HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Copyright Deposit Unconstitutional? (was: The Great Floating ...)
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:20:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug14.082035.20420
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes:

>> Not anymore.  Since we've signed Berne our copyright laws are part
>> of an international treaty & I think it's the executive branch that
>> would have to void that treaty -- I don't think Congress can.   ;-)

>Sorry.  The U.S. Constitution, according to article V is "the supreme law
>of the land".  I believe that it has been established that Congress may not
>"give away" a power given to it by the Constitution (Con Law was a while
>ago, so maybe I am wrong...), so the only way to prevent Congress from
>deciding to do whatever it wants to regarding copyrights and patents is by
>changing the Constitution.  Last time I checked there was no such amendment
>pending...

Recheck your copy of the Constitution. That language is in Article VI,
Section 2. And it says:

	"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding."
 
So at this time we have a law which conflicts with a treaty. Since
we *cannot* change the treaty, we'll have to chanmge the law.


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Xref: sparky news.admin:7008 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2556 alt.censorship:6917
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "By Command of the Poster" considerd harmful (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:30:01 GMT
Organization: negligable

Seems like the person who created the script would be liable.
The magazine editor took it on good faith -- he obtained the
article from a submissions address.  There is nothing in the
method of distribution mechanism of USENET that would imply
to the poster that his article would be submitted for publication.
The person who did the submission (by arranging for that script
in the first place) would be the one liable, IMHO.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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!	|

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Reply-To: Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:45:03 GMT
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Since you don't control traffic flow with newgroups or rmgroups, but with
>sys files, what possible relevance could that have?

It's relevant because groups that get created have a longer expiration
interval (1 to 10 days depending on hierarchy) than junk (0.1 days).
-- 
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
	-- J. Neil Schulman
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:35:08 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <FISCHER.92Aug14211033@steiner.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>Actually, it would just lead to the creation of a real-alt hierarchy.

Let's call it junk. Yeh, junk.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Re: Posting to moderated and unmoderated groups
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:21:53 GMT

In article <227@ulogic.UUCP>,
hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> Not necessarily -- when I post to multiple newsgroups I do not think
> whether a single copy or multiple copies are going out.  That is an
> implementation issue.  Let's not mistake an historical remnant as a
> real feature.

It is a very important feature.  Even if you do not care about storage
space and communications bandwidth, you should care about annoying the
readers.

If multiple copies go out then the people who read several of the affected
groups will encounter several copies of the message and will be annoyed by
the extra copies.  If one crossposted copy goes out then the people who
read several of the affected groups will read only one copy of the message
(unless their software is deficient in its handling of crossposts).

If multiple copies go out then separate fragmentary discussions are
likely to arise in the separate groups.  If a single crossposted copy
goes out then a single crossposted discussion is possible.

No doubt others can give additional arguments.

> [...] Therefore the unmoderated groups should get their copy regardless
> of what happens w/ the moderated groups.

Retrospective crossposting would be way to get this, using a control
message to modify the newsgroups list of an already existing article.
Design and implementation of such a feature would not be trivial.

> The poster wants crossposting.  The issue of whether this turns out to
> be a *single* crosspost or not is as I mentioned before an artifact
> of the implementation, and not the posters wishes.  It was done that
> way to save disk space, of course.

If it's not a single copy then it's not a crosspost.  See above.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za             Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:30:52 GMT

In article <23498@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
>In article <7JHILW8@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>>Why not? The Houston Chronicle does. And they have shown no reluctance to
>>quote net articles and email (which is why I no longer subscribe).
>
>And if pressed, which they most surely should have been, they 
>would have justified their use of articles under "fair use".
>If they take quotes, it's fair use.  If something is "newsworthy"
>newspapers in particular often try to justify theft under
>'fair use' but have also (yes, I speak from experience) as fair use,
>even if they take the whole thing, of some significant length.

Maybe. But they'll do that whatever the source. Or?

>E-mail should have been followed up under the electronic privacy
>act, I think.  It would be interesting to see if the
>lawn-order administration would be so eager to support
>their law when it worked against their desire to enforce
>conservative Christian religious dogma on all of us.
>
>Of course, they have expensive lawyers and have shown themselves
>perfectly willing to use jingoism in place of either honesty
>and/or legality, and they can probably afford to buy justice the
>same way any other rich entity can.

Exactly. That's why it useless to say "it's the law, so you must obey."
Your wording has given the impression that saying "it's the law"
would magically get someone to desist. It won't, since the law
is open to interpretation and all that.

The "obey" isn't what's important in the law. What's important is
conflict solving and protection of rights. IMO the law should be the
last resort when negotiation fails. 

Bengt L.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.futures
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:47:46 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug13.152930.14226@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>>We are running a news server. We have gotton requests from some of our 
>>local users for private (local) news groups. This would also be ideal 
>>for dealing with internal news items.

>We used to have this with notesfiles. It was great, the professors
>had one, most every research group had one.

>We tried to keep it when we switched to Netnews and NNTP, but it was
>just too hard.

I'd like to note that this is NNTP's fault, not Usenet News. We run
Usenet news with internal NNTP connections, but our external connects
are all traditional UUCP feeds. We have a number of private news groups,
and... yes... it *is* an important capability.

I suspect that if we were to join the Internet proper, we'd use a firewall
machine to make sure our business STAYS our business.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:53:48 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

gleasont@lonex.rl.af.mil (Todd C. Gleason) writes:

>I don't know about unanimity, but their should be a bit more control of the
>alt newsgroups creation/deletion.

If you want control then stick to the mainstream groups. Alt would be utterly
pointless if we introduced some voting or other formal procedure to decide
on creation.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   |
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:06:54 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <A39I74@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <237@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>Archives & FTP fall w/in the "USENET",
>
>I'm not convinced of that. Some do (for example, archives of comp.sources,
>or other complete groups). Most archive sites do a lot of selection, either
>by the administration or submitters, and wouldn't be considered part of
>Usenet.

I usually make a distinction between the term "USENET" and the more
specific term "USENET News".  The "USENET News" is the interactive reading
reply message system that sometimes is not interactive and some people
cannot reply to <g>.  The "USENET" is just about any from of allowable
data transfer between systems that participate in the USENET.  These
include FTP.  Archives on USENET sites are a long-established phenomenon,
and as mentioned elsewhere starting to object to them now would likely
end up the same way as when the movie industry woke up to late to
stop Sony & Betamax.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Badges?  I don' got to show you no stinkin' badges!"
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:58:16 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <CKD.92Aug10154703@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
[ ... comparison to archiving w/ videotaping ... ]
>
>I don't (usually) read news by watching $SPOOLDIR/in.coming, though; I
>have it sorted into groups, archived more-or-less temporarily on disk
>until I get time to read news.
>
>Not everyone can afford a separate news drive, also; at one point, we
>had a partition with both home directories and news on it.  Were were
>therefore prohibited from using 'dump' to back up the entire drive?

I'll field this one.

Copyright law permits the videotaping of programs for personal use,
but you may not "exhibit" (re-show) them.  Similarly, news on backups
for your site would be permitted, but you may not redistribute or
sell them.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them."
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.nntp,news.software.b,news.admin.misc
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Posting to moderated and unmoderated groups (was: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:38:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.153500.1157@becker.GTS.ORG> bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker) writes:
>	The real question revolves around the case
>	where the moderator decides not to post the
>	article to his newsgroup - does he have any
>	responsibility to propagate the article to
>	the other newsgroups in the "Newsgroups: "
>	header?

I think only the original poster should change the list of groups to
which the article is posted. On the one hand, the poster might prefer
to repost the article to the unmoderated groups, or s/he might prefer
to modify the article to be acceptable to the moderated group and post
to the original list of groups.

A worse problem is if more than one group on the list is moderated. I
was once a newsgroup moderator, and I got chastised by the moderator
of another newsgroup for approving an article in his group. I didn't
carefully check the Newsgroups: header to see if any of the other groups
were also moderated. It was deemed appropriate for my group, so I added
the Approved: header and posted the article, so it got posted in the
other moderator's group as well.

In general, if any changing of the newsgroup list is required, I think
it should be done by the original poster. The moderator should probably
forward the article to the moderators of any other moderated groups it
is cross-posted to and obtain permission to post it in their group.
If any moderators reject the article for their group, it should be returned
to the poster with an explanation. *ONLY* the original poster should modify
the Newsgroups: list.

--Greg
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.futures
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:29:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:

>We are running a news server. We have gotton requests from some of our 
>local users for private (local) news groups. This would also be ideal 
>for dealing with internal news items.

We used to have this with notesfiles. It was great, the professors
had one, most every research group had one.

We tried to keep it when we switched to Netnews and NNTP, but it was
just too hard. We still have local newsgroups, but they are not as
local and are much less candid. The sensitive stuff that is still sent
is sent via email mailing lists.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:13:37 GMT

In article <wPXHPB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>Similarly, I do not believe that submitting an article to Usenet implies any
>consent to anything.  There's certainly no contract of any sort, no
>agreement.  The newsgroups are filled with people who have no idea how large
>Usenet is in geographical terms, so how can they have consented to having
>their articles distributed to places they didn't even know existed?

I wrote that you had to be presented with the terms and have to answer a
question about if you had understood the nature of the default distribution
before posting. 

The idea was to add such a question to Pnews or the equivalent. 
I think that from a legal point of view that would be good idea.

Bengt L.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Xref: sparky news.admin:6978 alt.censorship:6896 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2549
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <exuptr.274.713477005@exu.ericsson.se> by exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor):

> Kinda strayed from the point, but nonetheless well put.  I, for one, hope 
> your country will survive separately from the US.  But if you have anything
> to fear from the US it is not arrogance and imperialism, it is commercialism 
> and materialism.

I'd suggest that they have much more to fear from envy and self-loathing....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: leary@progress.COM (James Leary)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:53:23 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> The net is not the place to post messages and articles that
>> an individual considers a valuable intellectual property and therefore
>> wishes to place conditions upon its use and duplication.

>More's the pity.  Oh, and tell that to shareware and GNUware authors.

That's *exactly* the point.  Shareware and GNUware authors know *full*
well that there are probably going to be many, many individuals who
will download their works and never send them a red cent.
That does not, however prevent them from still offering their works
to the public for perusal and use.  The point is, once they submit
their works to a net, they no longer control distribution and use,
no matter how the wording or such stresses copyrights and the like.

The same concept applies to anything that can be reproduced and still
have functional value and purpose, i.e., books, magazines, software.
Sure, there is copyrights and laws and all that, but so what (I am
not espousing ignorance of the law, but rather stating a truism)?

The idea out here that messages should somehow be scanned and determine
what the intent on reproduction and use of the message by the author
is pie-in-the-sky and unworkable.  That, plainly, is not the intent
of this or for that matter, any other public computer network.

This is a forum to share ideas and not dream up ways to place restrictions
on the sharing concept.  Again, if you are going to stay awake at night
worring about that shareware program or message you uploaded the day
before is going to be used in a way you did not intend, or might
be copied and used without permission, then don't do it.

All that aside, I bet there are more people here and on other networks
that in most cases will pay for shareware or respect
an author's request on use of a posted message. That's not naive, but
a hopeful ideal that keeps me writing messages and posting to share
with others (both those who agree and disagree with my opinions).

Regards,

Jim Leary

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:14:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.152104.3300@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>What infuriates me is the double standard.

>For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
>Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
>as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse.  We don't have them in the
>university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>I don't believe that there is a double standard.  The material at hand
>isn't Playboy or Penthouse material.  The material that caused the problems
>in a.s.b are hardly things that would be found in either magazine.

So why was alt.sex banned, too?

>Furthermore, on a more general level, most universities have constitutions
>or codes of ethics that require them to be more selective of material than
>the law would necessarily require them to.  Even in the USA.
[...]

Academic freedom compels university administrations to be, if
anything, less selective. The value of material is suppose to be
determined by each academic for him or herself, not by the
administration.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: USENet defined, one easy lesson...
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:45:10 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <mwm.1ggx@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>In <232@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) wrote:
>> alt.flame (and the rest of the alt groups) are as much a part
>> of the usenet as anything else.
>
>No, they aren't. They are alt.net, and were set up specifically
[...]
>Defining USENET is the set of heirarchies that net. broke into during
>the great renaming: comp., rec., sci., soc., talk., misc., and news.

So USENET is really the domain of the articles naming conventions, and
not the machines which participate in it?

I have been operating under the assumption that USENET, and USENET News
are two different things.  The News perhaps being defined as you have
put forward, but the net itself being the machines participating in the
news distribution...  Is this not an appropriate distinction to be
making?


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Badges?  I don' got to show you no stinkin' badges!"
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: NEWSGROUP
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:41:27 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.


	Anyone know if there's a newsgroup for Gupta's SQL Windows users?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:00:51 GMT

In article <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>In article <MV6I5X3@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>   In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
>   >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with?  Who's
>   >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?

>   The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
>   can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
>   for them.

>Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet:  Censorship is wrong.

Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032