or
your rent of that building)?  Upkeep of said machines?  Maintenance?

>So how much for a big fat Usenet CD? $20? $30? Remember, I can buy a
>CD of music--which has a whole lot more engineering and talent put into
>it--for $10. So the Usenet CD better be reasonably priced.

I'm really not arguing with you.  In fact, I don't care how much
they charge for the Usenet CD.  It's basically what the market
will bear; they charge what they feel maximizes their profit.
I didn't mean to imply I agreed with the original thought of
the thread (that you should only charge a ``modest'' packaging
fee); I just wanted to point out some things you might have
overlooked.

-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 news.admin:6145 misc.legal.computing:1464
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:03:20 GMT
 <1992Jul23.081204.18538@ee.und.ac.za> <1992Jul23.190525.29053@clarinet.com>

In <1992Jul23.190525.29053@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.081204.18538@ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>>In the free areas the expectation is wide and uncontrolled distribution
>>of verbatim copies.  If it's a verbatim copy (including the headers)
>>then it's part of Usenet; regardless of the medium, which might be disk,
>>satellite, CD-ROM, tape, punched cards, newspapers, posters in public

>We can only list that as an expectation if there is no copyright licence
>on the material.   You can only argue an implicit copyright licence
>where there isn't an explicit copyright licence, or in some very limited
>and particular cases.

I think you are contradicting your earlier argument.  (That was you, wasn't
it, who said the the poster was commanding the net to propagate articles.) 
The only way Usenet can legally exist is for the act of posting to be
considered a command to propagate the article.  If permission to do what is
commanded is denied in the article, then I would think the command
overrides the lack of permission.

Besides, I don't think "copyright licence" is a legal term.  Licensing is
independant of copyright.


--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:17:55 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Jul29.232155.5152@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.021834.28103@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>Isn't that what putting something in the public domain is?  When to give

Ahhh.  The crux of the matter.  No.  That is not what putting something 
in the public domain is, as has been explained by (so far) at least
three replies including the one I am following up.

>>to the public domain, you allow anyone anywhere to copy at anytime: when
>>you put something in anonymous ftp allow anyone anywhere to copy at 
>>anytime, so what is the difference?
>
>No, as we've said, putting something into the public domain requires
>you to say something to the effect of ``I hereby renounce copyright
>on this work and give it to the public domain.''  Do you really
>think that all the shareware posted to bulletin boards (where it
>can be copied by anyone at anytime) is public domain?

And here is the reason I am following up.  Unfortunately, Rick,
many people *do* think that shareware &/or freely available is
public domain.  The term "public domain" was first applied to
this type of software a long time ago -- perhaps before the 
Berne convention was adopted by the US and when PD software
authors did not include explicit copyright notices in their
software.  No Berne + no notice == Public Domain (prior to
what, 1987? 1989? whenever Berne was adopted).  Since then,
the "freely distributable" software market has evolved AND
the Berne convention was adopted.  Authors included notices
saying "you can copy this for non-commercial use" and "send
money if you like it".  At this time it started becomming known
as "shareware" instead of public domain software, but to many
people it was the same.  "It come from the same place, the same
way, it must be the same".  A natural tendancy on the part
of most people, but unfortunate when we have to try to correct
things after the fact.   Now we have PD software, shareware,
user-supported software and a couple of other categories, at
least.

If someone disputes my line of argument here for why people
are thinking what they are thinking, or my history of how/when
PD software became shareware, great.  I'm going off the top
of my head and don't have the firm dates, but this seems to
fit......

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lazy day, Sunday afternoon.			|
Like to get your feet up, watch TV.		|	-Richard Hartman	
Sunday roast is something good to eat,		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
must be lamb to day 'cause beef was last week!	|
From: rickg@netcom.com (Rick Gordon)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Beals - Third Strike
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:41:11 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Netcom - SF Bay, Cal Northifornia

In article <2A6FF3FA.6867@tct.com> Chip Salzenberg writes:

>According to mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
>>All I've done is pointed out that what he intended to do was less
>>obnoxious than what the habits he was trying to deal with...
>
>Not "pointed out", but "opined".  Relative obnoxiousness isn't an
>objectively measurable quantity.

WRONG!  One pass of the Obnoximeter over this post registered a
seasonally-adjusted 6.3.

You can't argue with Science.
 
>Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>

-- 
Rick Gordon       | "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly
rickg@netcom.com  |  and I did.  I said I didn't know."  M. Twain
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: 1 meg article size limit
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:13:21 GMT
Organization: negligable

Phil,
	Forget about the techno-arguments on size.  If someone cannot say
	clearly what he wants to say in 64k then 1 meg isn't going to help
	them any, and just ties up system resources for the rest of us.

	The point of any writing excercise is to say what you want to say
	and get out.  Droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on
	and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and 
	on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
	and on and on and on and on and on for on one megabyte's worth
	of article seems pretty darned ridiculous.  There man be exceptions
	to this premise, but they would have to be pretty exceptional
	cases to require such a large amount of data to be spread around
	the world like the USENET does.  Also exceptions to this, of
	course, would be source & binary articles.  Many sites do not
	subscribe to these groups for just that reason, and I think that
	that is fine.  But I cannot see any reason for a 1 meg "real"
	article to be treated as anything more than an extreme exception.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Why do we never get an answer		|
when we're knocking at the door?	|	-Richard Hartman	
because the truth is hard to swallow 	|	hartman@uLogic.COM
that's what the war of love is for.	|
Xref: sparky news.admin:6180 comp.org.eff.talk:4833 misc.legal.computing:1487