HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:21:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.204046.1664@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP
(Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes: 
#If the above were true, then I could say, "Your honor, I agreed to a price
#of $4000 and since we have been in disagreement all along, there was obviously 
#no meeting of the minds and there is no contract so I don't have to pay him 
#-- even though I took the car."

Fine. Then I'll have you arrested for Grand Theft Auto.

#This is equivalent to saying "Your honor, I never agreed to give owner of 
#site XXX the rights to duplicate my works, and since we have been in 
#disagreement all along, there has obviously been no meeting of the minds
#so there was no contract so he violated my copyrights even though I
#already used his computer."

But since *YOU* posted the work, you are the one who did the copying.
And you can't violate your own copyright.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: byronba@rossinc.com (Byron Bakker)
Subject: Re: new site
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:33:47 GMT

In article <Btnyz2.Aw7@gfimda.uucp> pva@gfimda.uucp (Paul von Autenried) writes:
>We are a new site to netnews.  We have been reading news for several months,
>but noone has replied to our submissions.  If anyone sees this note,
>please respond to me directly via email.  If this is not the proper news
>group to which to post such a message, please excuse my ignorance.
>Thank you for your help.

I tired responding via email, but got back the message that Mail was
undeliverable. I saw your post for the first time today Sept 11, 1992.

Hope this helps.
-- 
===============================================================================
Byron Bakker (rossix!byronba@fernwood.mpk.ca.us) 
Ross Systems  Redwood City, CA				    
Opinions are mine.
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:43:45 GMT

In article <18or5cINNmre@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu 
(George William Herbert) writes:
>the pseudo-domain site.UUCP 

"site.UUCP" is not a domain name. The domain part is the .UUCP. The two
are NOT the same.

>is a perfectly valid domain to use w/o NIC or nameservice entries.  

As are others. I know of sites which have NO nameservice entries which
are registered only with the domain administrator (not the NIC). It is
a pain in the butt, but they are still "on the net" with neither NIC
database entries nor nameservice. I can put them in my local hosts
table and nobody knows that they aren't registered.

>What I should have said was that zuma is missing from nic, nameservice, and
>latest uucp maps (not just first two).  From then, the argument that
>the invalid sitename is true continues as such.

No, it does not. Since there is no mandatory registration process for
UUCP sites, the UUCP maps cannot be used as proof that a UUCP site name
is not valid or does not exist. I exchange mail and other material
daily with sites that are not listed in the maps, via UUCP. They are
"on the net", but they require specific routing if anyone outside a
limited number of sites needs to contact them.

The PRIMARY thing that not registering a UUCP site means is that it is
not registered. It also means, as a side effect, that automated routing
of mail cannot be done, not that mail cannot be delivered. It certainly
does not mean that the site does not exist, nor does it mean that it
is not connected to "the greater mail net".

You have failed to prove that the site zuma does not exist. You have
also not proven that the posts with that as a From: address did not
come from there. You certainly have not proven that the RFC (which one?)
is being violated, and thus your call for censoring that site fails.
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 23:13:13 GMT

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>That is not what you said/claimed in your post.  You said the receiving
>department would most likely return goods that were ordered because
>the person ordering them wasn't authorized.  That's significantly different
>from returning goods that the receiving department can't identify the
>intended recipient within the company.  

Well, I thought it was pretty clear. Authorized person cuts P.O., copy is
sent to Receiving. Unauthorized person can't get P.O., hence Receiving has
no record of the order, returns package.


>But that is the issue which has lead to this area of discussion
>and the "implied contract" scenario is one counter argument to
>the copyright debale/issue.

I prefer to look at the issue of copying articles from one site to the next
as falling under the "fair use" doctrine. When you post to USENET, "fair
use" means that each subsequent site will store and forward your articles
as appropriate. This "fair use doctrine" is similar to that which is used
in other mediums for determining the amount of original material you can
copy from a source before requiring a written waiver/agreement to use said
material.


MD 
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: UUCP newsfeed from NNTP?
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:49:25 GMT

romain@salt.eng.pyramid.com (Romain Kang) writes:
: In <1992Sep5.032555.2584@u.washington.edu> Sean T. Lamont writes:
: | I would like to know if it's possible to make an internet host without an
: | actual usenet database be set up to feed usenet articles to a UUCP host
: | using UUCP and NNTP protocols.
: 
: It sounds like you only need to read.  If I understand your question,
: you want something like this:
:
Another idea: set up a feed from the nntp host, that does rsh to the UUCP
host to run the UUX.  I almost had to set up a feed like this, and scott
@statsci.com sent me this script (I call it "viarshuux").

#! /bin/sh
# Transmit batch to $1.  -r for no immediate call, -gd to specify grade
# of traffic as fairly low.  You may want to add -z to suppress return of
# exit-status-0 report, depending on what uucp you run.
# by scott%statsci@uunet.uu.net or scott@statsci.com

# =()<. ${NEWSCONFIG-@<NEWSCONFIG>@}>()=
 ${NEWSCONFIG-/usr/lib/news/bin/config}

cat - >/tmp/outrnews.$$

rsh mailhost "uux - -r -gd $1\!rnews" </tmp/outrnews.$$ &&
   rm -f /tmp/outrnews.$$

--
Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) Youngstown State Univ. Computer Center
Recent surveys show that congresspeople, lawyers, and Bush administration
officials are the REAL ones believed to be bereft of moral and ethical
standards... and THESE people are talking about the immorality of others ?
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:48:17 GMT

In article <3782@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <MEWI3PM@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>|Sure. They have issued broadcast denunciations against whole industries
>|in the past. In general, I happen to agree with them, but the people who
>|are denounced probably don't. And this would open them up to class-action
>|libel suits if such existed.

>If the denunciations are untrue, why not?  Accusations against a group
>shouldn't absolve the accuser of responsibility any more than against
>individuals.

Yes, but a few class action law suits, even if you win, will probably put
you out of business. Now we get to the contingency-fee-versus-reimbursement
issue...

I *do* like your idea of letting the free market resolve the problem, I'm
just pointing out what might be some unfortunate side effects.

>|Sometimes less than more. CR in particular has this habit of taking on
>|studies they're just not qualified to make, and are quick to jump on a
>|bandwagon (for example the Audi "unintended acceleration" stuff).

>H'm I had hoped that they were more responsible than that.

One of CR's main selling points is that they're *not* experts, so you get
reports that are more appropriate for naive users. Of course, that opens
them up to all the same problems that "common wisdom" is heir to.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:47:50 GMT

In article <18m78pINN6nm@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>intentionally false email addresses were used.  Instances
>of intentionally false email addresses generally are referred
>to as "forgeries" and are bad 

An opinion. Not universal in scope.

>for two reasons; one, the responsible person is unknown,

So? An opinion can be valid even when you don't know who holds it. 
Opinions are BEST judged without regard to the author.

> and two, there is no way
>for feedback (replies) to be sent to the sender.

Feedback can be sent in the same manner that I am sending you feedback.
Reason two is specious.

>which no name server or the Network Information Center will identify
>as being real. 

Neither name service nor NIC has anything to do with UUCP sites. If
you demand that either or both must know UUCP addresses, then you shut
off all UUCP sites (that don't happen to have an Internet address
to go with them).

Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:31:40 GMT

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>Part of the offer by the computer-owners who permit folks to post is that
>articles can be rejected -- that is the computer owner can reject the
>contract from any individual.

A contract is a legally-binding agreement between two or more parties. When
I put my system on the net, I am bound to nothing.

Furthermore, you claim that when someone connects to the net they should
"know" the terms of this supposed contract. However, a basic concept of
mutual assent is that "the offeree must have knowledge of the offer, and
the offer must have been communicated by the offeror. An offeree cannot
agree to something of which he has no knowledge."(1)


>The crux of the argument was that the computer owner offers a service 
>(distributing posts) and one of the terms is a right to distribute 
>what the poster sends (regardless of any copyright notices).  

>Your< interpretation. I receive works. I read them, and trash them.
I don't "distribute" them. Sue me, I've broken the terms of your
"contract". 


>Those who offer the service of distributing "works" have reserved the
>right to decline.

Boy, what a neat concept. I'll be sure to attempt to include it in future
contracts I negotiate.


>No, no, no!  By putting you machine on the net, you have offered individuals
>all over the world a service: that of distributing their "works."  This
>does not bind you to distribute and no-one has said so (before you did).

I'm happy you have decided what the purpose of the net is for each of
the 10,000,000 users on it. Tell me, does omniscient abilities come naturally
with you, or do you have to practice at it?


>No, you offer to perform a service with the ability to reject any
>individuals for any reason: when that offer is accepted by an individual
>he grants you license to distribute.

Keep saying it. Maybe someday you'll convince yourself and others that
its true.

MD

(1) Smith & Roberson's "Business Law", 6th edition, (C) 1985 West Publishing
Co

-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:49:28 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <986iqB24w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>> Marx is "political" speech.  The KKK isn't - just plain incitement.

>Coincidentally, last night I was watching a BBC documentary about the
>McCarthy Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s.  One of the points made was that
>at the trials, the prosecution proceeded on the basis that Marxist books
>owned by the alleged Communists were inciting Communists to overthrow the US
>government by violence.

>It therefore seems to me that the distinction you are making is murky at
>best.

The real difference is that Marx' "political speech" is generally 
aimed at governments which can take care of themselves, whereas the
KKK's style of speech preaches random violence against individuals or
groups that are not able to defend themselves.

Certainly murky, though, we were referring to Marx's texts which are
not nearly as "inciteful" in even a 50's context as a more modern
rendition.  And of course, the US Supreme Court has ruled several times
that they would consider "violent overthrow" speech as being unprotected
by the Constitution if the likelyhood of the material inciting unrest
was high enough.  They just haven't found the likelyhood high enough
in recent decisions.  Unlike, for example, back in the 30s with the
"red scare" where thousands were arrested.

My understanding was that the witch-hunts weren't actually criminal
prosecutions so much as a set of public hearings before the UnAmerican
Affairs Committee (or whatever it was called).  As such, criminal
punishment wasn't usually applicable, the real harm was the innuendo
and subsequent industry blacklisting.
-- 
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: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Date: 11 Sep 1992 20:36:00 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: NO MAILBOMBING

In article <BuFF02.GHK@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Further proof that the faked From: address is intentionally that
>>way to discourage reply mail arrived in my lap today when Ahmet Cosar,
>
>This is proof only that the system admin is concerned about being able
>to maintain an acceptable level of service to his users -- something
>that mailbomb attacks can prevent. If you threatened to mailbomb my
>real address at any of my sites, I would warn you not to, too. 

If I haven't made it clear the last five times or so I've said
it, let me say it again.

DO NOT MAILBOMB zuma, anatolius, michigan.com, or anyone else.
I did not, have not, and DO NOT advocate mailbombing.  Claiming
that I was is patently untrue.

	What I suggested, I still suggest (despite Cosar's threats)
is that if you find a post along these or other similar lines that
you find offensive, reply with an explanation of exactly
why you don't like it.  Please don't email multiple copies or
otherwise harrass the user, or the sysadmin.  You can include
a copy of the post.

	Warning: Ahmet Cosar (cosar@cs.umn.edu) has threatened to
take legal action against me and others if this occurs.  IMHO he's
just a bit out of line, but you have been warned.

	BTW, the call for cancellation due to RFC violation is
now pointless.  Thanks to Serdar, we now have a Path: showing that
zuma.uucp hangs off anatolia (uunet!anatolia!zuma), so it's
no longer unmapped.  Thanks, Serdar.


   -george william herbert
   gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com 
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++
From: reznor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Trent Stevens)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Help
Keywords: internet, hookup
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:30:47 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin
Originator: reznor@sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


  Well, this seems to be the best place to ask this...  I'm working at
a company in town in Austin and someone has inquired what is involved in
getting a full internet site set up...  not just a small feed off of one
of the machines in town that sell access, but a full connection...  I've
played enough on the net to know that I know nothing about this and need
a little guidance on this one.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Trent Stevens                        |  A dirty mind is a                  |
|  internet:reznor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |       terrible thing to waste -     |
|  compuserve" 72520,1312              |                 Dan from NightCourt |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky news.admin:7484 misc.legal.computing:2083
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:40:46 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Sep1.225031.16550@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.204533.13221@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP
> (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes: 
> #Then please explain how a person could ever sue for breech of contract?
> 
> "Your honor, the defendant signed this contract stating that he would
> pay me 10,000 in return for my automobile, but has not paid me
> although he took possesion of the car."
> 
Cute, now try putting back the statement to the effect that "since we don't
agree, there is obviously no contract."

If the above were true, then I could say, "Your honor, I agreed to a price
of $4000 and since we have been in disagreement all along, there was obviously 
no meeting of the minds and there is no contract so I don't have to pay him 
-- even though I took the car."

This is equivalent to saying "Your honor, I never agreed to give owner of 
site XXX the rights to duplicate my works, and since we have been in 
disagreement all along, there has obviously been no meeting of the minds
so there was no contract so he violated my copyrights even though I
already used his computer."



-- 
"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
Xref: sparky news.admin:7590 soc.culture.turkish:9978
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.admin,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Date: 14 Sep 1992 20:15:05 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Cosar says anatolia!zuma invalid

In article <visser.716348353@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>In <18r375INN3gp@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>+>We now know that there is indeed a zuma node and where it is
>+>(uunet!anatolia!zuma).  I retract the earlier claim about its
>+>existence.
>	I still doubt that it really exists.

I hereby reinstate the claim that it fails to exist.
Ahmet Cosar, as root/postmaster@anatolia, has replied to mail
I sent down that path with information that zuma does not
indeed connect to anatolia.  I am taking him at his word.

>	I checked who the sysadmin of "anatolia" was and not at all shocked
>to find out that it was one Ahmet Cosar.
>
>	This is of course the same Ahmet Cosar who has posted as Multu in
>the past. 
>
>	The "real" Multu may have been posting once long ago, but I suspect
>that "Multu" or "Agric" has been in reality Ahmet Cosar for a very long time.
>
>	The reason for "zuma" is the same reason that Cosar refuses to use
>his own name when posting his anti-ethnic material.  Now Cosar, the "honest"
>admin of anatolia can pretend that he is just fowarding materials from "zuma"
>
>	The zuma path means all mail sent to "Agric"/"Multu" bounces and 
>does not I suspect end up at anatolia.

Without commenting on the opinions expressed above, I can verify that
mail sent to anatolia!zuma will indeed bounce and land in Cosar's lap.
Since it apparently is an invalid link, it's unfair to drag Mr. Cosar's
site into the forgeries problem.  Investegations continue to
progress into exactly who is indeed posting these, thanks to usenet
logs kept at various sites.


   -george william herbert
   gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:41:49 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep2.135446.14645@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|Likewise, if Hitler had starved to death he couldn't have hurt anyone.
|Should we thus pass laws against members of hate groups eating?

Nope.  But when the likelyhood of serious harm is high enough,
taking steps to prevent that harm is better than waiting until people
are dead.  Preventing the inciting speech that's making that harm
likely is the least dangerous thing to do.

|>Part of the problem with your argument is that by the time that
|>violence is being used, it may be too late to do anything about
|>it.  Ie: if the army has been converted.

|Are you claiming that this happened or only that it is possible?
|Do you think it is likely to happen in your nation or mine?

One might suggest that part of your government has already crossed
that threshold, vis the forfeiture laws, Alvarez-Machain and
the new FBI wiretap bill etcetera.
-- 
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