HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.121553.4486@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>This is faulty logic.  Let's say someone spies on the USA for the
>>Soviet Union for money and would spy on the Soviet Union for USA for
>>money, given the chance.  In no way does this mean or imply that
>>there's no ideological, convictional or political motivations - it
>>could be that that someone just dislikes nuclear superpowers in
>>general (for political reasons) or dislikes nuclear weapons and is
>>willing to do harm to countries with big amounts of nuclear weapons.
>
>But won't do anything against those superpowers unless he's paid for it?
>That doesn't look like moral conviction to me.

Sheesh.  This is pointless.  How do you know that he won't do that?

>>(not to mention that your claim about Pengo's possible actions seems
>>based on nothing more than your assertion either).
>
>We know something about Pengo's motivations. See CYBERPUNK, by Hafner and
>Markoff.

I have not read the book and have no easy access to it.  Perhaps you
could quote some to support your assertions.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:15:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.040346.2202@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>This is faulty logic.  Let's say someone spies on the USA for the
>Soviet Union for money and would spy on the Soviet Union for USA for
>money, given the chance.  In no way does this mean or imply that
>there's no ideological, convictional or political motivations - it
>could be that that someone just dislikes nuclear superpowers in
>general (for political reasons) or dislikes nuclear weapons and is
>willing to do harm to countries with big amounts of nuclear weapons.

But won't do anything against those superpowers unless he's paid for it?
That doesn't look like moral conviction to me.

>(not to mention that your claim about Pengo's possible actions seems
>based on nothing more than your assertion either).

We know something about Pengo's motivations. See CYBERPUNK, by Hafner and
Markoff.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: S893 - copying software now a felony
Date: 6 Oct 1992 18:46:33 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: us
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct6.090650.29502@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>It's my view that probably 80% (well, at least a majority!) of computer
>owners are now felons.  If you have one naughty copy of some software
>(say something selling for $400) and make a weekly backup of your
>hard disk, you are a felon in ten weeks.

Don't most software licenses specifically grant the right to make copies
for backup purposes?

Does this new bill specifically retract the changes to the copyright laws
that also allow copies for backup purposes?
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6382 misc.int-property:1165 alt.suit.att-bsdi:476 comp.unix.bsd:7222
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:34:43 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Oct6.182846.21881@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> In article <12962.Oct320.42.3592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
> >Fine. The burden is now on you to explain how a patent examiner, faced
> >with ``The Fast Foo Method of Sorting Data'' and ``The Fast Bar Method
> >of Sorting Data,'' can reliably determine whether Foo is prior art for
> >Bar, or vice versa.
> The method I would use is the one I understand the PTO uses.

Okay, so let's say you apply the method you just outlined. You find that
both Foo and Bar were (according to the people involved) invented a few
months ago and haven't been sold or published yet. You check the claims.
Foo has a claim saying ``Input the data, do A, then B, then C, then
output the data.'' Bar has a claim saying ``Input the data, do D, then
E, then output the data.'' A and B and C and D and E are all mental
steps involving moving data, comparing data, making decisions, etc. You
don't see A doing the same thing as D, or B and C doing the same thing
as E, or A and B doing the same thing as D, or C doing the same thing as
E.

Okay, that's the entire process you've described. It hasn't come up with
anything. Do you insist that Foo and Bar are not equivalent?

(Yes, I'm baiting you. If you want to take another shot at my original
challenge, feel free. This one just doesn't hold water.)

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:51:31 GMT

I'm sorry, Scott, but I can't see your patent clearing house as being anything
more than a more expensive version of the Gnu Public License, with the
additional burden that you can be liable under the law without having touched
it. Stallman would be delighted... I can see it now: the FSF patent
clearinghouse: if you use any of these patents you must release any other
patents on your code to the clearinghouse or the public domain.

The end product will be exactly the same situation as now, except a zillion
lawyers feeding on the carcasses of the *real* free software community.

No thanks...
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 08:56:05 EDT

In article <TT.92Oct12113420@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>
>>Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
>>meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
>>is being discussed.
>
>I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>never enters their minds.

Come on--words and the constitution have "one true, absolute meaning??!!"

Almost *every* word has multiple uses and definitions--check a dictionary.
And that's not even to mention those words which are inherently vague and
subjective, like "reasonable," "cruel," "unusual."  (All of which have
already been mentioned in this thread.)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: erikb@tic.com (Chris Goggans)
Subject: Things
Organization: Texas Internet Consulting
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:22:31 GMT

You know, how many of you people have talked to any of the people
you like to talk about and make comparisons about?

I have known just about everyone who tends to make the news in
the "underground" and it really chaps my ass when people 
just up and spout off about people they have never even TYPED AT!

What prompted this little outburst was several posts back
that alluded to the lack of moral fiber of a person known
as Pengo.  Until you have talked to a person, don't judge him or her.

If everyone only believes what they read on here, then my faith in
all of you is lost.  Almost nothing you read is true.  (But don't believe
me when I say that.  :)  )

->ME
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:34:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) writes:
>The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make 
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
>the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
>it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
>this puts on elected officials.

The Constitution uses the term "judicial power" without
really defining it.  It sets the scope within which this
power may be used ("all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made under their
authority") but does not say explicitly what the power is.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@forel.stanford.edu
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:35:32 GMT

learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>I cannot recall anyone who has worked at anything seriously unless
>they were paid for it. Idealistic volunteers I've known have always
>been like a flash in a pan which burns out very quickly and then
>they were gone. If an idealist is paid, then their idealsim only
>aids the potential effectiveness through zealous attack.

You must have meant to qualify that statement in some way.  I know
many people who work on things seriously without getting paid for
them.  For an obvious example, the software which most of us use to
communicate on comp.org.eff.talk was written by people who were not
paid for it.

I assume that you yourself are not paid for your ongoing efforts to
educate us.  Does that mean that you do not take it seriously?
-- 
Ian Lance Taylor                ian@airs.com                 uunet!airs!ian
First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message:
``Surprise is the soul of whist.''
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:08:27 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct9.002901.14966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>I don't believe that you can be held to infringe LZW if you
>use it to encrypt data (the only covered purpose I can see is reducing
>the number of bytes for a message (i.e. compression). As it turns out,
>compressing a message (modem use) is also one step in compressing
>storage, so this can be pretty broad coverage, but it still isn't just
>on the algorithm, it is on the application of that algorithm to a
>specific purpose.  Similarly, from my view, RSA covers only the use of
>the algorithm for encrypting.  If you used it to "compress" data that
>wouldn't be prohibited. 

These are silly strawman arguments, since LZW can't be used to encrypt
because you don't need a key to reverse the process of LZW (although I
suppose a variant of LZW that used an initial dictionary derived from a key
might be usable for encryption, although I suspect it would be pretty
weak), and RSA can't be used to compress because it doesn't generate a
smaller output than its input.

I guess the problem I have with trying to distinguish the application from
the algorithm is that I don't know what defines an "application".  Is data
transformation in and of itself, regardless of the form, medium, or use of
the information, an application?  Or does it have to be associated with
something more specific, such as communication over phone lines, storage on
magnetic media, etc.?


-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.055638.23596@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> >> I've attempted to give plausable examples.

> >But you haven't given a single real example. The opposing side has given
> >many.

> I guess it comes down to what you mean by "real". I think that Robert
> Withrow is correct, that no patent, even non software patents, can
> meet the standard of proof being asked for.

And you won't even try. You think the battle is over, so why should you?
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,tor.general
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Toronto Teenager Charged in 911 Case
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:21:38 GMT

In article <2AD44B2D.23F1@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes

>I called the Major Crime Squad and was told there was nobody
>around who could answer my questions. So much for getting to the bottom
>of this....
 
I talked to the investigating detective Thursday who first had to
discuss with his superior whether he could return my call. He was
far more polite than I would expect from a U.S. counterpart, but
no more cooperative. He indicated that questions related to the case
should be addressed first in writing to the chief:
   Chief William J. McCormack
   Metropolitan Police
   40 College Station
   Toronto, Ontario (M5G 2J3)  fax: (416) 324-0697


Jim Thomas 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.165859.17125@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>No. The issue is whether you'd do it anyway. There isn't much doubt that
>if Pengo had been offered a hot computer system by the CIA, he'd happily
>have spied on the Soviet Union's computers. This renders irrelevant your
>discussions about the United States's morally questionable
>strategic-weapons policies, since Pengo gave those policies scarcely any
>weight.

This is faulty logic.  Let's say someone spies on the USA for the
Soviet Union for money and would spy on the Soviet Union for USA for
money, given the chance.  In no way does this mean or imply that
there's no ideological, convictional or political motivations - it
could be that that someone just dislikes nuclear superpowers in
general (for political reasons) or dislikes nuclear weapons and is
willing to do harm to countries with big amounts of nuclear weapons.

(not to mention that your claim about Pengo's possible actions seems
based on nothing more than your assertion either).

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith)
Subject: Re: US Makes Commercial Software Piracy a Felony 10/12/92
Keywords: Bureau-TOR
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 02:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010556.2932@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templet
on) writes:
>
>The following article comes from today's issue of Newsbytes, our
>daily computer industry news service.  I think it will be of interest
>to EFF members.  For info about our electronic newspaper service,
>write to info@clarinet.com
>
>--------
>
>WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1992 OCT 12 (NB) -- The United States
>government has elevated commercial software piracy from a
>misdemeanor to a felony, a move some say will help reduce the
>illegal copying of software.
>

In addition to this Newsbyte Article, the latest Computer Underground Digest
has a copy of the bill as well as an analysis pointing out some potential
problems with possible interpretations of the law.  That while the SPA may
say it doesn't blah blah blah, that the language of the bill can be
interpreted in some drastic ways.


My question is.....was there a lot of discussion/coverage of this bill before
it was passed?  I didn't see much in this newsgroup, the EFFector, or CuD.
Did *I* just miss this information, or what?   How can something as important
and wide-spread as legislation on software piracy miss my/our sensors?

-- 
  bladex@wixer.cactus.org           |              Cyberlicious Software
  Editor of Scream Baby             |              PO Box 4510
  Editor of EFF-Austin Word         |              Austin TX 78765-4510
=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+==+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: S893 - copying software now a felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: us
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:34:56 GMT

In article <1asmu9INNkuf@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Don't most software licenses specifically grant the right to make copies
>for backup purposes?
>
>Does this new bill specifically retract the changes to the copyright laws
>that also allow copies for backup purposes?

My comment said "naughty" copies of software on your system being
backed up.  Nothing is changed in allowing more or fewer backup
copies.  However, if you do not have a legal copy of the
software, then no backup copies would be permitted -- and making
enough of them would make you a felon.  Perhaps, if you make
too many backup copies (say the license says ONE backup
copy, and you make one a week), this might also match
the words of the law making that a felony.

Anticipating...  Of course having gobs of illegal copies of
software wouldn't be something that anyone would do, but
consider shareware.  Here, the copy you downloaded was legal
only for some number of days (eg. a month) and then, unless
you purchased it, it becomes illegal -- and we're back to
how many of those you have!  Some shareware says that if you
decide to KEEP it after 30 days you have to pay.  Do you
destroy all copies you made if you decide to NOT pay?  I
doubt that many people do.  But now they could be facing
five or ten years in prison.


-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: SC and U.S. Constitutional Interpretation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:30:51 GMT

In article <31.2ADC9A26@cheswicks.toadnet.org> Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (Roger Franz) writes:

>The SC does have the power to declare a particular interpretation "the law of the land", but the SC does not, by any means, have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. I can certainly interpret the Constitution (the Constitution no where prohibits me from reading or thinking or SPEAKING about the Constitution), as can you (after all, you just did, didn't you?).

Roger, I've made this same point in another posting. We are talking two
different senses of "interpreting the Constitution" here. In the general
sense of "interpreting the Constitution," you are correct that no one has
a monopoly on it, and that you and I are even interpreting the
Constitution in this thread.

>That does not mean that what we say has the force of law. 
 
Quite so. Exactly the point I made.

>What the SC says is unconstitutional varies from year to year, case to case, generation to generation, and from one set of justices to another. 

It doesn't vary that much, actually.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:26:22 EDT
              <ACM-L@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
From:         "Joe Katz" <JOEKATZ@ACMVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ACM European Office

Just a reminder that ACM's European Service Center has opened in Brussels,
Belgium.  Here is the contact information:

Address:
ACM European Service Center
Avenue Marcel Thiry 204
1200 Brussels, Belgium

Phone:
(32) 2 774 9602

Fax:
(32) 2 774 9690

E-mail:
100113.1555@compuserve.com


Thanks,

Joe Katz
From: williford@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Need HELP to organize CS Labs!!!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:51:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: lub001.1992Oct8.105135.1639
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont


	I am doing a project to help the lab in the CS Dept run more smoothly. 
If anyone out there runs a Computer lab, I would appreciate any info on how 
your is run.  This info will be most helpful to me.

I know this might not fit this group very well but I thought it could not hurt.


T.I.A.  (Thanks In Advance)

*****************************************************************************
Rhett Williford
Systems Operator
ACM President-Lamar University, Beaumont, TX  USA
Internet: williford@lub001.lamar.edu
*****************************************************************************