HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for y
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 19:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.173729.17237@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>From article <1992Apr5.212321.19972@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, by whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl):
>> software.)  Likewise, the courts did find SONY liabel, nor
>> did they "outlaw" VCRs because
>> they were being used to make illegal copies of movies.
>
>Let me get this straight, you put the lime in the coconut, oops
>wrong thought line.  Did they find Sony liable or not?  I thought
>not.  Didn't the ruling say that "time shifting" was ok? 

Oops, I don't know where my "NOT" went, but I'm sure that's what
I typed when I posted this last night.  Sony was NOT found liabel
for anything, and as we all know we can all use our VCRs to our
hearts content.

Sorry about any confusion I may have caused.

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: comp.org.eff.talk
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Lone Star Comics (store in Dallas) bans "Hackers"
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:58:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.194342.13938@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
 
>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Why are you so bothered?  He is a private businessman, and has chosen
>>not to stock a product.  People can buy it somewhere else.  You have no
>>right to pressure him into stocking this stupid-sounding (IMO) game.
>[...]
>
>I prefer to shop at stores that choose their games, books, videotapes,
>music CD's based on factors such as demand and quality. Such stores
>will often special order items they don't have in stock. I don't like
>shopping at stores that try to decide what's "good for me". I prefer
>to make that decision myself.
>
>- Carl
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 
Fine...shop at those stores.  If enough people do that, the proprietor
of the store that refuses to carry the game may change his mind.  I do
not feel this issue is worth starting a letter-writing campaign to
pressure him into doing so.  THere are so many more inportant things to
get excited about.
 
Besides, what makes you think the owner is deciding what's good for
you?  Maybe he does not think it will sell, or he fears legal action?
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: Ways of chilling or banning Usenet(was Re: Illegal photograph postings)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 19:27:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.144146.4061@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
In the continueing discussion of limits or elimination of Internet,
Usenet, information exchange mediums, etc.
>I wasn't talking about a lawsuit based on current laws, I was talking
>about a new law designed for the purpose of limiting unsupervised
>information exchange needed to limit increasing computer crime,
>copyright violations, child pornography, terrorism and credit card and
>wire fraud.  Perhaps it could be implemented by requiring reporting of
>editors responsible for the contents of any public electronic forums,
>requirements to have real names used everywhere, requirements of
>cleartext communications (already proposed), requirements to respect
>"community standards" on the media, requirements for "equal coverage"
>and other such good-sounding rhetorics.  Perhaps by some other means.
>
>Does that seem so impossible or improbable when looking at FCC content
>restrictions, the proposal circulating to require the telephone
>network to be built for the purpose of surveillance on everyone, the
>civil forfeitures, the proposed anti-cryptography bill, all of the War
>on Constitution legislation?

Is it possible, yes.  Probable, not very.  Remember such a law would
have to gain widespread support amongst the federal legislators (senators
and representatives).  One need only look at the inability of the
recording and movie industry with regard to that industry's desire
for restrictive legislation against copyright infringing duplication
of movies anbd audio recordings.  There has yet to be any law passed
that even partially addresses movie/recording piracy, etc.

As to information exchange, I'll state catagorically that there is 
(IMHO) no way to stop it.  Modems, LANs, MANs, dial-up connections, 
etc. are everywhere and no amount of legislation will be able to
put the brakes on it.

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: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.gopher,comp.archives.admin
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: Information Services Etiquette (was Re: Gopher directories)
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:36:20 GMT

peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>I understood this to mean that he was advocating control over
>who would be qualified to set up a gopher server, and (given
>that he was replying to my plan for a resource information service)
>who would be allowed to have an entry put into the "phone
>book" of services. Sounds like a pretty obvious case of potential
>censorship to me. 

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what you said and what he said.

You stated "Certainly, McGill has the right to limit my ability to use their
facilities".  You then accuse someone [Joel Cooper] of advocating censorship
when they ask you to make the service distributed so that each domain may
use its own rules to control dissemination of information from within its
domain [not from other domains].

The point is that _you_ want to impose a central authority.  If you impose
such a central authority then you open yourself up to worries about either
censorship or unintentional violation of some other domain's policies.

By distributing the authority, you make it possible to have private services
that are only visible within a single domain and public services that are
visible everywhere within the same paradigm.  One would not have to keep track
of multiple listings [which is the problem I thought you are trying to solve]
just to offer private and public services.

By distributing the authority, you permit easy creation of services within
domains which don't care, or restrictions on the creation of services within
domains which do care.

By distributing the authority, you end worries about delays in creation or
deletion because the maintainer is out of town.

By distributing the authority, there will be fewer _unexected_ spikes in
network traffic for network administrators to puzzle over or get upset about.

This is the ideal.  Each domain can be as open or closed as they wish in
what services they provide, but are fully open in what services they receive.

I understand your worries and concerns, but I feel they are just as well
answered by a distributed service, as an "open" central service.  And a
distributed system helps to answer many of the concerns of administrators
who want to keep track of how their equipment is being used.

Aydin Edguer
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3344 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1541
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: 5 Apr 92 16:03:41 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Its always fun to watch a clueless, suck-off-the-public-teat .edu
>student attempt to justify news costs.

It's always fun to watch a neck-tied, pseudo-Arian, pocket-protector-
sporting trainee Hitler attempt to justify censorship.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3330 rec.photo:6721 misc.legal:8885 alt.bbs:3317
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for y
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:37:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr5.212321.19972@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, by whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl):
> Think some more about the prospects (not likely in
> my opinion) that any lawsuit would be successful
> against internet, usenet, or any site
> based on some portion of material being copyrighted and posted
> without the copyright holder's permission.  Remember the lawsuit(s)
> against the sellers of copydisk programs that defeated the various
> protection schemes of copyrighted software.  The courts NEVER
> (ultimately) found the sellers of the copydisk software
> to be in violation (contributory infringers) because the use
> of
> the copydisk software had a least one non-infringing use (ie.
> making an arcival copy for a lawful owner of copyprotected
> software.)  Likewise, the courts did find SONY liabel, nor
> did they "outlaw" VCRs because
> they were being used to make illegal copies of movies.  In both
> cases the court acknowledged that the "diskcopy software"
> and VCRs could and were used in copyright infringing activities,
> but they said that as long as non-infringing uses were involved,
> they (the court) would not rule against their being available.
>

Let me get this straight, you put the lime in the coconut, oops
wrong thought line.  Did they find Sony liable or not?  I thought
not.  Didn't the ruling say that "time shifting" was ok? 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:15:15 GMT

The main point is whether they removed alt to get at alt.sex or not.  The
quoting of the laws is a good piece of evidence.

You can't complain about the removal of all of alt for non-moral reasons,
though.

The whole *idea* of alt was to make an "alternate" USENET-style hierarchy
without the usual "rules" and that since it was in its own hierarchy,
people could take it or leave it as a whole.  That was the POINT.   When
somebody decides not to get all of alt, then they are doing what alt was
intended for.

Of course, in many cases they are doing it to stop alt.sex.   This is foolish.
If they want to do this there are ways they can do it that can't be
complained about.  But it seems that U administrators prefer the heavy
handed ways.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: Bill.Hartwell@p0.f99.n121.z1.fidonet.org (Bill Hartwell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lone Star Comics (store in Dallas) bans "Hackers"
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:04:12 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:121/99.0 - NineJackNine, Madison WI


 -=> Quoting Carl M. Kadie to All <=-

 CMK> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
 CMK> 
 CMK> [...]
 >Besides, what makes you think the owner is deciding what's good for
 >you?  Maybe he does not think it will sell, or he fears legal action?
 CMK> [...]
 CMK> 
 CMK> What legal action? This is still a (mostly) free country.
 CMK> 
 CMK> - Carl

Well, I don't know about Texas, but I remember a local gaming shop in
this small town in Michigan I used to live in that was sued by the
parents of a kid who bought a copy of AD&D there.  Seems they figured he
was selling their kid pornography (using the Supreme Court's "community
standards" definition).  Since the community was made up mostly of
fundamentalists, the suit went through, too.  And, the shop owner was
criminally charged with the pornography charge, too.

(Yeah....criminally charged is right -- the charge was the crime --
against intelligence, that is.)

Now, I get concerned, because I look at something like that and think
that if a traditionally-published product like that can be the focus of
legal action, what happens when someone decides their kid is getting
"pornography"  (using that "community standards" definition again) off
the net?  I mean, the kid could be reading .rec.games.frp, and the
parents respond like he's reading .alt.sex!  And pretty soon you have a
lot of little fundamentalist communities shutting down any local feeds
they can find, and eating big holes into the net.  Not a good idea.


... Pro is to con as progress is to congress.

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!121!99.0!Bill.Hartwell
Internet: Bill.Hartwell@p0.f99.n121.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3438 alt.gopher:342 comp.archives.admin:304
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.gopher,comp.archives.admin
Subject: Re: Information Services Etiquette (was Re: Gopher directories)
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:12:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: msen.1992Apr14.011243.3584
Organization: MSEN, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI

Peter,

You are imagining a conflict where none exists.  The rules, procedures,
processes, etc. which loosely regulate the way that FTP sites deal
with archie is very different from the way that gopherspace works.
Trying to argue too strongly from the archie experience -- a directory
service built on top of a longstanding internet resource -- is going to
miss the sense of cooperation that has characterized how gophers work
and how they interact with each other.

Some gophers are official corporate or university resources; others, like
the MSEN gopher, are a place to experiment and test things out.  Still
others may be personal views into gopherspace, like people's collections
of bookmarks.  To put all of these various perspectives into a single
top level directory "all of the gophers in the world" will no doubt be
quite unwieldly.  Some amount of quality control will help.

The archie approach of "one world, one archie" (except for the Japanese
archie) is less reasonable for gophers.  In most cases you really want
to keep lists to a few pages, more or less.  The problem is not resource
discovery -- there's a zillion "resources" out there -- it's keeping
some sensible organization to it.  

--
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com
      MSEN Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 741 1120
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Singapore
Summary: Confucian Biosphere Babysits Proles with FiBropTix(TM)
Date: 5 Apr 92 20:22:50 GMT
Organization: Cores 'R Us

In article <HAYES.92Apr2122212@godzilla.cis.ohio-state.edu> hayes@godzilla.cis.ohio-state.edu (Patrick Hayes) writes:
>
>   >"Singapore .. is a trade oriented principality with few natural resources.
>   >It has prospered as a free port.  The government has instituted a wide
>   >variety of investment incentives and tax exemptions to promote trade and
>   >foreign investment.  Interest income and capital gains are exempt from tax.
>   >As a result, Singapore has had an average growth rate of 9.3 percent since
>   >1960.
>
>Speaking of Singapore, I heard yesterday on NPR that they're planning 
>on installing a fiber optic network which will terminate in every
>home in the country, and they plan on implementing it soon. Something
>about it being as important to the nation's infrastructure and economy
>as its highway system. Anyone have any details? 
>
>---PCH

Probably something to do with aiding the Public Rectitude Cadre in their
ceaseless effort to root out the few remaining Recalcitrant Chewing Gum
Devil-Addicts shamelessly indulging their habit in the privacy of their
cubicle... :(  It sure as hell ain't to get the citizens on Usenet/Internet!!

I think of Prodigy crossed with the Analects of Confucius...a signon logo
of the smiling visage of Lee Kuan Yew with Mouse Ears...shades of George
Orwell!

kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Lone Star Comics (store in Dallas) bans "Hackers"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:43:42 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

[...]
>Why are you so bothered?  He is a private businessman, and has chosen
>not to stock a product.  People can buy it somewhere else.  You have no
>right to pressure him into stocking this stupid-sounding (IMO) game.
[...]

I prefer to shop at stores that choose their games, books, videotapes,
music CD's based on factors such as demand and quality. Such stores
will often special order items they don't have in stock. I don't like
shopping at stores that try to decide what's "good for me". I prefer
to make that decision myself.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3428 comp.archives.admin:301
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.archives.admin
Subject: Re: Information Services Etiquette (was Re: Gopher directories)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:27:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.172700.7993
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University

peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>> ... My own thinking on this matter at this point is that we should
>> approach this in somewhat the same way as DNS--not everyone gets to
>> set up their own domain nameserver, these things tend to be done
>> cooperatively both within and between institutions, and there are  
>> individuals who are ultimately responsible for their function.
>
> Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. This would put information services under
> the direct control of a small hierarchy of power brokers.
> Certainly, McGill has the right to limit my ability to use their facilities,
> but that does not mean that the entire net should participate in the
> censorship or control of information flow.

I fail to see how you jumped to this conclusion.  The original person
[Joel Cooper] did not propose network censorship!!

Do you block out certain replies by the nameserver?!  If not, why would you
block out replies by the "service"server?

What I see being proposed is the very reasonable concept that information
on resources should be a distributed service.  IMHO, centralizing information
may be easier in the short term, but is limiting in the long term.
Think back to the days of the hosts.txt file or a single archie server.
A hosts.txt file would be outdated in less than 5 minutes today.
A single archie server cannot keep up the demands placed by all the users
of the Internet.

Distributed information management is a better solution.  But distribution
requires some sort of authority.  This is the idea behind the domain name
server.  And COULD be the idea behind a resource information server.
It would not involve the entire network in the control of information flow,
but could involve domain administrators with the control of information
flow from their domains.  This is a good thing.

> A site may not want to include pointers to all of them, but that doesn't
> mean other people wont want to find and use them...

Huh?!!  If a site does not want pointers to a resource then they should not
have to deal with "other" people using "their" resources!  Services should
be at the convenience of the provider.

Aydin Edguer
From: Joe.DeLassus@f355.n100.z1.fidonet.org (Joe DeLassus)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Moscow hunting "illegal" modems
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:36:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.14579.29E52890
Organization: FidoNet node 1:100/355 - OneNet, St Louis MO


 * Original to All at 1:100/355 in "FCC"
 * Forwarded Thu Apr 09 1992  05:36:06 by Joshua Lee at 1:109/542@fidonet

 Via The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683

  From glasnost Tue Mar 31 21:28:02 1992
  COMMERSANT Weekly, No. 13, March 23-30 1992, p.14

 Follows the translation of the article by Kirill Maslentsin published
by the Moscow Weekly Commersant.

 -== start of text ==-

 Starting from April 1st, the Commercial Service of the Moscow City
Telephone Network (Proizvodstvennoe Ob'edinenie MGTS) will detect the
unregistered modems. The experts doubt that this action, objectively
necessary, is manageable to be carried out quickly, because the
Commercial Service of the MGTS finds itself yet in the organizational
stage.

 According to Alexander Shambazov, Deputy Director of the PO MGTS,
approximately 100.000 modems are currently in use in Moscow. Shambazov
was unable to say how many of them had been registered. Up-to-date,
every Telephone Service node in Moscow used to register the modems
separately (usually, at owner's request), and MGTS does not have the
consolidated information.

 The Commercial Service, created recently by the MGTS, will compile
the general database on modem owners. This department will detect the
"ilegal" modems whose owners do not pay for the use of these devices.

 In Mr. Shambazov's opinion, companies which run the phone
communications networks, or sell the information contained in their
databases, and the companies who manufacture and sell the modems, will
help to detect the "ilegal" modems. The MGTS will request these
companies to submit their user lists. It is not excluded that MGTS
will obtain the required information, because all the companies
implied are interested to come to terms with the Telco. Shambazov
informed that MGTS has the modem detection equipment.

 The experts consider that the "modem hunt," on its early stage, won't
be very efficient, because the MGTS Commercial Service is still being
organized, and its structure is weak. Nevertherless, one may expect
that the frightened users of the "ilegal devices" will "plead guilty"
massively.

 According to the information obtained, the offenders won't be fined.
They'll simply be urged to conclude a contract (if the modem is
certified). The usage fee will be 1296 R/year for the self-financed
companies, and 324 R/year for the organizations financed by the State
budget. But if a company uses a modem for commercial purposes (for
example, selling the information), will have to pay 50.000 rubles per
year. Nothing was said with regard to the modems owned by the
individuals.

  Phone of the PO MGTS: (095) 299-28-85.
  Translated by Anatoly Voronov GlasNet Moscow

 -== end of text ==-



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!100!355!Joe.DeLassus
Internet: Joe.DeLassus@f355.n100.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk