HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gdonl@sunrise.ssi1.com (Don Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Utility for removing spool dirs of deleted newsgroups
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:31:13 GMT
Organization: Silicon Systems, Nevada City CA

In article <14h4efINN17o@betty.cs.widener.edu> brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>Archive-name: newsdir-sweep
>Submitted-By: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
>
>bdb@becker.GTS.ORG wrote:
>>|C-News creates directories as it needs them, right?  I always run a job
>>|about once a month that removes any empty directories (actually, it does
>>|a depth-first find, and does an rmdir on every directory, and ignores
>>|errors).  I figure it can't hurt anything, right?
>>
>>	why bother?
>
>Cuz after about two years of not bothering, you've got one really
>messy filesystem.  If your active file gets wiped out for any reason,
>odds are the tool you'll use to recreate it will end up with a load of
>newsgroups that had been rmgroup'd or otherwise deleted.  Since it's a
>trivial task to keep it clean, why not do so?

But Bruce never deletes any groups, so he doesn't have this problem.
-- 
Don "Truck" Lewis              Phone: +1 916 478-8284   Silicon Systems
Internet: gdonl@ssi1.com       FAX:   +1 916 478-8290   138 New Mohawk Road
UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!gdonl  Nevada City, CA  95959
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The 'newgrp' control message is a forgery!
Keywords: forged control message
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:24:04 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <ak00NB1w165w@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca> frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca writes:
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>> Did you post the alt.fashion newgroup with the expiry of next month?

>Sure did.  Why, was there a problem with it?  The alt.fashion group is very
>new, I find that when traffic comes to an abrupt halt on it if I post the 
>charter things pick up for awhile.

Putting an Expires: line on a *control* message doesn't do anything
at all useful.

Incidentally, your newgrp control message of soc.culture.indian didn't
appear on micor, revcan, cunews *or* torn - so it was probably one of the
Texas sites that did it.
-- 
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
From: mjo@ef2007.efhd.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
X-Disclaimer: Not an official spokesperson for Ford OPEO
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
Organization: International Affairs, Overseas Engineering, "Fordz"
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:16:23 GMT

In article <9010@ember.UUCP> pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:

:In article <1992Jul26.092822.21313@gbrmpa.gov.au> matt@gbrmpa.gov.au
:(Matt Crowd) writes:
:
:>                 Not everything discussed in this group is satisfactory 
:>material for a childs perusal.
:
:The newsgroup line was news.admin (and nothing else).  The comment
:made *me* pause and think.  "Hey, kid!  Does your mother know you
:read news.admin?"

All I could think of was that a lot of what gets discussed in this
group isn't satisfactory material for ANYONE's perusal.  :)


-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
Xref: sparky news.admin:6356 misc.legal.computing:1606 comp.org.eff.talk:4996
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:15:49 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <QeR8gY200VIDEI5Yss@andrew.cmu.edu>, pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter 
Glen Berger) writes:
> 
> 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.

Umm, Peter, I think you were right. the first time  The Harper and Row case 
is pretty much on-target here.  From my memory, while, the court considered 
the loss in potential market of first publication in weighing the fair use 
factors, whether the first publication was the deciding factor can't be 
certain.  The fact that it was prior to the first publication was a relevant 
fact in the fourth fair use factor (effect of the potential market for or 
value of the work), but it was still on-point here.  It _was_ a copyright 
issue.

I haven't read the case for nearly a year, but I'm fairly sure of this.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.023517.28331@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <77N802.Q1b=C01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> "If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section 
>> appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright 
>> infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    How could a sysop possibly have the ability to access all posts to 
>see if they have explicit copyrights?  Impractical at best.  Netnews
>is not a case of handing the "work" to a person to get it copied: it
>is a case of the poster putting the work into thousands of machines for
>automatic processing.  

I think the point is that it doesn't matter that the sysop didn't read the 
article in question, simply that the ability to access the article removes the
possibility of the "innocent Imfringement" defense.  Whether he had time or
imclination to read the article is not important, only the the fact that he
could have accessed the article is.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com


Xref: sparky news.admin:6292 comp.org.eff.talk:4926 misc.legal.computing:1553
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
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:13:11 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul28.013523.15134@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
:WRT you granting permission on something you don't own: suppose I
:include some of your postings from rec.humor in a book, take the 
:book to a printer (completely lacking any info which would reference
:your ownership of some of the enclosed pages), have it printed, and 
:then distribute those copies.
:
:Would you go and sue the printer?  You wouldn't win in any case, as
:the infringement would be mine.  

Bad example unfortunately.  I'm fairly sure in Britain it *is* the
printer who is sued.

G
Xref: sparky news.admin:6096 comp.org.eff.talk:4771
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:04:40 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <23296@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com) writes:
>USENET should be happy that some of us explicitly allow 
>copying over USENET, because all those copyrighted articles
>with no notice and/or license may not in lebal principle
>be copyable across the network.  Those of us who grant
>license do so in part to prevent such issues from arising,
>and we ALL should do it.

Good God, NO!!

...that is, unless you really WANT to add a few hundred more bytes of
meaningless information to every single posting...

Have you defined just what you think is a "pay-for-read" system, which would
violate your copyright? Do you think there's any practical way for such a
system to obey your copyright?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:12:04 GMT

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net.  The opinions below are
my own.

In article <1992Jul22.191735.11599@clarinet.com>,
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> You can have free channels and pay channels, at the same time.  You can
> have free-but-with-advertising stuff which has to compete with the
> free and pay.
> In the pay areas, the people who set them up with make the rules.

Fine.  Just as it is today.

> In the free areas, the expectation will be wide and uncontrolled
> distribution -- one time.   It will be up to the author whether they
> want to permit more than the broadcasting (ie. one time) distribution
> of their article, and subsequent archiving and redistribution.

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
places, or anything else presently in use or not yet invented; and
regardless of the time of distribution, which might be several months or
years after the original article was posted.  If it's not a verbatim
copy, then it is restricted according to normal copyright law.

Standard Usenet practice extends the notion of fair use to permit
followup articles to contain more quoted material than would be
considered fair in some other media; I think that explicit copyright
notices should not be capable of preventing such quoting in followup
articles.

Standard Usenet practice also extends the notion of fair use to such
things as extracting, compiling, executing and distributing programs
posted to the net, or distributing extracts from articles, provided
proper attribution is given and provided no explicit restrictions are
given in the article; I believe that explicit copyright notices can
restrict these activities.

> Not very different from today, the rule could be:
>	  No explicit restrictions -- archiving and later redist allowed

Yes.

>	  Any restrictions -- archiving and later redist not allowed, except
>		  as listed in the restrictions.

No, in the free areas which we call Usenet, archiving and later
distribution of verbatim copies cannot be restricted.  In the non-free
areas, of course other rules apply.

> So a copyright notice for a piece of software posted to comp.sources.misc
> would include a permission to archive.

Permission to archive verbatim copies of the article is automatically
granted by the act of posting.  Permission to unshar the posting and
archive the constituent files is assumed under Usenet extended-fair-use,
but can be restricted by explicit copyright notices.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za             Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
Xref: sparky news.admin:6142 comp.org.eff.talk:4798 misc.legal.computing:1461
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon and general grump)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:21:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23305
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old curmudgeon and general grump)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

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?

>because they want everyone to know that they are 
>*not* giving away the broadcast, simply showing it.  
Non-responsive.

>In any case, you are not the network: you posting to usenet is
>more like Jesse Jackson screaming into the networks cameras:
>if the network decides to sell copies of what Jesse gave them,
>he has no grounds to complain.
You are, of course, wrong about what Jesse didn't give them,
and you are likewise wrong about posting to usenet, and
obviously so since I include a copyright notice, just like
the network.  You ignore the fact that my choice to give
something to USENET does not impact my right to NOT give
it to something else.

You don't care much about intellectual property, do you?
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
From: tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Washington Libraries
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.212836.12305@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [Follow up to a newspaper article reposted to
> alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, news.admin, et al. - Carl]
> 
> The Toronto _Globe and Mail_ article says:
> 
> >"It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse.  We don't 
> >have them in the university library.  If somebody wants them they can go 
> >to a bookstore and buy them.  Anybody wants access to the sex groups 
> >on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
> [...]
> 
> Many (most?) academic libraries *do* subscribe to _Playboy_. Can
> some check if S.F. gets _Playboy_?
> 
> - Carl

From SFU's online catalog:

-------------------------------------------------------
172 S.F.U. Libraries        ONLINE PUBLIC CATALOGUE   ALL *TITLE SEARCH

                                                       Citation   3 of   6
TITLE:    Playboy. --
IMPRINT:  Chicago.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: v.
NOTE: SUMMARY HOLDINGS: BVAS v.14-[19]-[22-24]-[26-27]-[29-31]-[34]-[36]-v.39,
          no.2. 1967-[1992]. LOCATION: STORAG; Index for 1953-1966 in STORAG;
          SHELVED UNDER: Title. * SUMMARY HOLDINGS: BVAS [C. 2] : v.6, no.6, 7,
          12, 1959; v.12, no.1, 1965. LOCATION: CLC.
CONTROL NO.:  SFU Serial no.: 705600000
ISN: ISSN: 00321478

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

Looks either like they're getting it or like their subscription ended in 1992.

They don't show Penthouse in their catalog.


Thomas Dowling
University of Washington Libraries
From: mvanheyn@tope.cs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: 1 meg article size limit
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:32:57 GMT
Reply-To: mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
X-Quoted: 40%

Thus said lwj@cs.kun.nl (Luc Rooijakkers):
>In <158tisINNdfi@rodan.UU.NET> kyle@rodan.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) writes:
>
>>I agree about "real" articles, but it's about time to look into
>>putting article splitting and reassembly in the
>>batcher/unbatcher.  There are legitimate uses for large articles,
>>and I'm tiring of figuring out what new way someone has divised
>>to split, compress and binhex their source/binary/graphics/audio
>>posting.
>
>There is an easy way out of this: use the fragmentation/reassembly and
>encoding parts of MIME. To get this widely deployed, we need
>
>	1) A simple defragger program for saved news articles.
>	   This actually means a partial MIME reader; perhaps metamail
>	   can serve this purpose? Someone want to create a "metanews"?

Why would there need to be a separate "metanews" program?  Just get the
mail reader to send the article to metamail if it contains a
Mime-Version: header.  I'm told it's already been patched into trn.
Composing MIME articles is probably slightly trickier, although I can't
imagine it would be that hard.  Getting a substantial portion of the net
to have MIME compliant stuff and getting articles even using a modest
enhancement (like, say, richtext) will take years, though.

Unfortunately, I don't expect this would really "solve" the large
article problem.  An article of 1 meg is too big to transfer over a 2400
baud connection, even broken up into pieces; if you had 19 such articles
a day (not an unreasonable volume) your 2400 baud modem couldn't ever do
anything else.  I would think that, rather than complain, you should
thank the posters of huge articles for being courteous enough to post it
as a single big article instead of trying to "hide" its real size by
fragmenting it.  This way, big articles can be seen and rejected as too
much to carry over so little bandwidth.

In addition, places with slower newsfeeds are also likely to be slower
in getting new developments like MIME.  Cest la propagation.
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen     mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu     MIME accepted
Life is like a sewer.  What you get out of it depends on what you put
into it.
		- Tom Lehrer
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: article size limit
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:10:10 GMT

In article <4JOHLF4@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

|>In article <H0ZeoB24w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|>>Hardly.  For starters, x=1024 won't fit on a 3.5" 720K floppy disk.  For a
|>>number of months I ran a newsfeed using 3.5" disks as the transport medium.
|>>64 is much better; it'll even fit on those old 5.25" disks that some people
|>>still use.
|>
|>I still have, and use, a computer with 88K floppies. But I wouldn't force
|>you to fit articles on that. On the other hand, 64K is already several
|>minutes
|>at 2400 baud. A meg is nearly an hour and a half. I can reasonably
|>expect to
|>maintain a connection for 5 minutes. I can't expect to keep it up for
|>an hour
|>and a half, repeatedly and reliably, over some of the phone lines in
|>Sugarland.
|>
|>I would say, at least as long as 2400 baud modems are common, that a
|>couple
|>of hundred K should be an absolute cap on article size.

But what you are really saying is that you need a different access mechanism.

If you are pulling data across at that rate you would do better to have
a feed that either:-

1	Blocks out the large posts entirely (except perhaps for short message
saying "this is awfully long!"

2	Sets up some sensible transfer protocol to grab the message.


The point is that the basic unit of information should not be
constrained by the hardware. If you have weenie hardware you should fix
your connection to cope with it's limitations. What youy are doing is
using the fact that historicaly the net operated in a manner which was
convenient to you. There is no reason why this should continue to be the
case.

This is the same old FORTRAN argument, the demand to maintain
compatibility with the past at all costs. With a feed of that nature I
don't see that a 1Mb file is going to be very feasible even if
transfered in chunks. Ergo the real solution for you is a newsfeed with
kermit (or somesuch built in), it is not a real soulution for the rest
of us to try to stick to 64K since to a first approximation you won't be
able to read the posts of that size anyway.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky news.admin:6265 alt.culture.usenet:469 alt.folklore.computers:11276
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.culture.usenet,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re:  NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:28:00 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

seen mention of it. Interesting stuff like where to get it, what's on it,
how much, is it ISO 9660? Thanks very muchly...

--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
              she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:07:35 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <2A6FF4A4.78C2@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> >According to sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
> >>What [if a person] almost lost his job as a result of the email
> >>(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
> >>important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?
> >
> >Inconvenience, sure.  Terror?  Riiiight....
> 
> Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.

Some people can lose their jobs if they are believed to be homosexual.  Does
that mean that my describing someone as a homosexual is an "act of
terrorism"?

Of course not.  The "terror" there (and in the hypothetical example above) is
the fault of the employer.  Accidentally posting an article which results in
tens of mail messages is almost inevitable if one posts to Usenet at all.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Xref: sparky news.admin:6407 comp.org.eff.talk:5040 misc.legal.computing:1646
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:32:06 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Jul29.030255.28743@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> Tell me, curmudgeon, would you agree that posting something on 
> netnews forms a contract between you and the owners of the macines
> you are using?  or will you summarily deny that reality too?

Contracts don't just pop out of nowhere. If you're going to use what you
claim to be an implied contract as the basis for what would otherwise be
a violation of somebody else's rights, you'd better have some pretty
damn convincing evidence that the contract exists. If you're *really*
violating the other guy's rights then you need *really* convincing
evidence. I don't think the guy selling _Chris Torek: The Man, The
Legend, Hundreds Of The Postings Verbatim_ is going to escape copyright
by claiming that Chris expected him to behave that way.

---Dan
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing