HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:13:16 GMT

In article <23244@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old grump curmudgeon) writes:
>>We know that a flat-rate netnews feed isn't "pay-for-read".
>I have no idea how you know that.  Proceed at your own
>risk.  There was one example introduced where it was clear
>that the feed wasn't even clearing average costs as compared
>to e-mail, but you should't feel free to generalize.

They are obviously clearing average costs or they would have shut it down by
now. There are hundreds or even thousands of sites that get flat rate feeds
from UUPSI. And they're paying UUPSI extra because they're getting netnews.

What if it was $100/month? $200? Where do you draw the line? How can you
draw the line: does the same service change its very nature when you change
the price charged?

>>So, jj - you want to tell us what _would_ be a violation of your
>>copyright? And are you willing to prosocute if we name companies that
>>are doing that?
>I'm not sure why you are attacking me so deliberately. 

Because you keep bringing your copyright up as if it's relevant to the
CDROM discussion. And we're wondering why, and how, you define your terms
so we can see how you think it is in any way relevant. I don't see the
point, myself.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.culture.usenet
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Why post? (long was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:30:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.192734.9914@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.durham.nc.us writes:
><1992Jul16.205406.21100@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>And this concept of the poster being the responsible party
>*is* what is necessary for the net.  Certainly, as the operator of a BBS
>and a Usenet node, I *don't* want to be found responsible for the
>garbage that some folks post to this network.  However, I also do not
>see where taking the position that the poster has made an implicit grant
>of permission to do the copying is incompatible with that.

I admit I didn't read the whole article, which went over my length limit,
but I think this point says it all.

All my reading of the law indicates that you can't split being the
(legal) copier and being responsible for what you copy.  Authority and
responsibility go hand in hand.

If I write some libel and say, "here, you can copy this" and you do, then
you are liable with me.   Newspapers who publish libel, EVEN IN ADVERTISING
are liable for damages.   Which is why most publishers get a signed
indemnity from advertisers.   An indemnity does not remove responsibility
from them -- they can still be found at fault, it just means the
indemnifier pays the costs -- up to the limit of the indemnifier's resources.

This is made very clear by people who post pirated material, such as
the story from the Globe and Mail that was just posted without permission.
Your machine got that article, but the poster did not give you permission
to copy it -- because it is not within his legal power to grant that
permission.

You're saying you copied the article, so you're saying you did it without
permission.  You're saying you just violated a copyright.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner)
Subject: Re: Utility for removing spool dirs of deleted newsgroups
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:40:48 GMT

brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
: If your active file gets wiped out for any reason,
: odds are the tool you'll use to recreate it will end up with a load of
: newsgroups that had been rmgroup'd or otherwise deleted.  

If mine got wiped, I'd go to the nearest neighbor and swipe a copy 
of theirs. :) I figure they'd be more up to date than I anyhow.

Beisdes, with all the forgeries, one-shot groups, new/rm group
wars, chamod wars, and so on,  what good does it do to try to
keep up?

I just put news on automatic pilot, and let it handle all the crap.
That's what computers are for, anyway. :)

Scott


Xref: sparky news.admin:6109 comp.org.eff.talk:4779 misc.legal.computing:1446
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:19:38 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <1992Jul23.190525.29053@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) wrote:
> This is not, in my belief, something we get a choice about.  It is simply
> the facts.  The default in copyright law is that you can't copy without
> the clear permission of the copyright holder.   You can argue that the
> absence of a licence on a usenet posting is equivalent to that permission,
> and you might have a case.   I see no way you can argue that the presence
> of an explicit statement to the contrary is compatible with permission.

If someone can convince a judge of the "the poster is making the
copies" interpretation, then things are different. That makes anything
copying that is triggered as part of news propogation legal.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this isn't really something we can
have choice about. Posting must include implicit permission for many
kinds of copying; otherwise to many of the people providing services
to the net are open to lawsuits.  Anything else leaves to many people
to vulnerable to lawsuits.

That's why I'd like some reasonable mechanism in place so authors (and
those service providers) can recognize articles that have
restrictions, and deal with them appropriately.

	<mike
Xref: sparky news.admin:6160 comp.org.eff.talk:4814 misc.legal.computing:1474
From: dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:04:14 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

Does any unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work make one liable?
What if someone posts an item, claims it is his original material , perhaps
even to the extent of putting his own copyright notice on it, and
explicitly ( or implicitly - whatever that may mean ) authorizes others
to copy it freely? Now if it's an item that is clearly a copyright work (
like the hitchhikers guide or Lotus 1-2-3 binaries ) then I can't see there
being much defense for copying it ( a "reasonable man" should have known
better ) , but what if the original poster has plagiarized some fairly
obscure work ( ie one where there's little or no chance I could have
seen or heard of it in another medium )? Would the copier be liable
for actual and punitive damages? If I got a statement indemnifying me against 
such a judgement from the poster does it prevent me from having to pay,
or just allow me to recover my losses from him ( not much good if I've
got deep pockets and he's broke )

Please note I'm not suggesting it would work one way or another, I'm
just curious how the courts balance the intellectual property rights of
the author with the lack of criminal intent on the part of the copier.
What would they expect a prudent person to do to verify the copyright?
[ the way I'd like it to work is string up the perpetrator of the fraud
and let his victims ( the copiers ) off for any copying they did before
the fraud was brought to their attention ( assuming they destroy any
copies they may still have ) - but I have no delusion that
the universe works the way I think it should ]

I'd like to hear about any actual cases where something like this has
been litigated, I find all the "Usenet is TV, Usenet is Hyde Park"
analogies sort of useless, because it's clearly unlike any of them
and I rather doubt a court would be interested in hearing them.

-- 
========================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett    Malaspina College         Email: dunnett@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services  Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA        Tel: (604)755-8738
Xref: sparky news.admin:6100 comp.org.eff.talk:4773 misc.legal.computing:1443
From: dwatanab@mothra.nts.uci.edu (Dana Watanabe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:41:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Well...hmmm...

I bet that the best thing to do about copyrights and 
NetNews and all that..

Someone who has money to waste should file suit against someone
for copying their post and see what the courts say
it would really settle the argument
(or is it just too much fun to argue and we dotn really 
want to find out a real answer?)

--
I am, therefore I rave.		"If we were still going barefoot, the
 ,				 world would be a much softer place."
dana watanabe 		email to: DWATANAB@UCI.EDU
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:58:31 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <1992Jul26.092822.21313@gbrmpa.gov.au> matt@gbrmpa.gov.au
(Matt Crowd) writes:

>                 Not everything discussed in this group is satisfactory 
>material for a childs perusal.

The newsgroup line was news.admin (and nothing else).  The comment
made *me* pause and think.  "Hey, kid!  Does your mother know you
read news.admin?"

We return you to your regularly scheduled flame-fest.

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
"Quantum Mechanics:  The dreams stuff is made of"    - Ken Burnside

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell)
Subject: Truncated message id's from comp.lang.c
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:45:01 GMT

A Notes -> usenet gateway @glas.apc.org is recycling old news, because
its truncating the message id's down to 32 characters. The only ones
I've noticed so far have been in comp.lang.c, but I'm sure there must be
others. Included are some of the affected message id's.  I've mailed
notes@glas.apc.org to warn him of this, but I thought I may as well warn
you lot as well :-)

Dylan.
------
<1992Jul17.141248.4837@mdd.comm.m>
<1992Jul17.085836.5049@walter.cra>
<1992Jul17.140520.8318@usenet.ins>
<1992Jul17.143744.12549@tamsun.ta>
<GLENN.92Jul17104644@curie.ces.cw>
<1992Jul17.231117.15302@zooid.gui>
<1992Jul17.232515.6365@athena.mit>
<1992Jul17.195250.16522@oracle.us>
<1992Jul17.220700.24800@organpipe>
<1992Jul18.043753.28919@cs.cornel>
<1992Jul17.201215.19749@wyvern.tw>
<1992Jul17.165343.13102@grebyn.co>
<1992Jul18.090020.753@weyrich.uuc>
<1992Jul18.055740.708@news.columb>
<18JUL199201363630@envmsa.eas.asu>
<1992Jul17.150158.20552@seq.uncwi>
<1992Jul17.202448.19848@wyvern.tw>
<1992Jul17.221259.24938@organpipe>
<BrKo5u.12I@undergrad.math.waterl>
<1992Jul18.003150.17689@usenet.in>
<1992Jul18.104906.17404@news.yale>
<1992Jul17.232621.20226@druid.uuc>
<1992Jul18.163616.13897@oracle.us>
<1992Jul18.163941.24358@dartvax.d>
<1992Jul18.150030.184670@zeus.cal>
<1992Jul17.183450.26420@seas.smu.>
<1992Jul18.015557.2522@cs.tulane.>
<1992Jul18.012036.27033@infonode.>
<1992Jul17.170241.21760@newstand.>
-- 
It is no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase 'As
pretty as an Airport' appear -- Douglas Adams
Xref: sparky news.admin:6038 comp.org.eff.talk:4745 misc.legal.computing:1420
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:28:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23272
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul21.121002.583@mala.bc.ca> dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:

>   Just curious: what form did these articles take. To my mind if they
>were reprinted verbatim - including the headers and signature - and 
>usenet was attributed as the source, then I would think this should
>be "fair use".
Oh, really?  Copying an entire work without explicit permission,
away from the medium it started in is "fair use".  Not by any
scale that has EVER been proposed by anyone who wanted to
stay in business.  

In any case, it was berefit of header and signatures (at that
time I didn't have a notice in my header) but that wasn't really important,
it was more than a quote, and that's all that matters.

By your argument, a newspaper column that's widely distributed could
be copied into more newspapers because it's "already present in
many copies".  Your argument is simply blind both to the law
and to the idea of intellectual property and the rights of the
property owners.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: This newsgroup
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:57:15 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)

In article <1587ksINNdnb@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Since it seems that this group is mostly a flamefest, *is* there a group
>like what I thought this would be?

What mostly appears in this newsgroup really should be in news.misc.
And vice versa.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 08:47:49 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <JBW.92Jul26000243@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:

>   I agree with the point of not letting children see or read alt.sex.* ...

>Why?  Do you feel it is better to keep children ignorant of some things?
>Do you think sex is wrong or shameful?

>I find censorship of anything at any time for any reason to be wrong,
>immoral, and evil.

My ten-year-old grand-daughter is on the net, and I see absolutely no
purpose served in giving her access to the alt.sex groups. She is neither
ignorant nor naive.... she simply has displays remarkably good taste.

While you are certainly free to introduce your grandchildren to
alt.sex.bondage, I have no intention of doing so - I wouldn't get her a
subscription to Hustler, either.

-- 
" It  may have  been the Propaganda Ministry that  ... thought up the idea of 
forcing all Jews to wear a yellow star ... The marking was intended to hinder 
 ... assistance to Jews who were being harassed.   We wanted  Germans to feel 
embarrassed, ... afraid of having any contact with Jews." [Adolf Eichmann]
Xref: sparky news.admin:6336 comp.org.eff.talk:4973 misc.legal.computing:1585
From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric Gindrup)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:01:26 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Math Department

In article <1992Jul28.050144.17029@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>
>I strongly and courteously suggest that you read all the posts
>in news.announce.newuser before posting again.  What applies here
>is not copyright laws, but the terms and conditions of the contract
>in which you have freely entered.  
>
>Your lack of understanding of those terms and conditions does not
>alter them.  (Indeed, if you fail to recognize that you have entered
>a contract, it still does not change the terms and conditions.  --
>What? you thought the whole world is letting you use its computers 
>without any kind of agreement?)  
 
A contract in violation of local law has no weight of legal enforcability.
Thus any terms and conditions of an agreement entered into by Usenet users
which violate local laws cannot be enforced by local law.  Further, it is
common in Western law to consider whether the entrants into contract are
capable of understanding the contract and whether there is (*gack*) "A
Meeting Of The Minds" . . .

Me, *I* think (occasionally, I promise...) that anything which is posted
to public Usenet is in the public domain.  However, I have yet to see
private Usenet.  (Private Usenet would, moreover, be less susceptible to
the standard list of bombings and such which the recent cancel-bombing has
brought to the fore of Usenet consciousness because it would innately require
authentication [blah . blah .. blah ...])

		-- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup@math.okstate.edu
Xref: sparky news.admin:6415 comp.org.eff.talk:5050 misc.legal.computing:1656
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Net Culture assumptions! (very long!)
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:39:23 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul29.021834.28103@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
|In article <8595.Jul2521.34.1892@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> 
|> When you make something available by anonymous ftp you have set up a
|> means for people to make copies for themselves; that constitutes
|> explicit permission for people to do so. That's it.
|> 
|
|Isn't that what putting something in the public domain is?

Nope.  Putting something in the public domain is releasing your copyright
in it.  As a *side* *effect* this allows anyone to copy it, but the
release of copyright is the main thing.

You may explicitly grant license to copy, even unrestricted license,
without *necessarily* losing you copyright.

| When to give
|to the public domain, you allow anyone anywhere to copy at anytime: when
|you put something in anonymous ftp allow anyone anywhere to copy at 
|anytime, so what is the difference?
|
The difference is that you have not explicitly relinquished any *rights*
you have in the work, so you still have them, even if you are not using them
in any other way.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:6410 comp.org.eff.talk:5044 misc.legal.computing:1650
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:05:31 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Jul30.75810.15398@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> 	- There is no single entity named "Usenet", so copyrights using
>           language such as "all rights except usenet reserved" are useless.

In general, copyright notices on USENET which try to *gain* rights for
the author are accomplishing absolutely nothing (statutory damages
aside). The author *already* has his copyright.

> 	- Once a posting arrives at a site, they may do with it as they please.

Yes, within the bounds of the law.

> 	- What is the difference between getting my usenet feed via nntp,
> 	  uucp, hardcopy, 3.5" floppy, papertape, magtape, or CD-ROM????

Nothing I see, as long as all the feeds are automatic, in the sense that
the author was solely responsible for initiating the copies of his
article. But if somebody else is doing the copying then copyright kicks
in.

> 	- 'Tradition' has a long history in our courts.  Even with lame
> 	  copyright statements in one's postings, the overwhelming tra-
> 	  dition of this forum indicates that (posting == public domain).

I don't see any legal basis for these claims. There's a bit more factual
basis, but not enough to outweigh the law.

> 	- If I possessed a work of intellectual property which I considered
>           valuable, I sure as *$&%( wouldn't post it on Usenet.  8)  

Agreed in principle. In practice the net makes a pretty good debugging
aid, so that posting software can be worthwhile.

---Dan
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:47:54 GMT
	<CKD.92Jul20182021@loiosh.eff.org> <136@ulogic.UUCP>
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

Richard> == Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP> 

 ckd> How is a CD-ROM different than a magtape?  Or an Ethernet?  Or the
 ckd> invisible virtual perfectly reliable serial line that NNTP runs
 ckd> over? :) What if my site does backups onto WORM?  What if a site
 ckd> that gets USENET over UUCP or NNTP also gets NetNews/CD?  How does
 ckd> that differ from backups on WORM?

 Richard> It is not the medium, but the usage.  Backing up to a CD-ROM
 Richard> (ok, WORM) would not be wrong.  Selling copies of the magtape
 Richard> for profit would be.

HA!  Gotcha.  So it's making a profit off USENET that's wrong?  Selling
a newsfeed in any medium is wrong?  Your article was fed through
"netcomsv", which, as I recall, is a for-profit institution...not to
mention UUNET, UUPSI, any for-fee public access site, etc...
--
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
Xref: sparky news.admin:6439 comp.org.eff.talk:5065 misc.legal.computing:1667
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:06:37 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Jul30.185152.19513@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>	I am of the opinion that the CD-ROM may be in some form of
>technical violation of copyright if it is sold to a person who could not
>possibly come into the possession of its contents in some other manner.

How does this differ from the traditional "news feed on magtape"? You're
thinking of it as an archive. Try thinking of it as Usenet.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin