HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman)
Subject: Re: Top 25 News Submitters by Site by Kbytes for the last 2 weeks
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:28:30 GMT

rusty@anasazi.com (Rusty Carruth) writes on news.admin:

)(Why do I say I thought it was dead?  Because I've not seen anything
)in the alt.binaries tree except in the discussion groups)
)
)Is some site somewhere (probably upstream from me only :-) no longer 
)carrying any of the alt.binaries tree?

Here is the 'grep alt.binaries <active-file-got-thru-nntp>' for 

ennews (which I have read/post access to and your feed site):

alt.binaries.pictures.fractals 0000000024 00014 y
alt.binaries.pictures.misc 0000000331 00200 y
alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless 0000000039 00027 y
alt.binaries.pictures.utilities 0000000106 00001 y
alt.binaries.sounds.d 0000000191 00148 y
alt.binaries.sounds.misc 0000000081 00027 y

asuvax (ASU's gateway machine which is one hop from ennews):

alt.binaries.multimedia 000000174 00138 y
alt.binaries.pictures 000005168 04779 y
alt.binaries.pictures.d 000005436 04470 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica 000012090 08567 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes 000000291 00268 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d 000006628 04722 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female 000000541 00528 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male 000000029 00030 y
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.d 000000021 00002 y
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.digitized 000000001 00002 y
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.graphics 000000031 00002 y
alt.binaries.pictures.fractals 000000625 00550 y
alt.binaries.pictures.misc 000008754 06329 y
alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless 000000678 00408 y
alt.binaries.pictures.utilities 0000000723 00001 y
alt.binaries.sounds.d 000001658 01269 y
alt.binaries.sounds.erotica 000000102 00084 y
alt.binaries.sounds.misc 000003176 01835 y

That is a lot!

Change your feed site! or get an Internet link to do NNTP
yourself!!!! :-) 

)Rusty@anasazi.com

Sridhar.
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:42:10 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <23407@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
>In article <6I3IWNB@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <23395@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
>
>New places who edit stuff, or who publish it on paper, or someone
>who wants to take it and put it into a magazine, or ANYONE who
>wants to misquote it, for that matter, all should be covered
>somehow.    So should sites who censor articles, who restrict
>topics, subjects (I don't mean kill files here, I mean
>sites that refuse news), and such are not USENET.

I OBJECT!  My site refuses a whole bunch of groups, due to disk
space limitations.  Nonetheless I consider that I am connected to,
and a part of, USENET.  Perhaps not a "fully participating member"
(to paraphrase what my credit union says when I don't maintain
minimum balance), but a member nonetheless.  It's not so much a
matter of choosing what we do not wish to have here (censorship), 
as being selective about what we can afford to receive (space
limitations).


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them."

Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
	<xczmsjg.barry@netcom.com> <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca>
Organization: United Federation of Planets
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:49:29 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 1992 18:36:02 GMT, jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) said:

>      Fine.  I'll argue against your *opinions*.  If you progress
> into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
> has done), I'll want it censored.  Note, *I'm* not going to
> censor it -- I'm just adding my $.02.

Note, *I'm* not going to burn that cross -- I'm just adding my $.02.

That statement is outright thoughtless and does not at all fit into the rest
of your argumentation. Leaders are nothing without followers. If you state an
opinion, you have to accept responsibility for the enactment of its
propositions. Remember Kant and the Categorical Imperative?
-- 
Lars Soltau	bang: <insert ridiculously long path>	    BIX: -- no bucks --
		smart: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org

     Germany, Stuttgart-Zuffenha
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:27:52 GMT

In article <a_rubin.713648127@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>hypothetical of Lotus 123, sites would be liable unless we go on to
>(Peter?'s) model of lent services...

Brad Templeton's. I'm just enthusiasticly in favor of it.

Actually, I wouldn't call it Brad's model. It's more or less how I felt
about the net (and assume many other people did, too). Brad just (just?)
expressed it better than most.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky news.admin:7128 comp.org.eff.talk:5438 misc.legal.computing:1973
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:28:56 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <wPXHPB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Similarly, I do not believe that submitting an article to Usenet implies any
> >consent to anything.  There's certainly no contract of any sort, no
> >agreement.  The newsgroups are filled with people who have no idea how large
> >Usenet is in geographical terms, so how can they have consented to having
> >their articles distributed to places they didn't even know existed?
> 
> "I put my article on the fax machine and hit the button labelled 'send
> to list #4'.  I expected Dave and Mike to get it, but I didn't expect
> John to get it also.  John did get it; now I want to sue him for
> violating my copyright by letting his fax machine make a copy of my
> article."

Wrong analogy.  Change the last sentence to "...by republishing it in his
magazine".

Remember, machines don't violate copyright.  Any purely automated copying
which occurs as part of normal Usenet operation is OK.  Nobody who has a clue
gives a damn about the normal store-and-forward machine copying of articles. 
That's not the question.

The question is what some random human can do with a Usenet article which he
finds on his hard disk.  Once the automatic store-and-forwarding by machines
has *finished*.

I'm suggesting that the answer is probably "not much", as I've not given him
any rights to do anything with it except those covered by fair use
considerations.

So you're quite right that there's no way I could sue you for allowing your
computer to copy this article in the normal Usenet way.  After all, I
commanded that copying.  I just used your computer to do it.

The question is, have I implicitly or explicitly consented to *you* (not your
computer) choosing to copy it further?  Or in your analogy, have I consented
to John (not his fax machine) copying my article?

I'm amazed that people keep confusing people with computers...


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:19:22 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:

>In article <bsuf7h.3wx@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:

>>I leave automatic newgroups enabled, because I want
>>the genuine groups to be created instantly, even if I'm too busy to do
>>routine news maintenance for a week.  I can clean out the dreck later.
>>Dreck is no less dreck if it gets filed in 'junk'.  Creating a bogus group
>>(temporarily) costs nothing.

>You obviously don't remember one fine morning a couple of years ago, when
>BIFF(TM) (particularly irked by something), decided to send out 75 or so
>newgroups...

The cleanup effort after the BIFF(TM) is still less than I'd spend
going around doing the newgroups manually.  If the biffism happened
once a month that'd be a different story.

Actually, BIFF was easy to clean up -- there were enough of them that
it was worth throwing together a little script.  Now if they did one
a day every day, that'd be more of a pain.
-- 
"If life were fair, the acquisition of a large bosom or a massive inheritance
 would have no bearing on your ability to attract the opposite sex, and Dan
 Quayle would be making a living asking runny-nosed children, `Do you want
 fries with that?'"     -- John Cleese
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:11:52 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <228@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug7.134038.157@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>>The law doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be logical, you just
>>have to have a strong enough lobby.  If you meet the conditions specified in
>>the statute, you can retransmit WTBS regardless of WTBS's wishes or what WTBS
>>says in their copyright statement.
> 
> ???
> I would presume that "the statute" you are referring to would have
> some reference to copyright....

See Title 17, section 111, in particular (c) Secondary Transmissions by
Cable Systems, and (d) Compulsory License for Secondary Transmissions by
Cable Systems.

--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Xref: sparky news.admin:7121 news.software.nntp:993 news.software.b:2744
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.nntp,news.software.b,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Posting to moderated and unmoderated groups (was: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:35:00 GMT
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario

In article <19920810184639SEB1525@MVS.draper.com> SEB1525@MVS.draper.com (Steve Bacher) writes:
|In article <Bss65D.3tr@zoo.toronto.edu>,
|henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|>Remember, when you specify multiple newsgroups in the posting list, you
|>are not asking to have separate copies posted to the groups; you are
|>asking to have *one* copy posted to all of them.  For moderated groups,
|>that requires the moderator's consent.
|
|Do you really think this is right?  This puts the burden on all
|newsgroup moderators to watch for cross-postings and direct them
|to their intended unmoderated newsgroups - while watching that
|the headers don't get munged too much.


	There's no such need for the moderator to
	munge headers - all that's needed is to add
	an "Approved: " line and post the article.


	The real question revolves around the case
	where the moderator decides not to post the
	article to his newsgroup - does he have any
	responsibility to propagate the article to
	the other newsgroups in the "Newsgroups: "
	header?


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "We want the worm, and we want a cow!"
 _< /_	 	- More Jimison, ordering drinks for his table
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:47:19 GMT

In article <wPXHPB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>Similarly, I do not believe that submitting an article to Usenet implies any
>consent to anything.  There's certainly no contract of any sort, no
>agreement.  The newsgroups are filled with people who have no idea how large
>Usenet is in geographical terms, so how can they have consented to having
>their articles distributed to places they didn't even know existed?

"I put my article on the fax machine and hit the button labelled 'send
to list #4'.  I expected Dave and Mike to get it, but I didn't expect
John to get it also.  John did get it; now I want to sue him for
violating my copyright by letting his fax machine make a copy of my
article."

I don't think it will work.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: bsweet@crash.cts.com (Bill Sweetman)
Subject: news feed problem ...
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:55:11 PDT


=-=-=
all -

i'm kind of new to sysadmin/news stuff so please help if you
can.  my site is suppose to feed news to someone but isn't,
i'm only feeding email.  i use to feed news just fine until a
system crash ... i guess my news feeder isn't up and running
properly ( i have news but not my child sites).  how do i
fix this problem?

thanks for any help

-bill sweetman
   sweetman@sea.com | bsweet@crash.com

=-=-=
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:58:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug12.133030.10704@uts.cc.wayne.edu> tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>We are running a news server. We have gotton requests from some of our 
>local users for private (local) news groups. This would also be ideal 
>for dealing with internal news items. How would something like this be
>set up? ...

I assume you're asking about controlling access by readers, rather than
about controlling propagation to other sites.  (You control propagation
to other sites by setting up your sys file not to propagate the private
groups.)

The problem here is that the reader programs have no special privileges;
they just go look at files under /usr/spool/news.  You could read news
with "cat" if you wanted to.  To close off access to a group, you must
make its files inaccessible (typically the easiest way is to tighten up
the permissions on its directory) to everyone but the news system and
the legitimate readers.  Depending on your system, this may be asking
a lot of Unix's not-too-flexible permission system.

If *all* your readers get access to the news via NNTP, you can impose
restrictions there, although you may have to program them yourself.
You get more flexibility -- because you only have to modify the NNTP
daemon, not the system kernel (!) -- but pay for it with other problems
(is that user on the other side of the network really who he says he
is?).
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:19:40 GMT

In article <w-hyqpq@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>But when you try to talk about the people that have been harmed by
>some of the producers or the purveyors of these publications, then
>you're back to defending "speech".

No, attacking actions is quite all right. That's a separate issue.

>Are you going to say that no one
>has ever died in the production of hard-core pornography,

Apart from John Holmes?

>(including snuff films)?

I've yet to see anyone even claim to have direct evidence snuff films
exist. Apart from the war footage you get on CNN, of course.

>   "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and
> political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene
> material demeans the grand conception of the First
> Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle
> for freedom.

Supporting individual freedom means supporting things that really
piss you off, even if you're a supreme court judge. You can't make
exceptions on aesthetic grounds or because you don't recognise that
the speech has any social value.

The only defense against speech is more speech.

Luckily, talk is cheap.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:48:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.173839.9926@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>>I suppose for
>>that one particular hand-selected disk, they ought to check the
>>copyrights attached to each post.  

>I think they should ask the authors for those. Each one and
>individually. Which makes it difficult to make such a selection,
>of course.

I think people who post to comp.sources are requesting a wider distribution
than people who post to other groups.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:48:01 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Aug7.154257.29073@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>In article <187@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>
>>For my first point I wouldn't mind having to include the notice along
>>w/ any excerpt used from a jj-article, but if I only wish to comment on 
>>one point from an article must I really include the entire d**n article?
>
>	My impression of what JJ himself has said, and of the law, is
>that quoting one paragraph of the article in a reply that is making
>commentary on the work in question constitutes "fair use"

You are right.  That is what JJ himself has said.  And the law
*in the absence of additional restrictions* would allow such usage.

However what JJ's copyright notice requires is COMPLETE copies,
no more, no less.



		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Disco isn't dead...			...it's just in witness protection!
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:41:43 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Aug12.201152.163@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>In article <228@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug7.134038.157@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>>>The law doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be logical, you just
>>>have to have a strong enough lobby.  If you meet the conditions specified in
>>>the statute, you can retransmit WTBS regardless of WTBS's wishes or what WTBS
>>>says in their copyright statement.
>> 
>> ???
>> I would presume that "the statute" you are referring to would have
>> some reference to copyright....
>
>See Title 17, section 111, in particular (c) Secondary Transmissions by
>Cable Systems, and (d) Compulsory License for Secondary Transmissions by
>Cable Systems.

I believe the original argument was that cable was a redistribution
beyond the "normal" broadcast range of WTBS (i.e. I can't recieve it
in california w/ a normal (or even enhanced!) antenna).  I *must* have
cable to get it.  The fact that there is some statute that permits this
is really beside the point.

The original point was that by posting to USENET you are authorizing
distribution *to the extent of the normal distribution of USENET*.
(Similar to WTBS broadcast range).  Redistribution of an article
*beyond* the bounds of USENET would be restricted by copyright.  In
the particular case of WTBS, there is in existance an statute that
apparently overrides their copyright.  (Actually (without having looked
up that law) I presume that part of the law involves payment of royalties
back to WTBS, but that is beside the point...)  In the case of USENET
there is no current legislation that would override the implicit copyright
limits mandated by the act of posting an article.  Therefore, copyright
protection exists preventing someone from using the article in another
medium, claiming it as their own work, etc, etc, etc.



		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Badges?  I don' got to show you no stinkin' badges!"



Xref: sparky news.admin:7032 alt.censorship:6950 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2588
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer graphics and child pornography
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:55:42 GMT

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

[...]
>   Someone posted a term paper on child porn (prepared I think for alaw
>school class) to alt.sex.movies, but it was way mangled. If I get a good
>copy, I will post it here, or perhaps to news.admin.policy (or suggest
>that the author post).
[...]

The author reposted and also sent me a copy for the CAF archive.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/child-porn.silvers
=================
The Application of Child Pornography Statutes to Non-Obscene Art and
Family Photography by Jolyon Silversmith, silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu.
It is a term paper written in May, 1992 for Government 1341:
Constitutional Law at Harvard University.

=================
README
=================
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive

The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.

It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/child-porn.silvers
  pub/academic/README

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law child-porn.silvers
send acad-freedom README

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky news.admin:7085 news.software.b:2736 news.software.readers:1657