HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:11:09 GMT

In article <mwm.1amp@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
   [ in the ongoing cancel/crosspost flamefest ]

>Sorry, but by requesting some set of newsgroups as a feed, I've
>authorized postings appropriate for those groups.

Nope; you requested *all the postings* in those groups, whether "appropriate"
or not. There is no "appropriateness" filter anywhere in any of the news
systems' design, as far as I know. 

If you can define "inappropriate crosspostings", please write a little 
filter routine for your feed site to run when batching your news, so you
won't get things you think are "inappropriate".

>                                                  As such, any
>inappropriate crosspost is unauthorized use of my machine. Doing that
>intentionally (and in the cascaders case, maliciously) is clearly
>illegal.

There are neither guidelines or laws defining "inappropriate" crossposts.
And I, for one, think that the *last* thing we need on the net is a bunch
of technical illiterates (like the US Congress and Executive Branch, for
example) trying to codify anything like that.

-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chariman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Always remember, that someone, somewhere, is making a product that will
make your product obselete." Georges Doriot, founder of American R & D.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:19:46 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 6a721f9a46b0599ffcca5341512f8086

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
>>
>>Brad, the "lurker factor" is huge.  On my system, there are 15 users with
>>currently in use ".newsrc" files, indicating that they are reading the
>>materials.  The number of active posters from this site is only 4.
>>
>>When I had news administrative access on the university public UNIX box a
>>few years ago, the lurk factor was on the order of 180:25 (out of >2000)
>>active accounts.
>
>Well, it's nice to know that big brother is watching!

	Oh, go suck an egg.  The fact that I have a little program to go
out and see what groups are being read by my users so that I can tune
and adjust the expiration times of newsgroups has absolutely ZERO
relevance to your accusations.

	First, this is *MY* machine, I bought it, I set it up, I pay for
the modems and the phone lines.  The folks who use it do so as my guests
and under a grant of permission from me to do so.  (Also with the
understanding that they are responsible for what they do when posting to
netnews.)

	Up at the "university" (a private university, btw) the same
automatic scripts kept track of a whole mess of statistics about how
many users were reading how many different groups.  Just for your
eddification, the scripts produce raw numbers telling me what I want to
know, without telling me anything by name.

>>This has been one of the main advantages of netnews.  Since the luirk
>>factors are generally high in most media (viz letters to the editor of a
>>daily newspaper)  netnews is an effective way to allow folks who want to
>>listen to discussions without having to make their own comments to do so.
>
>But apparently not with anonymity, eh?

	Anonymity is *not* a right.  Most folks who are worth talking to
or listening to have the courage of their convictions and don't need to
hide behind some kind of mask. (IMHO of course.)  Besides, as pointed
out above, there is absolutely no need to find the names or newsgroups
to go with the cited statistics,  the programs can produce them inside a
black box without naming names.

	Note further that I am *not* saying that there are not cases
where there are advantages to posting anonymously.  Especially in cases
where there are reasons to believe that harassment or other untoward
reactions may/will occur.  (E.g. the a.p.b. redirection service at
Wizvax.)

	Big brother is the government, I am not.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"
From: onetouch@netcom.com (rmh)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: crime and punishment(was canceller's address again)
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:28:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Actually (getting off the subject briefly), it's not just the speed
with which you are caught, but also the likelyhood that you can escape
the punishement entirely.  Which is why the death penalty, although
reinstated in Ca., hasn't been working -- everyone get's put off
forever (or 14 years, whichever is greater).

w/ regard to catching mad cancellers, catching them isn't enough
in all cases.  This case we had someone who made a misteak, and
'fessed up.  Of course, if it had worked the way he had planned, 
perhaps he wouldn't have done so.

punitive measures must be available, and they are assuming that
the sysadmins are willing to be seen as "stick-in-the-muds" or
worse.  If somebody abuses (by general consensus) the news, they
don't get access to the news.  Or perhaps their account.  Especially
if they don't show any signs of admitting that whatever they
did was wrong.  Of course, when the abusers also own the systems,
then we're just stuck w/ 'em, except for kill files.

-Richard Hartman
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.sendmail
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Old news being recycled
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:43:50 GMT

[Followup-To: news.admin]

Article <1992Jul18.114636.169@bertha.cc.u> is a mangled version of
article <1992Jul18.114636.169@bertha.cc.und.ac.za>.  The original was
crossposted to comp.mail.misc and comp.mail.sendmail, while the
mangled version is posted only to comp.mail.sendmail.  The mangling
site is identified by --

    Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>

I have written to that address to inform them of the problem.

--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:6055 comp.org.eff.talk:4753 misc.legal.computing:1428
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:24:55 GMT

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.

Today I picked up a copy of ``Computer Currents'' which is a magazine about
the Atlanta computing scene.  In it were lots of copyrighted
articles.  But yet I got the mag for free.  They just leave big
stacks at all the computer stores and most of the book stores.
Does that mean I can grab an article out of there and reprint
1000 copies and sell them?  No, you say.  (If yes, please rethink
until your answer is no.)  Now exactly how different is that
from Usenet (other than the obvious distinction that the
magazine is less interactive)?  Before you post a whole load of
differences (different distributions mechanisms, etc.) are any
of those substantive?  

-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
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Summary: Usenet as a soceity
Keywords: situational ethics, appropriate cancels, Guido and Luigi
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:41:31 GMT

In article <Brpt62.65u@redpoll.neoucom.edu> red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.132116.8348@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se
>(Bengt Larsson) writes:
>>Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
>[...]
>
>     But it isn't simple to distinguish between a personal whim and a
>service to the net...  there are too many situations where a cancel
>*may* be justified.  What we have is a tradition of cooperation between
>news admins to remove articles that threaten the functioning of the
>network.  The disagreements are about what constitutes a sufficient
>threat to warrent a cancellation, and what protocol should be followed
>in issuing the cancel.

I guess another way of saying it is "is a real net.police needed"?
_If_ there is one, it should certainly not be self-appointed.
And the position should be time-limited.

I think it's interesting how Usenet is turning into a (non-anarchic)
society. There already are guidelines for creating newsgroups,
conventions for newsgroup naming, and a collection of wisdom in
various fields (a University) in news.answers. And sort of the
Constitution in news.announce.newusers. 

The rules (sorry, Guidelines) for newsgroup creation came about out of
necessity. I doubt anyone disputes that. (It's a good thing alt
exists, though. "You follow the procedures, you get into the big 7 and
get better distribution." Seems fair.)

PS. In my opinion the appointments for moderator of moderated groups
    should be time-limited at newsgroup creation with a default
    of 6-12 months. Intended to create more vigor in moderating
    and a protection against burn-out. 
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Xref: sparky news.admin:6210 alt.culture.usenet:460 alt.folklore.computers:11168
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.culture.usenet,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 26 Jul 92 12:17:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: taronga.78QH356
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet,alt.folklore.computers
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <4855@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:
>(Actually I don't mind the CD distribution, but I'd be happier if
>it came out daily so it would be useful as a usenet feed.  As it is,
>it's only useful as an archive...)

Ah, you young whippersnappers. Back in the good old days Usenet delay
was measured in weeks, for those of us in the wet string class. A reliable
month-old feed would have been heaven.

On another point, if Usenet keeps growing at the current rate in 8 years
the CDROM feed will HAVE to be daily.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: article size limit
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:12:45 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> In article <iFVuNB25w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >There exist plenty of systems which will fall over if an article bigger than
> >x kilobytes hits them.  Unfortunately, in my experience alone x ranges from
> >around 8 to 32000.
> >
> >However, x = 64 is generally the accepted limit.  It's also a pretty
> >reasonable limit, unlikely to inconvenience many posters.
> 
>     I'm still wondering if it really is a big enough problem to worry about.
> There is a person (or several, I haven't kept track) posting to an as yet
> unnamed newsgroup without obeying this limit. When this happened before
> (I remember it from a few years ago), there was a chorus of objection. Recent
> there has been not a peep. And since the poster has not stopped, I presume th
> they are not being barraged with e-mail.

More likely, the system administrators of the affected machines have just cut
their feed of the entire group.  That's what I did.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:31:44 GMT

In article <23297@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com) writes:
>>I find it surprising that you would accuse me of this. I vigorously defend
>>intellectual property rights on the net.

>Ok, then defend mine, and stop trying to iterpret my
>license away.

I'm not trying to interpret your license away. I'm trying to point out
a fairly major problem with it (it's fairly fuzzy and ill-defined, and seems
to prohibit what most people think of as normal Usenet practice), and get
you to explain what you mean by (in this case) "USENET and like free
facilities".

Usenet isn't free in any real sense, and a good many people do pay an
explicit premium for access to news. How would you feel about someone
posting a "best of JJ" to Prodigy, which is a flat-rate system?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002542.16999@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
(Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.152745.14722@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>     No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.

For any effect you name, I can show you some material that you would
not ban that has the same effect on some people as the stuff you would
ban has on others.  (I get to choose the people, and select which
stuff you wouldn't ban to use.  You choose the stuff you would ban.)

>>  Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?

>     What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"?  It's a
>piece of violent erotica.  You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.

Do you propose we ban anything that presses anybody's sexual buttons?
Do you have any idea if anything at all would be left?

I don't care if that story has any "idea" or not.  If you can ban
something because it lacks an "idea", the next step is to decide that
Liberalism, Conversatism, or whichever political concept is deemed
threatening to those in power possesses no "idea" and therefore can be
banned.

Just say NO to censorship.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 13:19:47 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:
> Isn't the real issue one of redistribution rights rather than "public 
> domain". It seems to me the appropriate model would be to treat each USENET
> article like a piece of "shareware", ie there would be no restrictions on
> the verbatim copying of the article in any format ( including CD or paper ),
> but any other use of the material would be subject to whatever
> restrictions the author imposed.

Making use of this article by reading it obliges you to send me $100 in used
notes.  Thanks very much.

What's more, under your suggested model I can now copy the Hitch-Hiker's Guide
to the Galaxy as much as I want.  Joy!

No, somehow I don't see the courts being too keen on your idea.


mathew
-- 
Buddy, can you spare a paradigm?

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:39:26 GMT
Organization: Autodesk, Inc., Sausalito, CA

In article <23257@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch) writes:
>In article <17080@autodesk.COM> booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>>I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
>>to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
>
>Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.
>
>Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
>something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
>the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.



Changing the followup line which is clearly visible can only be compared
to terrorism if the terrorist is carrying a large sign, "BEWARE OF
TERRORIST." That kinda knocks the wind out of the terrorist's sails.

Followup lines are put in articles for a reason - so people can guide
comments to their comments in a certain direction. I have a right to
tell people to followup to my comments via email instead of taking
bandwidth. If the user wants to followup elsewhere, s/he can edit
the article accordingly.

I won't even bore you with metaphors. Its that simple. If a user wants
people to see a posting, that user has responsibility for directing it
properly.

ER



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know when it was that I scratched Fate's car door, but I should have
left a note. --Tim Mefford

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:17:35 GMT

In article <mwm.19cx@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>
>So - anyone have any ideas on what the compromise could be?


Sure, model it like broadcasting, only better, because there is no
spectrum to allocate and thus no excuse for government regulation.

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.
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.

Not very different from today, the rule could be:
	No explicit restrictions -- archiving and later redist allowed
	Any restrictions -- archiving and later redist not allowed, except
		as listed in the restrictions.

So a copyright notice for a piece of software posted to comp.sources.misc
would include a permission to archive.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: RUSORA6@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: info request
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:29:12 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA24724; Sun, 26 Jul 92 11:31:26 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA17587; Sun, 26 Jul 92 11:31:25 -0700
X-Received: from MIZZOU1 by MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)   with BSMTP id 5033; Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:30:27 CDT
X-Received: from MIZZOU1 (RUSORA6) by MIZZOU1 (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3305; Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:30:27 CDT
X-To: news.admin.usenet

I'd like to have some info. on email-to-news agteway service if you have one
                                             thanx
Xref: sparky news.admin:6365 comp.org.eff.talk:5001 misc.legal.computing:1615
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

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:
> > In article <mwm.1aud@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>, mwm@contessa.palo-
alto.ca.us 
> > (Mike Meyer) writes:
> > 
> > > 
> > > In <2aYG02zf1bOm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
(Terry 
> > > Carroll) wrote:
> > > > Nor do you need one in the US.  But including one eliminates the 
> > "innocent 
> > > > infringement" defense, which can otherwise be used to reduce (but not 
> > > > eliminate) damages.
> > > 
> > > No, including a copyright does not eliminate the "innocent
> > > infringement" defense; if the copying mechanism is automated, then
> > > it's possible that nobody read the copyright.
> > 
> > It might not eliminate "innocent infringement", but it clearly 
emliminates 
> > the "innocent infringement" defense.
> > 
> > "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.

I never said it was practical, I only said it was the law.

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: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:03:30 GMT

tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:

>Posting to Usenet is akin to speaking on a box in Hyde Park. Regardless 
>of what the speaker intends, he/she is speaking in a public forum and
>the speech/posts may generally be reproduced. Usenet contributions are
>public comments in a public forum.

Bzzzzt. Sorry Jim, wrong answer, but thanks for playing though.

Tiny Tim could decide "hey, I think I'll try to make a comeback" by singing
several new songs in Central Park. That doesn't convey the right of recording
and republication of said recordings to me.

Certainly, fair-use does play a role though.

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Xref: sparky news.admin:6202 comp.org.eff.talk:4845 misc.legal.computing:1499
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:14:06 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <mwm.1b85@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> 2) Providing a mechanism that allows people who *don't* want certain
> forms of USENET reproduction to happen (for instance, to cdrom) to
> flag their articles.

``Expires:'' would do the trick, don't you think? I'd call it
``Non-Automatic-Copying-Permitted-Until:'' but it's the same idea.

---Dan
Xref: sparky news.admin:6074 comp.org.eff.talk:4761 misc.legal.computing:1435