HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.flame
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:28:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

>>>>> On 31 Jul 92 09:40:17 GMT, chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman) said:
John>  You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
John>  is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps

And then after that they should teach people how to form plurals from
singular nouns.

ian
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: cheselka@cactus.org (Michael R. M. Cheselka)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles [ repost, didn't seem to leave the machine ]
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, PO Box 9786, Austin, TX 78766-9786
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:48:49 GMT

In article <08QHG06@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <8153.Jul2521.07.4892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>>Common carriers have adequately documented that they do certain things
>>in the right ways, and as a reward for this they get a status which lets
>>them toss off most lawsuits. This doesn't mean that you have to become a
>>common carrier in order to win the lawsuits. If you and your neighbors
>>set up an automatic mechanism which lets someone send a message to all
>>your neighbors simply by sending it to you, why should you be liable for
>>the contents of the messages?
>
>I don't know, but apparently Amateur Radio repeater operators have been
>held liable for the contents of messages they relayed
>
>I'm crossposting this to rec.radio.amateur.policy for support, refutation,
>and clarification. Followups directed back to the original groups.

I can confirm this.  During Desert Storm someone fed a 900 number, and an
exhortation for people to call to express opposition to the war, through a
packet radio station.  Even though this station was neither the origin nor
the destination, a "policman of the airways" did their "patriotic" duty and
turned the owner in to the government for propagating a business
proposition on the ham bands( one of the few rules the FCC has concerning
content of transmission).

After a court battle, with arguments for common carrier status, the ham
lost and had to pay hundreds of dollars in fines( as well as some unknown
sum to his lawyers, no doubt). Naturally, this had a chilling effect, and
many stations shut down there after.  The law had the effect of making a
packet radio station owner responsible for each and every transmission( or
at least the "unamerican" ones) being echoed through his machine.

If a similar case( with similar judicial reasoning) occured with
copyrighted material on USENET, any given site in the bang path of the
post( ex: source code for ATT UNIX, or Apple ROMs) would be held legally(
read financially) responsible.  Imagine what that would do to USENET.
Imagine having to read every single USENET article passing through your
machine to protect yourself from being sued by ATT, or Apple, for
publishing or making publicly available sensitive propriety documents. You
would disconnect yourself from the net.

Every once in a while some newbie will post a blatant advertisement, but
nobody claims it's the sites fault for carrying the article, and it gets
canceled swiftly.  A CD-ROM would not be as malleable.
-- 
os9@gnu.ai.mit.edu     (512)452-9412 (answr. mach.)     Michael R. M. Cheselka
cheselka@cactus.org    Hangs out on 145.21mhz    N5UVV    400 W. 34th st. #103
membership@cactus.org {...}!cs.utexas!cactus.org!cheselka Austin, Texas, 78705
Xref: sparky news.admin:6092 comp.org.eff.talk:4770 misc.legal.computing:1442
From: drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears (FSS) <drears>)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Keywords: copyright
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:12:32 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ

Just my two cents worth:

  Point 1)   If you feel that strongly that you don't want your stuff used
  by other people don't post it to USENET.  For all intents and purposes
  the moment you post it you have lost control over it.

  Point 2)  (Legal)  As far as the law is concerned a person would have to
  sue to either get an injunction or recover monetary damages.  There are
  some big hurdles involved here:
	
		o Did the person implicitly give permission to all on the
		net to use it?  

		o What are the damages if any?  Loss of potential
		revenue?  Revelation of "secret" material?

  Point 3)  A company that puts out USENET on CD isn't so much charging
  for the information content as he is charging for the act of
  compilation, pressing into CD, etc.  It is similiar to a copy charging
  a modest packaging fee to put PD software on a tape or disk.

  Point 4)  What is it that really bothers somebody about someone else
  packaging USENET and selling it as a service?  I think the copyright
  issue is a red herring.

  Point 5)  I am the moderator of comp.society.privacy.  I do not accept
  copyrighted work unless I am given 

	(1) If the article is not written by the sender, I want explicit
	permission to have it on my forum.

	(2) If the article is written by the sender I will only except it
	if distribution rights are unlimited.

  Point 6)  USENET as I see is for the distribution of information.  If
  you want to limit the distribution it really doesn't belong in USENET.

  Point 7)  Unless you are actually willing to litigate any copyright
  notice isn't worth a thing.
  

dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Dennis G. Rears
MILNET:   drears@pica.army.mil     UUCP:  ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757	   Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
		Moderator:	comp.society.privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:29:00 GMT

In article <u55RoB29w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
In reference to how USENET works today....mathew wrote:
>What is wanted is a mechanism to allow certain forms of Usenet reproduction,
>whilst not allowing others.
>
>That is, we want a finer-grained method of determining whether articles are
>reproduced.

I understand your desire, but wanting it and getting it are two different
things.  Kind of like saying to Larry King as you sit down for an interview
on CNN that you don't want to have the broadcast viewable in Timbuktu.
You'll be told that can't and won't happen.  You don't like it, then
don't have the interview.  

I see no reason for USENET to modify the way it operates because a few
people want greater control over who gets what.  USENET works fine
as it is.  Bottom line as always is: If you don't like the
distribution process, don't post!

My attitude/opinion has nothing to do with my respect for intellectual
property.  My opinion stems from my knowledge of the USENET
operation and a desire to NOT see it changed.  The current operating
process (distribution process) offers no quarantee that a poster,
once a post is made, can have any control over where the post goes.
That's as it should be.  If the network introduced controls at the
command of the poster, then I think the network opens the door
to liabilities (especially if it espouses the use of those controls
in any guarnteed form) it doesn't have today.  Why change the network
and create such a possible liability?  Note - By network I mean the various
site owning entities and their operating personnel (sysop?).

This is NOT a legal opinion, just my person thoughts.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: jrc@brainiac.mn.org (Jeffrey Comstock)
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM]:  fake 'alt' groups - how to stop them ?
Organization: Sewer of Source Code
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:44:00 GMT

In article <20JUL199222530893@cc.utah.edu> beezer@cc.utah.edu (BEEZER) writes:
>Someone on the net is creating 2 to 5 fake 'alt' groups a DAY.

This has always pissed me off too, but it does appear to be happening
much more within the past few weeks.

>Before I bring this to our sysop's attention, could someone explain
>how I can undercover who is propigating these fake groups?

I know you mean well, but you should probably just forget about it. This prank
will never stop. Bust someone, and two more people will take their place.  I
am assuming the latest activity is a bunch of bozos from different regions.

On the flip side, if it is just one moron doing this for the past few weeks
and you can find out who it is, HANG EM HIGH !!!

-- 
Jeffrey R. Comstock 
INET  jrc@brainiac.mn.org
CW    -. .-. ----- -..
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:47:35 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <2A768AFB.618C@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
>>In article <2A6FF4A4.78C2@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>Inconvenience, sure.  Terror?  Riiiight....
>>
>>Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.
>
>As Peter da Silva observed, you can get more E-Mail by being stupid
>than you'll ever see from misc.test automatic replies.
>
>It is unrealistic to believe that misc.test E-Mail could cause someone
>to lose his job -- unless, of course, his employer had already decided
>to fire him and was just looking for an excuse.


A misc.test posting seems to be good for about 10 email replies, these
days.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Xref: sparky news.admin:6023 alt.sex.bondage:14236 alt.censorship:6110 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2364
From: ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:59:51 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com> 
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>The only hard number we have is that under 6,000 people have posted
>anonymously or even REPLIED BY MAIL to anonymous postings on
>alt.sex.bondage.  And that should be reduced by those who have been
>re-assigned aliases.   If there are 120,000 readers, than the lurk
>factor of people who have done nothing but read -- no posting, no
>e-mail replies, is huge.

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.

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.
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury, System Programmer, Duke Center for Demographic Studies
<standard disclaimers apply>  ggw@cds.duke.edu | ggw@cs.duke.edu
also at The Wolves Den and other sites.   (...!duke!wolves!ggw)
[The Line Eater is a Boojum snark!]
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Ians' Playhouse
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
>Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
>It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
>
>I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about mixing up the Internet
>and Usenet, and Ray Johns' "monkey see, monkey do" estimation of
>people.  It's been posted to alt.sex.bondage.
>
>Anyway, enjoy.  (Reposted to alt.sex.bondage so people there will see the
>followups; it's no extra bandwidth.)
>-- 
>	-Colin


Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while. People
telling us what we can look at what we can watch on TV what we can see in
the movies. I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
alt.sex.* and I also feel that child pornography is absolutly wrong but what
about adults that wish to see this. Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
that those who attend universities are of legal age. I know all my friends
where. If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
you don't like the  content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
but let those who wish to read or see or watch this type of thing should be
able to. I feed  another site and these groups are VERY popular. Even though
I get alt.sex.* on my machine I CHOOSE not to read it. I DO NOT feel that
one should be censored because others feel it ofensive. Does anyone else
agree with my ideas. 

-- 
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin   Voice   1-215-546-9959
UUCP 	...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott  or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: article size limit
Date: 13 Jul 92 14:58:05 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>     Is it really necessary to limit articles to a certain size (64K)?
> I had always heard that this was true, but never had the opprotunity to
> try it myself.
>     Someone on an unamed group has been posting larger files. Nobody
> has complained about it, so I am wondering if there really is a reason
> for it.

Yes, there are good reasons for limiting articles to a certain size. 

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.

It is a good idea to limit your articles to chunks of 64KB or less, in order
to avoid causing others unnecessary pain and inconvenience.


mathew
-- 
It is always dangerous to generalize.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:20:08 GMT

In article <14b4hcINNdub@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.204128.28013@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> >[..re someone else...]
> >Sorry, but your actions outweigh your words: By posting to usenet,
> >you have entered your "work" into an electronic queue which is 
> >automatically transferred to a CD ROM for sale: you know this and
> >you choose to post, therefore you are granting permission.
> 
> And what precisely would you make of my .signature?  As far as everyone
> who actually knows anything about copyright law has ever told me,
> and what I've read in the law, it's perfectly valid and will hold up in court
> if anyone breaks it.
> 
> -george william herbert
> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
>  ++ copyright (c)  george william herbert.  All rights except usenet ++
>  ++ transmission and inclusion in followup/reply articles reserved.  ++
> 
Would a printer whom you pay to print a copyrighted book be violating
your copyright?  No, because you told him to print it.  

Likewise when you tell computers to print your post all over usenet, your
actions grant all usenet computers the right to replicate your post.
Storage on CD-ROM is simply a new medium for netnews.

Granted that you may not like this new addition to netnews, but, unless
you own usenet, you don't have to authority to define what its bounds are.
Usenet is defined by its connectivity: since the company storing netnews
to CD-ROM is in the network, it is part of usenet.  Since its computers
are connected to usenet and the CD-ROM writer is connected to the 
computer (much like a hard disk or tape drive), the CD-ROM writer
is part of usenet.

Now if I include your post in something I sell, well yes you could
sue me since you do have a copyright notice; but you can't sue 
when the work you put on usenet is distributed as requested.
[and claiming that you define the act of posting and not requesting
is foolish as you do not define usenet or who is on it.]



-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Distribution: ba...
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:35:51 GMT

Sridhar> == Sridhar Venkataraman <sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu> 

 Sridhar> Who is at fault here for the leakage of "ba" articles?
 Sridhar> Is Distribution: ca (California) a solution for this?

 Sridhar> Path: ennews!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!
 Sridhar> +     jvnc.net!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!
 Sridhar> +     widener!eff!iWarp.intel.com|inews!
 Sridhar> +	mipos2.intel.com!pkundu
 Sridhar> Message-ID: <12389@inews.intel.com>
 Sridhar> Distribution: ba

We explicitly asked for ba from iWarp.  widener explicitly asked for ba
from us.  Did you ask for ba from asuvax?  Did they ask for it from
utexas?  The virtual Bay Area is very large :)

(We also feed ca to some of our feeds.)
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
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: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:01:23 GMT

In article <iFVuNB25w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

|>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
|>>     Is it really necessary to limit articles to a certain size (64K)?
|>> I had always heard that this was true, but never had the opprotunity to
|>> try it myself.
|>>     Someone on an unamed group has been posting larger files. Nobody
|>> has complained about it, so I am wondering if there really is a reason
|>> for it.
|>
|>Yes, there are good reasons for limiting articles to a certain size. 
|>
|>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.
|>
|>It is a good idea to limit your articles to chunks of 64KB or less, in order
|>to avoid causing others unnecessary pain and inconvenience.

x= 64 seems rather outdated.

Since very few posts go to more than 10 continuations, x=1024 would be a
better setting.

And I know this would screw those people reading news on a ZX81 using a
newsfeed delivered via papertape. If they cannot afford real machines
let them write some splitting software.

(Heh heh heh, this one will wind up PC weenies)


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:50:15 GMT

In <1992Jul24.181242.25567@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>...

Hi Peter,

	I consider the listing of the files on my ftp server to be
my personal intellectual property.  I don't recall being asked for
permission in their inclusion in the database of archie servers at
McGill or other sites.  Who can I sue for this?

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       jim@case.isla-vista.ca.us
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	| This article is freely distributable
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 28 Jul 1992 18:08:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <151@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Immaterial.  Would "Richard M. Hartman" be enough for you to request
>permission if you didn't even know what state I lived in?

Hmmm. You have a point.

>>2) I strongly doubt that "alice!jj" is a legally acceptable way to identify
>>that particular person.
>Questionable, but it *does* identify a computer address that one
>person (presumably) could show "ownership" of.  It would be sort 
>of like saying "Resident of 10 Downing St."  If the date is included,
>this would be more than enough to identify the author.....

...except that there is no requirement at all that "alice!jj" be unique. In
particular, there's an alice within Unisys, as someone else noted. I could, if
I really wanted to be a horse's patoot, set up a machine on my home network,
call it alice.conmicro.com, use UUCP as its transport to the outside world,
and set up an account on it called jj; I could then claim equal ownership of
the name "alice!jj". How is a court to decide which of us is the rightful
owner?...especially in light of Usenet's legendary susceptibility to forgeries
on top of all the rest of it?

>>3) If such a case comes to court, it would be difficult to prove to a court's
>>satisfaction that the plaintiff is indeed the person who wrote those words.
>I think this is really a restatement of point 2.

After reading my last paragraph again, I think you're right here, too.
-- 
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_