HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<1992Nov16.230804.22433@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1ec4flINNmqk@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:45:04 GMT

In article <1ec4flINNmqk@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

   A straw poll will be meaningless, because it will suffer from
   exactly the same self-selection mechanism that the original vote
   did. Those who care will reply to the straw poll, those who don't,
   won't.

By that argument, all votes are meaningless, because all votes "suffer
from" a "self-selection mechanism."

The respondents to the poll were the people of the *.synth readership
who wanted to provide input into the process, and the dispute brought
more people into the process than the vote did.  Given the
circumstances, it's a good bet that those who did not respond don't
care about the outcome.

We should try to honor the preference of the *.synth readership, and
the straw poll gave us a pretty good idea of what they prefer.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
From: svdhara@iguana.syr.EDU
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
Subject: adding newsgroups
Keywords: adding newsgroups
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:53:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY


I am a novice Newsgroup administrator.
The first job my boss gave me is to add
Newsgroups(local) and a moderator.

Can my knowledgeable friends show tell me how to
get started?

Thanks in anticipation.

Sastry Dhara
Network Systems
Syracuse University     email:svdhara@mailbox.syr.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
From: tague@witchcraft.com (Michael Tague)
Subject: Re: INTERNET ACCESS????
Organization: Computer Witchcraft, Inc., SF, CA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:20:00 GMT


ad6861@sarah.albany.edu (Toejam) writes:

>I'm a senior at SUNY Albany and will be graduating this
>December and will lose my internet access among other computing
>priviliges.  I was wondering if anyone knows of where and how I can get
>internet access?

We have a new product and service you might be interested in.  It is
called WinNET Mail and is a Microsoft Windows based application for
sending/receiving Internet & Usenet mail.  An MDI application, with
folders, search functions, background mail transfer, scheduler,
toolbar, etc, the software is free.  The service to connect to the net
we provide on a usage basis - typically $10-12 a month for most users.
Full Usenet news will be available in December with FTP shortly
thereafter.

If you are interested we can send you a copy of the software over the
net or via mail.

-Michael
tague@win.net

Xref: sparky news.admin:8583 news.groups:22350 rec.music.synth:18599 news.admin.policy:458
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:56:47 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Nov12.035541.2445@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
>>My advice at present to you, FWIW, is to stop being an obstructionist
>>to the expressed will of the net, by which I mean the properly-
>>conducted vote.  
> 
>Both of those are misnomers in the case of what happend (I maintain again).
>It was the expressed will of a minority of the net, 

Minority? The numbers do not support your continued assertion. You are
beginning to remind me of the man who stated with firm resolve that the
sky is, in actuality, quite a lovely shade of peach and the clouds are
really green. The facts just get in the way of his impression, and
yours. 

>and a technically
>correct vote with flaws not covered by the guidelines. 

Then attempt to fix the guidelines and stop this ludicrous crowing of
how the vote should be redone. 

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:539 news.admin.misc:394 alt.censorship:8971 alt.culture.usenet:923 comp.admin.policy:1529
From: larry@cs.com (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:52:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas,Texas

Our two main reasons for keeping a news feed (including rec, etc.) are
  
  1) We get valuable technical info from comp and sci, in some cases
     well before it appears in journals.  I make a point of mention-
     ing these little tidbits to my boss and the CEO, so they're well
     aware of the importance of netnews to our R&D lab.

  2) Rec, alt, etc., are a nice perk which helps keep valued employees 
     around.  News is addicting.  Admittedly, with the current economy,
     a lot of companies are looking to cut perks, but you have to 
     consider the long-term effect, especially in industries where
     people move freely between jobs.  

One thing we've done to keep company time from being wasted is to have
a couple of low-speed modem lines for employees to call in on after
work hours.  That way, we can say, "you can read rec.music.misc, but
please try to keep it on your own time."  Of course, this might be an
expensive solution for a larger company.  

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Copyrights of FAQs
Date: 20 Nov 1992 17:57:36 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: rkrouse@netcom.com's message of Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.133657.22672@netcom.com> rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse) writes:

     Someone told me that everything on the Internet is automatically
   copyrighted to the author.  Is this true and what does it mean
   if it is true?

      I would like to collect together my favorite FAQs into a book
   with a little editing but not too much rewriting.  How would the
   copyrights affect my plans.  Would I have to pay royalties?

Ask the authors.  If you don't profit from their works, they will
probably give permission.  If you expect to profit, some will
expect their share.

There doesn't seem to be much if any legal precedent; there are
ideas about what the courts would decide; but the general feeling
I hear is "Be a good neighbor", which is what the law tries to
enforce.  Try to picture what you would expect if the situation
were reversed.  Golden rule, etc.

--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:30:38 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <645@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
[examples deleted]

>A -- knowledge that people post child porn to a.s.p.e.
>
>
>B -- receipt of a.s.p.e.
>
>if A and B then C -- knowingly receiving child porn
>

   Hardly. People have been known to carry child-porn on floppies. I have
20 floppies on my desk. Does that mean that I knowingly possesed child porn?
even if I can show (to a reasonable degree) that I don't know the contents
of the disks?

   More to the practical point, I am not aware that _any_ child porn has
been posted to a.b.p.e, FBI investigations not withstanding. If you've seen
any post here.

DanZ



-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:553 news.admin.misc:401 alt.censorship:8987 alt.culture.usenet:925 comp.admin.policy:1533
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:36:45 GMT
Organization: negligable

>In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov20120155@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>>Knowing that sometimes people post child porn to a.s.p.e is completely
>>different from knowing that a picture has actually been posted.

A -- knowledge that people post child porn to a.s.p.e.

>>I never knowingly receive child porn, even if I carried a.s.p.e.  The
>>situation is more like getting it in the mail unsolicited and
>>unwanted.  Of course I am responsible for action if I notice it or if
>>it is brought to my attention, 

B -- receipt of a.s.p.e.

if A and B then C -- knowingly receiving child porn

Whether you know when a specific instance comes in or not is
immaterial.  If I know that my luggage is sometimes used to
smuggle dope into the country by aquaintances of mine and they
do not notify me which trips are "loaded", I still get arrested
at the border.....


			-Richard Hartman
			hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I think.  I think I am.  Therefore ... I *am*!  (I think....)

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<EMCGUIRE.92Nov20120155@fuller.intellection.com>
	<4025@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:03:19 GMT

In article <4025@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

   This is the minimum responsibility - that is, you are responsible once
   you are aware of it.  This is "real" common carrier responsibility.
   We don't know yet whether the responsibility extends further.  In the
   case of common-carriers, it does not.  And the Compuserve case had
   "common-carrier"ish thinking applied, so they were not held responsible.
   Whether a USENET site will be thought of in the same way is, as yet,
   unknown.  Probably.  But I'd be careful about prodding the beast.

However, I note with optimism that the recent announced FBI action
against a student posting child porn is a specific action against a
specific offender for a specific offense reported by a netnews site.
I would be interested in that context to learn why Cornell has pulled
its a.b.p feed.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Copyrights of FAQs
Date: 20 Nov 1992 17:19:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sentinel.ces.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov20.133657.22672@netcom.com> rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse) writes:
>  Someone told me that everything on the Internet is automatically
> copyrighted to the author.  Is this true and what does it mean
> if it is true?

This is correct [although, I would say USENET rather than Internet].

The Berne Convention made it fundamental that the excercise of the rights
guaranteed by the convention shall not be subject to any formality.

The Berne Convention applies to many countries and includes the U.S..

The interpretation is that any work has [most] copyright protections with or
without the presence of a copyright notice as soon as it has been fixed in
form.

The question of what rights authors reserve when they release their
work via USENET is an open question.  You will find people quite happy
to attempt to fill bandwidth arguing the topic but until the courts
and the legislature get around to examining the issue, it is all hype,
drivel, and posturing.

>   I would like to collect together my favorite FAQs into a book
> with a little editing but not too much rewriting.  How would the
> copyrights affect my plans.  Would I have to pay royalties?

I would suggest that you contact the authors of your favorite FAQs
and secure their permissions.  Not only will it save you from possible
future legal problems, it is the polite and ethically sound thing
to do.

You may be pleasantly surprised.  Most people who write or maintain
FAQs are probably interested in sharing information and would simply
release their work for inclusion in your book - subject to proper
attribution and review of your editing.

Or simply -
Why not try doing the right thing before trying the expedient thing?

Aydin Edguer
an FAQ maintainer
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:503 news.admin.misc:382 alt.censorship:8939 alt.culture.usenet:920 comp.admin.policy:1526
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:14:41 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

shaver@convex.com (Dave Shaver) writes:

> The question: If your management questioned the value of your news,
> what would you say?  What if they said they wanted to turn the whole
> thing off or eliminate 90% of it?  (The "non-business" newsgroups.)
> What arguments would you use to maintain your feed?

- It's a cheap way to get education to people who need it; especially info
  on leading edge stuff that hasn't made it into texts yet, and can only
  otherwise be discovered by hiring someone who's already experienced in
  it, or going to pricy seminars or conferences.

- It's a perk.  It's like having company-provided coffee, or bottled water.
  It's like having "minesweeper" on your PC, but more educational.

- It's nearly free, because it fits in the bandwidth and CPU cycles that we
  need anyway (we do most news processing in the evenings).  The total cost
  is for about 600 MB of disk on various systems.  There's some admin
  overhead that doesn't really amount to anything because if I weren't
  taking care of the news (and reading it), I'd just leave earlier.

- It gives us a bit more name recognition.  (No, we haven't gone out of
  business.)  Occasionally, people even post questions about our stuff.

- It's a great way to find pointers to tools, free software, documentation,
  or whatever.  Half the software we run is from the net in one way or
  another.... even stuff we can ftp, we probably wouldn't find out about
  except for the news.

- It's a good place to ask stupid questions and get them answered by people
  who really know the subject.  (You'll also get answers from people who
  don't know squat, but figuring out which is which will teach you a bit
  more about the subject than you would have learned with only the right
  answer.  Some wrong answers are wrong for interesting reasons.)

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:31:20 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov20120155@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>   the test is simple - whether it meets the above definition:
>   pictures produced using minors engaged in sexually explicit
>   conduct.

>A picture of a vase might be produced by two minors engaged in
>sexually explicit conduct.  How would we ever know?  :) :)

Now we know why legal language is so bloody awkward ;-)

>   If you saw, say, a picture containing 6 year old having sex with an
>   adult: not only is the material itself illegal, but receiving (and I
>   presume transmitting) such material after you've been warned
>   is also a crime that *you* are committing:

>	 "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
>	 produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

>Knowing that sometimes people post child porn to a.s.p.e is completely
>different from knowing that a picture has actually been posted.

Are you sure about that?  In a country where a large sum of cash is considered
prima-facie evidence of drug dealing, where commercial aircraft can be
impounded because the airline doesn't take drug smuggling seriously enough,
where people who buy gro-lights can get raided, or where the whole stock of
a video store can be confiscated due to a couple of illegal tapes, I'd be
really careful if I were you.

>I never knowingly receive child porn, even if I carried a.s.p.e.  The
>situation is more like getting it in the mail unsolicited and
>unwanted.  Of course I am responsible for action if I notice it or if
>it is brought to my attention, 

This is the minimum responsibility - that is, you are responsible once
you are aware of it.  This is "real" common carrier responsibility.
We don't know yet whether the responsibility extends further.  In the
case of common-carriers, it does not.  And the Compuserve case had
"common-carrier"ish thinking applied, so they were not held responsible.
Whether a USENET site will be thought of in the same way is, as yet,
unknown.  Probably.  But I'd be careful about prodding the beast.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:27:58 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>[...].  Publishers are; they can't get out of (say) an
>obscenity charge just by claiming that they didn't know what their staff
>was doing.  They are legally obliged to pay attention and make sure that
>they publish no illegal material.
[...]

At least in the U.S., the law distinguishs between a "Publishers", who
have editorial control on material, and "Distributors/Faciliators",
who do not. An example of a publisher is a newspaper. Examples of
distributors and faciliators are books stores, printers, and
auditorium owners.  Publishers are reponsible for material;
distributors/faciliators generally are not. This protection comes from
the general right of freedom of expression (as protected by the First
Amendment); it does not depend on legislated previleges ala "common
carriers".

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
* Expression -- Liability -- Cubby v. Compuserv

Report of a federal district court case which said CompuServe could
not be held liable for the defamatory content because it exercised no
editorial control.

=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc

Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
  pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc


-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:28:23 GMT

shaver@convex.com (Dave Shaver) writes:
>The question: If your management questioned the value of your news,
>what would you say?  What if they said they wanted to turn the whole
>thing off or eliminate 90% of it?  (The "non-business" newsgroups.)
>What arguments would you use to maintain your feed?

       Discovering which non-DEC peripherals had good reputations,
which DEC peripherals had bad reputations, and being able to compare notes
on what DEC reps were saying to various customers was immensely helpful
back when I was buying and installing DEC systems, and later Sun machines.
(It was a real culture shock for the DEC salespeople when they discovered
we had a way of checking up on what they were saying to different customers.)
Reduced our hardware costs considerably in the early 1980s.
     
					John Nagle
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:49:16 GMT

While it's not our favourite reason to get a subscriber, we do have some
subscribers who have said one reason they get our service is to legitimize
and justify the netnews servers and costs at their site.   Getting professional
information, news and computer industry info to the employees is something
that higher managers can understand.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:35:45 GMT

Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
> It would make sense for Usenet and similar entities to be common carriers,
> but nothing short of a court decision would establish that.

Why should all services on Usenet and similar entities be common carriers?
Email - sure. Moderated newsgroups or mail distribution lists - not. Routing
a message is one thing, storing a message for public access is another.

---
Haakon Styri 			*** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:37:13 GMT

In article <Bxy4EM.DA6@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>distributors and faciliators are books stores, printers, and
>auditorium owners.  Publishers are reponsible for material;
>distributors/faciliators generally are not. This protection comes from
>the general right of freedom of expression (as protected by the First
>Amendment); it does not depend on legislated previleges ala "common
>carriers".

But don't forget the Kinko's copy shops case. If you are a distributor
and you know or should have known that what you were asked to do was
illegal, you can be liable.

Kinkos let a professor copy reams of textbooks on a regular basis.  They
ended up paying big time dollars.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy