HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Harmlessness of a.b.p.e (long, but read it anyway)
Followup-To: news.admin.policy
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:24:19 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.225743.12386@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> >
> >Many people misunderstand copyright as strictly the right to sell a work.
> >It is not.  It is the right to control what is done with your creation.
> >The most obvious benefit of this control is the right to charge money for
> >granting permission to copy, but it is not the entirety of it.
> >
>    I think that if they aren't being hurt, that most creators would be happy
> that others are making good use of thier works. At least works that they
> have exposed to the public. Since I think a.b.p.e is harmless, I think most
> creators wouldn't object to it. I don't think I would.

So what gives you the right to assume this without asking the copyright holder?
You may not care but some creators may care and you DO NOT have the right to
make a decision on the use of their creations without asking THEM. This is the
point that people are making; the assumption that the creators would be happy
but failing to ASK them. 





-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:493 news.admin.misc:377 alt.censorship:8925 alt.culture.usenet:919 comp.admin.policy:1525
From: bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood)
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: 19 Nov 92 23:36:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18113627@fuller.intellection.com>, emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes...
>We do not receive a full feed.  Our unofficial policy is that we
>receive any newsgroup which adds value to the company.  We assume that
>anyone who requests a new newsgroup is doing it for the value, and add
>it without question.  We remove newsgroups which are not read.  Some
>employees have commented that unrestricted netnews is a condition of
>their continued employment, and is therefore of value to the company
>simply by virtue of keeping valuable employees.  Nobody here has
>questioned the effects of netnews upon productivity.  We assume that
>it enhances productivity by providing timely technical information.
> 
>If management questioned the value of netnews, I would study myself
>over a week period and produce a report.  I would include the time I
>spent reading news (and news-related mail) and discuss the benefits to
>the company.  I would discuss how these benefits could have been
>gotten without news, and what the cost might have been.  I would also
>discuss historical anecdotes about how news added value to the
>company, and discuss how my week's study was or was not representative
>of my overall news reading pattern.  I would discuss how posting
>information is the activity which generates these benefits, and
>include my time spent writing articles as an overhead cost along with
>telephone charges, spool space cost, etc., required to participate in
>news.  I would relate my experience with what I would expect for other
>news readers.  Based on the study I would make a recommendation to
>management.  If I found that news wasn't worth it to the company, that
>would be my frank assessment.  However, I assume I would recommend
>continuing the news 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>


<*>  No offense intended to Mr. McGuire, but I would expect a lot more
coming from Dallas.  Lockheed is pretty big in neighboring Fort Worth
and Houston.  Many folks there wouldn't do without VNEWS for the same
reasons I've outlined in a previous post..namely Quality Circles.
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:08:39 GMT

In article <BxxnHM.J8y@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>  Common carriers typically must act on
>illegal traffic when they become aware of it, but are not responsible for
>seeking it out.

   How far does this go, I wonder? What does "become aware of" mean? If
someone tells you that ds-f-323.gif is child porn, do you remove it from your
site? Do you have to investigate to see if it is? If you think it is not, do
you have any responsability to carry it further?

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.
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Copyrights of FAQs
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:14:19 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

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?

Yes, it's covered by the Berne Convention on International Copyright.
Copyright is implied, it no longer requires the little circle with a 'c'
in it.

>   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?

Almost certainly, but if you DID decide to go ahead with it, it would be 
up to the copyright holder to pursue it should he so wish, international
boundaries will no longer protect you, if the copyright holder is in, say,
Finland and decides to pursue you, all he has to do is raise an action in
the US under the Berne Convention..

Why not just write them and ask their permission first?
Most folks would be quite pleased to see their contributions in print and
would probably give you the go ahead provided you gave them accredition.

Could save you a *lot* of legal wrangling later


Dave

-- 
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:525 news.admin.misc:387 alt.censorship:8955 alt.culture.usenet:922 comp.admin.policy:1528
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
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 1992 19:39:00 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<EMCGUIRE.92Nov18113627@fuller.intellection.com>
	<1992Nov20.144619.21143@dickens.com>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: lpc@dickens.com's message of Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:46:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.144619.21143@dickens.com> lpc@dickens.com (Luis P Caamano) writes:
   In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18113627@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
   >it without question.  We remove newsgroups which are not read.  Some
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   How can I tell which newsgroups are read?  Can I also tell how often?

I believe the arbitron program is for this.  It's posted every month
with the results in news.lists and other places.
--
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
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:26:14 GMT

In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>>   In the strict legal sense, you don't know anything is child-porn until it
>>has been ruled as such. The same goes for obscenity.
>
[some text deleted]
>
> In those cases, the test is simple - whether
>it meets the above definition:  pictures produced using minors engaged
>in sexually explicit conduct.  Simple.
>
>*Not* whether:
>	- it had artistic merit
>	- it was within community standards
>	- it was unreasonable censorship - remember the issue is
>	  child abuse, *not* pornography.
>	- viewing the pictures could cause harm to society
>
  I for one have never been confused about his.
  But I challenge the word "simple".  What does the phrase "sexually explicit
conduct" mean? I don't think it has been defined. Is it a nude picture of
a child? A picture where the childs genitals are exposed? Does there have to
be sexual activity depicted?

>>   So a sysadmin doesn't "know" that anything in a.b.p.e is illegal.
>
>On the contrary, given the above legal definition, a SA will usually
>have no trouble knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.  If,
>for example, you see a picture going by that shows a minor having
>sex with anyone or anything, it is illegal, period.  Simple.
>
   How do you know it is a minor? It may be easy if it is a 5 year old, but 
how do you distinguish (unambiguosly) between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?
Do you read a.b.p.e?  What pictures (specifically) do you suggest are child
porn? Is it ruko.gif or kapsters.gif? (the two that were talked about most).

   We all want to do what we can to stop child abuse. But it doesn't do any
good to get real upset by a situation that isn't happening.

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.  

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:54:04 GMT

In article <4015@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.162614.356@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
[still argueing about porn and child-porn. I don't think we have much 
disagreement, but let's give it another go-around]

>
>>Does there have to be sexual activity depicted?
>
>Yup.  That's what "conduct" means.  Even narrower: *explicit*, not simulated,
>not hinted, *explicit*.
>
>See?  Simple.
>
    I don't think this is correct. By sexual activity, I mean a child or
child plus another person actually doing something sexual. Like having sex
or oral sex, or the like.

   But I think it is also illegal if a child is posed in a way that suggests
sex to a reasonable person. So a nude standing child shouldn't be porn, but
a child posed with legs spread in a typical 'sex' pose should be. It is this
part that causes the difficulty.

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:518 news.groups:22566
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes may be right (was Re: To keep the r.m.s rename...)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:01:37 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov19.033547.12992@cubic.com> hees@cubic.com (Phil Hees) writes:
>...the people of Dix Hills [rec.music.synth] should have some
>greater say in the matter than the people of the rest of the country
>[Usenet].

   Or to paraphrase, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal
than others..."  (with apologies to George Orwell if I messed that up).

[I've removed the music groups from the distribution.]
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
From: shaver@convex.com (Dave Shaver)
Subject: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Summary: Help. :-)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:46:52 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corp, MPP System Software, Richardson, TX
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I've been a news administrator for about eight years.  In the old days,
news didn't need to be justified since upper management didn't know it
even existed. :-)  In today's corporate world, things seem different.
While some companies budget entire machines to be net gateways and news
servers, other companies argue that news should be eliminated.

The argument for elimination can come from many angles: a personal
crusade because news is a Bad Thing; that news is a waste of machine
resources; that news is a waste of human resources since employees sit
around all day reading news; that questionable groups (e.g., alt.sex.*)
put the company at risk for EEO suits; etc.

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?

Keep in mind that the argument of "free speech" doesn't really apply.
In my example, the environment is a corporate entity and the company
officers can decide to do what is best for the company.  This is not a
democracy.  The arguments may come from the value add that news can
bring to employees.  (I know one of the criteria I use to choose an
employer is network access and a full news feed.)

/\  Dave Shaver
\\  CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
\/  Internet: shaver@convex.com    UUCP:  uunet!convex!shaver
Xref: sparky news.admin:8640 news.admin.policy:565 news.groups:22752
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes may be right (was Re: To keep the r.m.s rename...)
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:15:29 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>Followups are directed out of rec.music.synth and rec.music.makers.synth.

Agreed. 

>>"It's a terrible idea to remove newsgroup participants from the name-decision
>>process . . .  You have no guarantee that the administrators understand the
>>proposed content well enough to place the group properly." -- Tim Pierce
>That's right, but I think it's also a terrible idea to remove
>administrators from the decision process, because you have no
>guarantee that the users understand Usenet hierarchy well enough to
>vote informedly on the issue.

Philosophy time. 

If a newsgroup name is lost in the namespace, and the users don't make
a sound, is it broken?

Now administrators in a voting process...that's a bias in itself when
taken with "ignorance of voting procedures is no excuse". Users are 
more ignorant than admins by definition. How do you want to deal with this?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Xref: sparky news.admin:8643 news.admin.policy:577
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Harmlessness of a.b.p.e (long, but read it anyway)
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:04:46 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <By6xAx.K5I@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>   I think that if they aren't being hurt, that most creators would be happy
>>that others are making good use of thier works. At least works that they
>>have exposed to the public. Since I think a.b.p.e is harmless, I think most
>>creators wouldn't object to it. I don't think I would.
>
>Humph!  You don't think you would do you?  Why do I get a funny
>feeling you haven't ever "created" anything?
>
   I have a little trouble with this point of view. Once a picture is published
in Playboy, it has been widely exposed. Why should the creator them object
to a person scanning it and posting it to a.b.p.e?
   The only reason I can see is a zero tolerance view of copyright. That by
posting it you might take away a very very minute market.

   Artists don't genarally have total control over thier work once it it
released. Sure, you can keep your best painting in your basement to fulfill a
sence of control, but how much control do you expect to have over how people
treat your work?
   Certainly you expect people not to use your work in commercial enterprises.
You expect them to not compete with your own enterprises. But you don't
expect them to obey your every wish merely because it was yours.

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:8618 news.admin.policy:526
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Harmlessness of a.b.p.e (long, but read it anyway)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:41:24 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.225743.12386@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>
>>Many people misunderstand copyright as strictly the right to sell a work.
>>It is not.  It is the right to control what is done with your creation.
>>The most obvious benefit of this control is the right to charge money for
>>granting permission to copy, but it is not the entirety of it.
>>
>   I think that if they aren't being hurt, that most creators would be happy
>that others are making good use of thier works. At least works that they
>have exposed to the public. 

So I should feel free to distribute Larry Niven's "Ringworld" on the
net, because he has already exposed it to the public?

I don't know which "creators" you are talking about.  Most of 'em
actually *like* their royalties.....

Perhaps the key in your argument lies in the phrase "...good use...",
but for the life of me I don't really see how that matters, nor (more
to the point) why you should be allowed to be the arbiter of what is a 
"good use" over the opinions of the creator of the work.


>   Without harm, freedom should rule. If online services had existed before

We exist under the rule of law.  If you don't like the law, lobby
to get it changed.  Advocating ignoring laws that one finds inconvenient 
is the road to anarchy.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philosopher and plowman			|
each must know his part			|	-Richard Hartman	
to build a new mentality		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|

Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:38:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.160910.1203@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>   Isn't it true that the seizure of property in these cases (video stores
>included) (and in the USA) are based on the RICO (organized crime) laws?
>Am I the only one that thinks that applying RICO laws to video stores is
>wrong? 
>

I agree with you that applying RICO laws to mom & pop video stores and
seizing their entire stock because they had a few dirty videos is wrong.

That's about the only thing in this and related threads you and I have
agreed on, though.  I think that the way you try to justify breaking
copyright laws, by saying you're doing creative people a service letting
more people see their work, is obscenely arrogant and self-absorbed.  If
netters who posted pictures to the alt groups really had respect for the
creator they would get permission before posting.  But if you're any indication,
they don't.  Instead, they project their own selfish interests on the
creator of the work and try to make them one.

To compare it to the other "sacred cow" on the net, how about posting
email without permission?  Is it too much to ask people on the net to
accord as much respect to a work which was copyrighted, which indicates
that the creator wanted to maintain control, as they do to some rambling
flame that was sent off unsolicited to the poor person who dared post it?
I have seen much more righteous anger on the net about the latter than
about the former and it amazes me.  (Can we spell hypocrisy?)

And before you say any more about creative folks, let me tell you that
I'm a painter and my brother is a writer, one of my best friends is a
photographer.  Any one of us would be ticked off if you posted our work 
without permission.  

-- 

Sheryl Coppenger    SEAS Computing Facility Staff	sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
		    The George Washington University	(202) 994-6853          
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:09:10 GMT

In article <9211191517.47@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
[about child porn/porn/obscenity definitions]

>I have enough doubts about this, that I would not gate a.b.p.e through
>my system.  If the state authorities confiscated my system as evidence,
>I would expect to never see it again, whether I won in court or not.
>

   All that can be said here is that it is a very sad case when a person
refrains from an action that they might otherwise take because of a fear
of the effects of a wrongful prosecution. Very sad.

   Isn't it true that the seizure of property in these cases (video stores
included) (and in the USA) are based on the RICO (organized crime) laws?
Am I the only one that thinks that applying RICO laws to video stores is
wrong? 

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.  

Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,rec.music.synth,news.admin.policy
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:23:29 GMT

Judging from the number of posts I've seen on this topic,
maybe rms should be renamed 'people.bitching.about.music.group.reorg'

:-)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk