HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:14:19 GMT

In article <y9XZoB1w164w@lorc.UUCP>, lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:
> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> > In article <T9HFoB6w164w@lorc.UUCP> lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:
[...]
> > That, in my opinion, is an acceptable compromise.  The poster can control
> > the distribution, and the readers know how to obtain the material(s).  
> 
> I am in agreement.  There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that: on the
> contrary, it seems reasonable.  So, would the following compromise settle
> agreeably with most on Usenet? You and Brad are both right: the admins need
> to be relieved of legal liability, but yet the net must be free.  Now, how
> do we do this??  I don't know, but the answer needs to be found.
> 

What do you think of the suggestion in my previous post? a Copyright
line which is defaulted to Full unless the user take specific action to
change it (specific action which grants license to all machines connected
to usenet -- even those the user "thinks" are not part of usenet (an oxymoron)).

I suppose you could take it further by giving two options: Full or Public Domain,
where Full means no-one distributes it (ie: you wanna post, you give to the
public domain, except of course for direct quotes from copyrighted material
which can be used under Fair Use.)



-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: limonce@pilot.njin.net
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: New Jersey Intercampus Network
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:02:11 GMT

In <e5@drew.drew.edu> tlimonce@drew.drew.edu (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> At which time Geoff will post a short message showing how simple it
> is to subvert such a system.

Of course, this whole process will take a week because someone will
misunderstand Geoff or how netnews works, and start posting about
how such a system actually *would* work.  This person will eventually
be proven wrong also.
 
All the while someone will write a script that checks various
parts of a post message to be a little more sure that the post
wasn't forged.
 
Of course, that just means that forgers will only need to be a bit
more careful when crafting their forgeries for them to work.  After
a few iteration of attempts, they'll have perfected their technique.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
at least you know you're going to win any arguments!
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:660 news.admin:7083 comp.org.eff.talk:5415 misc.legal.computing:1958
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:25:54 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <1992Aug12.185559.25600@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) wrote:
> 3)  The values for the Copyright: header field will be:
>         Full    -   User retains all copyrights (and nothing gets posted)
>         Usenet  -   User grants permission for distribution thorughout any
>                         electronic medium (mag tape, disks, CD's, etc) where
>                         everything in the newsgroup is copied (no selectivity
>                         except for moderation) AND grants permission for all
>                         individuals to make one copy for personal use.

Under theses term, you can't use the distribution header to control
distributions. This is in direct contradiction to the way netnews is
implemented now. You better change it - but see below.

>         Free    -   User grants permission to copy as in Usenet above and for
>                         any individual to use freely provided that no profits 
>                         are made.

This kills things like uunet, netcom and psi. How about changing it to
"no non-electronic usage for profit allowed".

>         Public  -   User puts the info the public domain.

The major problem with this is - how the HELL are you going to get it
implemented? You might be able to get all the "major" unix sites in a
year or so. The minor sites? The bitnet sites? People like me, running
custom newsreaders? People running newsreaders that haven't been
updated in years, whose authors have gone on to bigger and better
things?

The other problem is limiting the definition of news by
newsgroup/header distributions. That's silly. Since I know everyone
who reads news on this machine intimately, why can't I collect our
kill/newsrc files, write a shell script that plays batcher, but
rejects articles that none of us would read, and ask my feed to
install it? That would be a _win_ for all concerned; both me and my
feed would both spend less bandwidth and disk space under those
conditions - and nobody here would notice the difference, except that
reading news would take less time.

	<mike


Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract?  NOT!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:18:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na


G. Wolfe Woodbury seems unfamiliar with the notion of the social
contract, without which most civilization would soon degenerate
into anarchy. There are several regular FAQ postings, together
with "Zen and the Art of the Internet" which define the social
contract with respect to the newsgroups.

For details on the social contract, any good course in Western
Civilization, or Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" (Contrat Social)
provides information.

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:662 news.admin:7088 comp.org.eff.talk:5418 misc.legal.computing:1960
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 16 Aug 92 12:50:57 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug13.173025.14485@ruc.dk> david@ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) writes:
>If USENET had a copyright policy that said that services that did not offer
>interactive news access had to pay copyright fees, then there would be an
>incentive to permit all readers interactive access. I consider this a plus.

Well, apart from everything else, who do you pay it to? There is no entity
known as Usenet that can be paid. But, if you insist, I'll happily accept
the checks.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:672 news.admin:7129 comp.org.eff.talk:5439 misc.legal.computing:1974
From: system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,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 08:17:13 ADT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

> In article <uoaDPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George 
> >Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
> >submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..
> 
> Never, never, never, never, never.
> 
> THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY NET.

The net isn't. I was referring to charters for individual, newly created
newsgroups. Somewhere where it would be understood beforehand that everything
sent there will be mailed directly to everyone in Mexico or some such thing.


--
from the mythical, nonexistant SYSTEM 0PERATOR | The FredBox +1 907 344 8437
system@freds.cojones.com | uunet!coldbox!fredbox!system | ASFJP@ALASKA.BITNET
Home of a few raving lunatics and myriads of electronic publications.
Why anyone would want to copyright this dreck is beyond me.

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 02:28:48 GMT

In article <Bt361G.5Lt@exnet.co.uk> dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.185559.25600@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>Here's is where you miss something.  When a person uses netnews, he is 
>>entering into a contract: and agreement to exchange his rights to his
>>work for mass distribution of his work.
>>
>>Stop and think about it.  When you post, you get the use of thousands
>>of computers.  The owners of those computers get copies of your "work."  
>>(It does not really matter who or what copied or how as it is part of
>>a transaction, and exchange of goods and services).  You freely 
>>choose to send your post and the owners of the computers freely agree
>>to distribute it for you.  We have here a contract in which you surrender
>>at least some of your copyright in exchange for distribution.
>
>I *believe* (and I'm not a lawyer) that in English Law no contract is entered
>into unless for a `consideration'.  I don't see that any could be shown to have
>been given or received here.
>
>BTW, I'm making no statement about the test of your argument here, just this
>one nitty point.

Consideration does NOT need to be a financial payment.  Consideration 
for the network is being allowed to send the post whereever the 
network goes.  In essence, it is the right, implied by the act of posting,
to reproduce the post throughout the network.  The value to the network
is in being able to make the post available.

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: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: limonce@pilot.njin.net
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: New Jersey Intercampus Network
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:03:35 GMT

In <e8@drew.drew.edu> tlimonce@drew.drew.edu (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>                                                   [...]      Claims
> such as "if netnews isn't secure, it just doesn't have a future" will
> be made.

This kind of remark always blows my mind.  The net right now works
so well that tiny flashes of problems (like the recent cancel monger)
are worth it.  Netnews is supposed to be fun, and if it's not fun
it might as well end.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
at least you know you're going to win any arguments!
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:654 news.admin:7074 comp.org.eff.talk:5403 misc.legal.computing:1952 misc.int-property:848
From: pjh@mccc.edu (P. J. Holsberg)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:12:22 GMT
Organization: The College on the Other Side of U. S. 1
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

GOTO Message 0000001
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:669 news.admin:7112 comp.org.eff.talk:5430 misc.legal.computing:1969
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-pr
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:40:15 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug13.171419.29877@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>What do you think of the suggestion in my previous post? a Copyright
>line

It's not a Copyright line. Don't call it a Copyright line. A Copyright line
would look like this:

	Copyright: 1992 Peter da Silva

As precedent, there are other interchange file formats that make explicit
provision for this. What you're describing is a Restrictions or License
entry.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:14:16 GMT

In article <eFsNPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:
>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> In article <uoaDPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George 
>> >Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
>> >submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..

>> Never, never, never, never, never.

>> THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY NET.

>The net isn't. I was referring to charters for individual, newly created
>newsgroups.

Do you know what a newsgroup charter is?

Unless it's a moderated group, it's simply a guideline for finding a good
name. Once the group is created, anything goes.

Now if you want to create a new *hierarchy* with different rules, go ahead.
That's been found to be a workable technique, since you can make sure new
sites are aware of the restrictions before they get it. But a newsgroup?
Nah...
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:659 news.admin:7082 comp.org.eff.talk:5414 misc.legal.computing:1957
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:54:24 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Aug8.031705.20250@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> In article <1992Aug7.044953.11537@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug6.234633.1288@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
[...]
> Now, parsing the Followup-To: line incorrectly when it contains illegal
> entries is an inconvenience at best. Incorrectly parsing the Copyright
> header could result in a lawsuit.
> 
The simple solution to this is to discard posts with an ivalid value 
on the Copyright header line.  The beauty here is that folks like jj
can spend months trying to figure out why no-one responds to their
posts!

Then when they do figure it out, they learn the invaluable lesson that
nothing is for free: you wanna play usenet you gotta pay by granting a 
license to everyone connected to usenet (even if you don't define that
particular type of conncection as part of usenet).

Pretty simple really.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:631 news.admin:7012 comp.org.eff.talk:5360 misc.legal.computing:1922
From: david@ruc.dk (David Stodolsky)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:30:25 GMT
Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <0y2mj+k.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>[TV analogy deleted]

>>	All original messages are protected by copyright. Do you wish to
>>treat this message as belonging to the public domain? (Note: Failure to do

>This is a pretty useless message, since it breaks on a high proportion of
>articles posted to comp.sources, it breaks on some moderated groups, and so
>on. You *don't* want to force people posting sources to give them up to
>the public domain.

>"Public Domain" and "No archiving" are not the only two options. In fact,
>they're probably not the options the vast majority of posters want to choose
>between.

>How about this message:

>	By posting this message you are requesting it be shipped
>	all over the world, maintained indefinitely at archive

Releasing to the Public Domain can create a range of problems. For instance,
the recent release of the ISODE distribution was not placed in the public
domain because a "hold harmless" clause was needed (legal talent explain pls).

However, Rick's point about the difference between normal article distribution
and archiving is crucial. On the Net there is a behavioral difference. News
group articles are written by Networkers, not by archive readers. This is the
same as the difference between authors and readers in the world of paper.
The people who write articles have a role that pure readers do not have and
they have rights that can be protected as a result. The key is whether the
person/service has *interactive* access.

If USENET had a copyright policy that said that services that did not offer
interactive news access had to pay copyright fees, then there would be an
incentive to permit all readers interactive access. I consider this a plus.
Also, the people who read archives or paper prints could contribute to the
Net by payment of royalties. Thus the readers would contribute to the Net
in some way. 

How to organize this is the question. It cannot be done on a per author or 
article basis, but it might work on a newsgroup/hierarchy basis.

-- 
David S. Stodolsky                Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41
Department of Computer Science                 Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center        Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 42 01
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.185559.25600@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Yes, that's the law.  However, another part of the law that many people
>never seem to grasp is that you can contract away your rights without 
>even knowing it.  Also, contracts do not need to be written and signed:
>indeed, actions have been known to create contracts or even alter written
>contracts.
>
>[...]
>> Now, yes, if someone posts to Usenet, and is the one commanding that
>> copies be made and distributed, there is an open question about whether
>> the operator of a site needs worry about copyright violation (I just don't
>> see this as a problem, BTW, but some people seem concerned that the
>> existance of copyright would prevent posting, which to me is clearly not
>> true).
>
>Here's is where you miss something.  When a person uses netnews, he is 
>entering into a contract: and agreement to exchange his rights to his
>work for mass distribution of his work.
>
>No?
>
>Stop and think about it.  When you post, you get the use of thousands
>of computers.  The owners of those computers get copies of your "work."  
>(It does not really matter who or what copied or how as it is part of
>a transaction, and exchange of goods and services).  You freely 
>choose to send your post and the owners of the computers freely agree
>to distribute it for you.  We have here a contract in which you surrender
>at least some of your copyright in exchange for distribution.

I *believe* (and I'm not a lawyer) that in English Law no contract is entered
into unless for a `consideration'.  I don't see that any could be shown to have
been given or received here.

BTW, I'm making no statement about the test of your argument here, just this
one nitty point.

Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis | Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077 |1.22|| ALL MAIL FREE.
Internet: dhd@exnet.co.uk | Also: Damon@ed.ac.uk || US hotrod motor groups.
--------------------------+----------------------++ >12 mail&news polls / day.
Public access UNIX (Suns), news and mail for #5 per month.  FIRST MONTH FREE.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:674 comp.org.eff.talk:5446 news.misc:1586 soc.libraries.talk:230 comp.infosystems:429 comp.infosystems.wais:387
From: jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,news.misc,soc.libraries.talk,comp.infosystems,comp.infosystems.wais
Subject: Re: Finding the right newsgroup - a "concept idex" for Usenet?
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:31:30 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug3.171215.7336@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
writes:
| With as many groups as Usenet currently has (2286 at this site, and we
| don't carry nearly all) it's becoming difficult to find or remember a
| suitable newsgroup in which to discuss a subject.  Consideration in
| naming is helpful in solving this problem, but other tools are desirable.
|
| Many books have concept indices or alphabetical indices.  How about
| creating one for Usenet?  One possibility could be to collect Subject
| lines from each group and make a WAIS database of them - then you
| could do WAIS searches with the concept you are interested in and get
| a list of possible newsgroups.  Another possibility would be to take
| the Subject lines as a starter and then develop by hand a concept
| index of them.  Perhaps a general-purpose concept
| division/classification with synonyms listed could be developed, which
| people could then use for the Keywords field.


I have long thought that it would be nice to be able to associate
information with a newsgroup in a more static manner than a message
does.  For instance, it would be particularly nice to be able to have
a group's FAQ buffered in such a way that it is always accessible from
the newsreader.  Other information that is generally contained in a
FAQ, but which might need to be accessed independently would include
archive sites, moderator address, etc.

A pan-USENET topic WAISbase would indeed be a good idea, and this
database could be transmitted in a special newgroup devoted to USENET
indexing.  Thus, the equipped newsreader software would get this index
once a day (?), and answer any topic queries by doing a waissearch on
this database.  Alternatively, sites with TCP/IP connectivity could
just do a remote WAIS request.

The newsreader software could also be intelligent enough to not expire
the group FAQ.  In an ideal world, the FAQ would even be amenable to
marking with SGML or some such structured document protocol, to
provide a menu oriented group information system.

Nicely, all this could be done with no changes to current protocols,
and would be entirely backwards compatible with non-compliant
newsreaders.

Now, who's going to bell the cat?

(Interesting phenomenon: as my project's due date draws near, my rate
of posting rises significantly..)
-- 
Jonathan Abbey                                 jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu
the university of texas at austin             "He's cleaning up his systems
computer science/math/psychology               to keep his nature pure" - Rush
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:624 news.admin:6950 comp.org.eff.talk:5331 misc.legal.computing:1905