HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: derry@beaufort.sfu.ca (Andrew Derry)
Subject: BCTel to soon offer ISDN for $115/mo+
Summary: Expensive ISDN comming to British Columbia
Keywords: ISDN
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:23:25 GMT

British Columbia Telephone has filed an application with federal
regulators to start offering ISDN services this fall.

They want to charge $115 per month PLUS a usage charge that will be
about twice current long-distance rates!

I understand that a few places in the US have ISDN already, but I
though they were all a LOT less than this..  Do I have the wrong
impression, or is BC Tel charging a high price?

---
Andrew Derry - derry@sfu.ca
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4924 misc.legal.computing:1551
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Copyrights and pseudonyms
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:59:44 GMT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <1992Jul27.022343.10866@iguana.uucp>, merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
> In article <23306@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old curmudgeon and general grump) writes:
>> Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
> 
> this is fairly straight forward, although a copyright to an id which is
> shrouded in secrecy is sort of wierd.

The Copyright Office in the U.S. had provisions for both anonymous works and
works authored under a pseudonym when registering a copyright.  But I don't
have the current copyright registration form to check if Berne changed that.

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4929 misc.legal.computing:1556 news.admin:6297
From: pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:51:43 GMT
	<1992Jul28.041449.16469@gtephx.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> Now that takes the cake!  Arrest for copyright infringement?  Copyright
> infringement is a civil matter (which means the police do not get involved
> -- one party has to sue another in civil court).  
> 
> With a mind of that capacity, it is no wonder you are so confused about
> the contract you entered when you started using netnews!

Umm ... wrong.  There are, indeed, criminal copyright provisions.
They are rarely enforced -- and usually for serious "for profit"
scams, but they are there, and they have been used before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger		       ||  ARPA:     peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student	       ||            Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law ||  UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will _croak_ you little clown, when you mess with President Brown!
 California Uber Alles! California Uber Alles! Uber Alles, California!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wes.Perkhiser@drbbs.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Answers (WAS Re: Please Feed the Spooks)
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:43:30 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <22 Jul 92 19:41:42>, Kyle Cassidy (11:30102/2) writes:
 KC> ... and is there 
 KC>really an alt.cascade?
Yes, but your feed/source/net administrator/whatever may not carry it.
Wes
From: Wes.Perkhiser@drbbs.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:34:14 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <24 Jul 92 18:12:42>, Peter Deutsch (11:30102/2) writes:

 PD>(BTW, is it just me, or does this thread seems to have a
 PD>greater half-life than plutonium? :-)

Let's see . . . I come up with a negative number for half-life (since the
thread is growing.)

Wes

P.S.  I don't care if this tongue-in-cheek message gets saved on a CD and
buried in a time capsule.  Just don't blame me in 50 years if it does not make
sense.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Westrope)
Subject: Re: current legislation
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: congress GPO WINDO/Gateway to Government Act
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.030857.23005@wuecl.wustl.edu> lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman) writes:
>Yesterday I attended the Congressional hearing on the GPO Gateway
>to Government Act and Wide Information Network for Data Online Act.
>These two bills would establish an electronic gateway at the
>Government Printing Office for distributing government information.
>The bills were introduced by Rep. Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) and Sen. 
>Albert Gore (D-Tenn.).  There seems to be a lot of support for 
>these bills, however there are a few issues yet to be resolved
>including: how much info should be put online, how soon info
>should be put online, and whether the system should be centralized
>or distributed.  Also, there seems to be some confusion about how
>much funding is needed (and the remarks of the GPO people 
>yesterday did little to clarify things).

In the July issue of Boardwatch Magazine, Jack Rickard reports another
issue that needs to be resolved:  "According to a letter from Anthony
J. Zagami, General Counsel for GPO, Congress, in an all too familiar
refrain, added a little bitty exemption to the FOIA [Freedom of Information
Act] law when it passed it -- exempting Congress itself from having to 
comply with it (is this pattern becoming redundant or what?).  And the GPO
is actually an adjunct of Congress.  So the Government Printing Office, of
all government agencies, is actually claiming it is EXEMPT from Freedom of
Information requests...the GPO WINDO program appears in all likelihood to
really be a ploy to get access under one roof...so that citizens wouldn't
be so heavily armed in gaining access to it."

I'm not sure I agree that the program is a "ploy", but the GPO exemption to
the FOIA needs to be addressed.  The Boardwatch article mentions William T.
Mayo, sysop of The Boundary Line BBS, One Bush Street, 2nd Floor, San
Fransisco, CA 94104, (415) 398-6171.  Mayo has "prepared a lawsuit for the
U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California asking to have
the GPO declared subject to the Freedom of Information Act."

Anyone have more info on this?

-- Alan

--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Alan Westrope           "I calmly don my lime-green asbestos shorts and await
awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu   the onslaught of the flames."  Dante, _Inferno_, XXXIV
------------------------~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
Subject: reverse engineering
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:41:49 GMT

I posted a few weeks ago asking for comments on reverse engineering of
computer software.  I have just finished a paper titled "Should
Reverse Engineering of Computer Software Through Intermediate Copying
Be Prohibited?"  I would be happy to send it to anyone who is 
interested in the topic. I would post it, but it's over 1000 lines.

Lorrie

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: alushiku@engws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Lushiku)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Local Bulletin Board Gets Busted
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:58:50 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <MMEYER.92Jul24101622@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>	?????  Surely they mean stills from movies, not the movies
>themselves.  Unless there's been an enourmous improvement in bandwidth
>capacity that I'm not aware of...
>

These things are all over the net.  They are short clips (usually under 3
minutes) of digitized animation that are available in Grasp (*.GL) or Aut-
desk Animator (*.FLI) form.  The compressed shorts simply require a utility
to play back the animation (grasprt.exe or play.exe).  Used this kind of 
thing for animated ray-traces for years, nothing new and/or exciting here.

-- 
_____________________________________
Don't question authority - Ignore it.
  alushiku@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
From: bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:11:17 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine

oNEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:

> Regarding the Secret Service's release of the addresses of the indicted,
> an indictment is a matter of public record and the addresses become
> public information. If the Secret Service didn't release the information,
> they'd be asked for it by the press. Check a news article featuring any
> sort of arrest or indictment; the address of the accused will appear,
> nine times out of ten. This is neither incompetence nor maliciousness on
> the part of the Secret Service, just standard practice.
> Evan Rudowski

While it may be legal in the USA to publish the names and addresses of
those just accused of a crime; Is it right?  I don't think so and neither
does the government here (Holland) and presumably in other European
nations.  What if the people involved are NOT GUILTY?  And even if they
are, the extreme for the "crime", sentances one is likely to get in the
USA should be punishment enough.  Even true cop shows, like Dragnet, say
"the names have been changed to protect the innocent".  This whole issue of
making arrests and convictions a matter of public record is a true
dis-service to the public at large, the families of the accused, and the
accused/convicted "criminals" themselves.  After having this treatment, how
do you expect them to make a sucessful re-entry to society?  Ex-cons
cannot, so they are forced to repeat their crimes.  What about their
families and even neighbours?  Perhaps several criminal careers can be
created out of a single public arrest/conviction record.  Maybe a little
more effort in preventing crime, instead of building more prisons is in
order in the country that has the highest percentage of its population in
incarcerated.  It is all to obvious the vast majority of crime is repeat
business, which alot could have been prevented by keeping all criminal
records a state secret, accessable only to the courts.


                                                        Bill
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: not-so-funny "joke message"?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:33:41
Distribution: usa



Being new to California, I've been calling a lot of the local BBS's
just to get a feel for the area.  I called a bbs this morning, got all
the "how to become a member stuff", promptly deleted it, and decided
to call back and dl another copy.  As I was (re)registering, however,
I got the following message:

----- start included message -----

CYBERTRON CORP!  (R)Telecommunications Security Node:#264839-LL

NOTIFICATION: FCC-#9632852 - LINE VERIFICATION IN PROGRESS!

ROUTE LINE IS CURRENTLY BEING FORWARDED TO: {DT*2VRP}(c)
CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION!


You have commited a FELONY, according to the FCC ruling #6828744
Telecommunications Privacy Act (1989) Section IV - 3529A-6
Municipal Code of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND IT'S AGENTS
HERIN...Therefore, you are hereby WARNED! Any further attempt to
contact this customer will result in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and/or
EXTRADITION by FEDERAL authorities....Your telephone number has
been recorded in our central office!

Thank you for using..."CYBERTRONICS SECURITY RESOURCES"

Summary: Notify Police and local phone company? YES!
         Continue to monitor violator? YES!
Total time logged was 1 minute(s), with 24 minutes remaining for
07/25/92.

Thank you for calling, Eric.


NO CARRIER

----- end included message -----


Now there is a "California State Bureau of Investigation", but I don't
know if any of that stuff about a  FCC ruling or a US legal code has
anything to do with reality.

And "Cybertronics Secuirty Resources" has to be one of the stupidest
company names I've heard in awhile, so maybe the message *is* real.
:-)

Comments?  Thoughts?
--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response]
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:52:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia

In article <4852@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:

>But they did.  I volunteered to write a clone of spell for bsd a couple
>of years ago, and they insisted at the time that I must not look at
>the existing sources.  I cloned it by reading the man page and playing
>with the program.

I can vouch for this. As a joke, I offered my multi-player real-time
Wumpus game to Bostic, and the first question he asked me was "Have
you ever seen AT&T source code?" It was certainly a concern of theirs.
From: San Francisco State Univ. <jtjohnson@igc.org>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:42 PDT
Subject: Re: Comp. privacy policies in diff coun
Nf-ID: #R:equinox.unr.edu:4205:cdp:1353000005:000:290
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jtjohnson    Jul 28 20:42:00 1992


John:
I just in the    process of putting together a bibliography on
digital privacy around the world (mostly Europe and North America).  If
you want to make a note to ring me the end of September, I will be glad to
uppass.
   Regards, Tom Johnson, Dept. of Journalism, San Francisco State
From: csc_alex@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu (ALEXANDRE KHALIL)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: reverse engineering
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:49:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston-Downtown
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41A
X-Lunar-Date: 5 days, 22 hours, 58 minutes since the last quarter of the moon

In article <VNReoB7w165w@fennec.sccsi.com>, root@fennec.sccsi.com (Scott Davis) writes...
>lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman) writes:
> 
>> I posted a few weeks ago asking for comments on reverse engineering of
>> computer software.  I have just finished a paper titled "Should
>> Reverse Engineering of Computer Software Through Intermediate Copying
>> Be Prohibited?"  I would be happy to send it to anyone who is 
>> interested in the topic. I would post it, but it's over 1000 lines.
>> 
>> Lorrie
>> 
> 
>Please send it to me...I'd be interested in the info. Thanks in advance!

me too if you please.

alex
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Policies for LISTSERV lists ?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:09:56 GMT

In article <1705@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk> gupta@prl.philips.co.uk writes:
)Can anyone email me the policies/guidelines applicable to LISTSERV
)lists, please ?
)
)I subscribe to one such list and its anonymous editorial board have
)refused to include one of my contributions without offereing any
)explanations or justification.  And my contribution was relevant,
)unoffensive and unabusive (REALLY ! :-).  At least three other
)contributors have suffered the same fate.  Presumably, LISTSERV,
)the University and the Computing dept (from where the list originates)
)ought to be concerned and have a rightful say ?  Or are LISTSERV lists
)allowed to be completely owned by anonymous people acting arbitrarily ?

An interesting question.  Some people argue that newsgroups are 'limited
public forums'.  If this is in fact true (it hasn't really been tested),
it seems to me from the reading that I've done that there *is* a legal
obligation for fair moderation.  A college newspaper, "The Royal Purple"
was held to be required to run a paid advertisement because of their status
as a limited public forum, wheras a commercial paper, the Chicago
Tribune, was not (the "Amalmagated Clothing Workers v Chicago Tribune").  In
both cases, there were legitimate complaints that only one side of an issue
was being presented, though in the Royal Purple case the paper ran at least
part of the advertisement as an editorial.

If this observation is true, it puts moderators of moderated newsgroups in a
rather uncertain legal position, IMO.

This is, of course, not legal advice.....

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: peterd@bunyip.com (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: McGill University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:34:35 GMT

In article <jim.712011015@piggy> jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
> In <1992Jul24.181242.25567@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca  
(Peter Deutsch) writes:
> >...
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> 	I consider the listing of the files on my ftp server to be
> my personal intellectual property.  I don't recall being asked for
> permission in their inclusion in the database of archie servers at
> McGill or other sites.  Who can I sue for this?

Actually, in the early days we were rather indiscriminate about
who we would add to the archie database. Basically, if someone
told us about a site, it was reachable and we could process the
listing, we would add it.

We subsequently ran into a couple of sites that didn't realize
they were being tracked and this caused some problems. We will
now only add a site after exchanging confirmatory messages with
the site admin. To make sure that we've reached everyone who might
want out, we plan to do a global mailing to all sites in our
database when we start converting to archie 3.0 in the next few weeks
and if we don't get such a confirmation, you will be deleted
automatically from the server we are operating. If you _really_ want 
out before then drop us email and we'll spread the word. You will not 
be the first to have done so.

Of course, that's just our own personal policy on the server we
currently administer for the McGill University School of Computer
Science. We are not responsible for the operating practices of the 
other archie sites, all of whom are privately operated and maintained, 
though I believe they will all pretty much follow our lead on this one.


As a final comment on the practice of anonymous FTP, if you are 
serious and plan to operate an anonymous FTP archive which
you do _not_ want to be publicly accessible, you should reread
the Site Security Handbook section on "security through obscurity".
This is generally thought to be a "bad thing (tm)" (of course,
maybe I've just got a faulty humour gland tonight, but I've been
coding all wee and my neck hurts...)

				- peterd
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:54:37 GMT

In article <01GMVETRJ73O8WW6TV@delphi.com> NEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:

>I wonder how the Craig Neidorf case would have turned out if the charges 
>against him had remained secret (for his own protection, of course)?

I have no trouble with the publication of the names of the accused. I 
have a lot of trouble with the publication of their addresses. I realize
this may be standard policy for NEWSDAY, but not all newspapers follow
such a policy.

After the indictments were publicized, media representatives camped out
on the doorsteps of the defendants in order to get statements from them,
even though such statements, including exculpatory ones, could be used
at trial. Is there any doubt that publication of these defendants
addresses made this easier?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The computer in the rebirth of democratic ideals
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:57:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <27JUL199220214816@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:

> Call 1800 786 6885 to get information about your favorite candidate.

This sounded interesting, so I called it.  I didn't get an answer. 
Does this mean that it is only open during certain hours?  (I had
originally assumed not, assuming that the service was automated.)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: BSDI's defence (was Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response])
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:33:48 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

gray@antaire.com (Gray Watson) writes:

>Here's everyone talking about topics like the copyrighting of Usenet material
>and the definition of pay-for-view and I've only seen 1 response to one of the
>most chilling posts in the last couple of months: AT&T is saying now, that
>BSD's NET/2 distribution is in violation of its license and requires a AT&T
>source license.  They have filed suit not against BSD but against Berkeley
>Software Design Inc (BSDI).

>Because USL's complaint is so vague and inconsistent, it fails to
>provide even the minimum notice required to properly inform BSDI
>of the legal basis for the suit.  BSDI has therefore requested that
>the court dismiss the suit under Section 12(b)6 of the Federal
>Rules of Civil Procedure.  Section 12(b)6 states that a complaint
>must be adequately formed so that the defendant understands what
>it has allegedly done.

I hope the guys at BSDI will keep us closely posted and if this dismissal
motion fails, will set up a legal defense fund.

While I don't have the time to fool with YAOS and thus won't be buying
BSDI anytime soon, I'll gladly donate some money to the effort.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing