HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Tue, 11 Aug 92 16:18:05 ADT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

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

> The idea is that this is for the protection of the poster. The only sites
> that would be liable would be those that leak it through a restriction
> boundary.

Judging how wonderfully the Distribution header is[n't] handled by a number
of sites, there will be a hell of a lot of sites which become liable this
way.

I say have users enter a Copyright: field, and then have news software dump
it all (but don't tell them).

Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..


--
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,misc.int-property
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics - IC Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:03:48 GMT

In <e9@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> 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.

And, since all Usenet flame wars ultimately evolve to a prediction of
The End Of The Net or a comparison to Hitler, we can concluded that
this flame has reached its ultimate status.  And therefore, it has
reached its natural conclusion.
 
I'd like to thank all the people that contributed to this discussion,
and I'd like to thank all the people that will send me email telling me
that they're new to the net and would like me to explain why their plan
for an authenticated Usenet could be subverted.  I'd also like to thank
Vice President Dan Quayle for the inspiration to include typos and
mis-spelled words here and there throughout the articles that I
posted.
 
Have a Usenet day.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I do it, and so do I!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: gte
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:13:37 GMT

>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: usa
>References: <1992Aug4.183000.18948@talon.ucs.orst.edu> <1992Aug9.152903@aminet.uucp>
>
In article <1992Aug9.152903@aminet.uucp>, barrett@aminet.uucp (Keith Barrett) writes:
> 
> I already include a copyright header that is perfectly acceptable -- see
> my header lines.
> 
Nothing here, at least that I can see.

Maybe the header line you refer to is invalid and gets dropped along
the way?  In any case, there was no copyright in the message I received.

[And before you go blaming that on someone else, the software
was not written for any one person, therefore, no one person
can demand that it work the way they want it to.

In posting here, you enter into an contractual agreement - ignorance
of the terms does not alter them in the least.]




-- 
"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
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug6.234633.1288@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> In article <1992Aug6.171443.995@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug6.002204.18891@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> >Yes, and in the world as it _is_ (not as we want it to be) we _should_
> >look at every posting. The trick is to make that painless and inexpensive
> >to do, so people will do it. To me, that means automating the process.
> 
> It will never be painless and inexpensive, even when automated, unless
> you accept the only painless and inexpensive method: flush any USENET
> message that contains the word "copyright" down the toilet. 
> 
> There is a saying in software engineering: You can't make it foolproof
> because fools are so ingenious. If you start by allowing a certain
> limited set of copyright limitations, someone will start using
> something not in that set. You will be looking for "not-for-pay" (if
> you run a for-pay site) and miss the new "free systems only" version.
> Bingo, lawsuit.
> 
> And that doesn't mention the time your cpu will be spending searching
> for all the possible copyright limits.
> 
[...]

The simple solution to this is that the Copyright header line has 'n'
number of valid values (ie: Full, Usenet, Free, Public), any other values
result in the posting software puking on the user (literally would be 
very nice!) and forcing him to put in a valid value or not post.

IOW, instead of ignoring *this* field, ingore the whole damn post if 
the copyright field is invalid.



-- 
"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: tlimonce@drew.drew.edu
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Drew University - Alumni
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:02:01 GMT

In <e4@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> Finally people will really understand the proposal.

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

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I met and interesting person that way!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract?  NOT!
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:38:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
>... the social contract ...

The day social contracts play a role in Usenet copyrights is the day
you can be sued for breaching them.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:625 news.admin:6960 comp.org.eff.talk:5336 misc.legal.computing:1908
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
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 15:27:22 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug7.044953.11537@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:

>First, there is definitely material that is _not_ getting
>posted to Usenet, because some people are concerned about
>copyright being violated. If we put such mechanisms in
>place, some of this material will be posted (presumably
>raising the standard of Usenet) and there is no reason I
>can see to assume that any of the current postings will go
>away. Seems like a net gain, to me.

How much do we gain?  We might gain from text, but how about code?
If I can't use the code, I'm probably better off if I never see it.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:15:53 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

[...]
>G. Wolfe Woodbury seems unfamiliar with the notion of the social
>contract, without which most civilization would soon degenerate
>into anarchy.
[...]

Social contracts should be enforced with social sanctions.
Administrative and legal sanctions should be based on more formal
"contracts."

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?

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

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/faq/policy

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/faq policy

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:32:27 GMT

In article <e13@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM writes:

>In <e12@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>> Brad Templeton is always looking to take a dare and...

>...and the whole things starts over.

>This is a problem with Usenet.  It has no "memory" so every post risks
>repeating an old question, which starts a virtual repeat of the last
>time such topic came up.  FAQ postings help, but I think there is
>another solution.

>My solution would be to have all of Usenet stored on a CD-ROM so that
>people could refer back to these threads and not repeat them.

You seem to have moved from 'verifying the user' into 'make the 
conferences meaningful' and suggest a realistic historical 
approach?????

Why then what would happen with statements like Godwin's famous
(to paraphrase) 'we're not saying anything because we don't want 
to tip our hand....' ?????? Seems to me we're two years down the 
road and there was no hand to tip. Perhaps that's what he meant.

Historical records for usenet would, alas, simply mean even more
historical revisionism, and there's already plenty of that about. 
Those of us who work from memory present enough of a challenge to 
those who would rather forget some of the bullplops they try to 
foist off on readers as meaningful viewpoints.

And if you look in depth at all the questions which are raised on 
the net, some 90+ % have their answers in something as close as 
the nearest encyclopedia or "Information Almanac." I don't suppose
those folks would be any more inclined to retrieve info from CD's 
than they presently do from hardcopy.

>I think this would be really useful.  I can think of a number of past 
>discussions that I'd like to re-read from time to time.  For example, I
>still don't think anyone should be selling a CD-ROM full of old Usenet
>postings.  Did anyone save that thread?  I'd really like to re-read
>it and start that discussion ALL OVER AGAIN!  :-) :-) :-)

So Tom, would you really pay someone for storing that which you didn't
like well enough to save to your drive when it went through the first
time? Actually, given the cooperative nature in some quarters of the
net, it is possible if you posted a request for some particular thread,
someone might actually have saved it and they might be willing to
mail it to you.

Over the years, I have managed to archive every bit of info I thought
of personal interest, unless it was understood to be maintained in
a publically accessable FTP archive someplace. I can't think of a
single instance of a thread which would make me want to pour over
10 years of usenet postings to seek out something which I saw but
didn't save.

Bill Vajk

Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:657 news.admin:7080 comp.org.eff.talk:5412 misc.legal.computing:1955
From: jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey)
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 1992 03:17:40 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: ozona.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Jonathan Abbey (jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu)

In article <0H7IPQ2@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[...]
|  How about this message:
|
|	By posting this message you are requesting it be shipped
|	all over the world, maintained indefinitely at archive
|	sites (yes, what you write here will be available to anyone
|	who wants to pay a small fee... possibly as long as our
|	civilisation lasts), and saved for rereading by individual
|	Usenet members. You are not granting permission to newspapers
|	or magazines to quote you, nor for others to sell your
|	articles individually without paying you royalties. By
|	posting this article you are accepting full responsibility
|	for its contents, including any third party copyrights.
|	Do you want to do this (yn)? 
|
|  This would also tend to scare people into behaving far more effectively
|  than the "thousands of dollars" line.

Of course, if we wanted this to have any legal standing, the news posting
software would have to place a "Responsibility-Acknowledged-By: " field,
to indicate that the poster had in fact signed off on this.

If shrinkwrap licenses are having legal problems, I can't imagine that
making this an implied statement by virtue of it being published
through USENET would hold up.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tlimonce@drew.drew.edu
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Drew University - Alumni
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:02:32 GMT

In <e7@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> At that time, someone will suggest that netnews be reimplemented
> from the ground up with security and authenticity as prime
> concerns.

When someone posts that this will slow the system down to a halt, 2-3
posts will appear claiming that the speed will be worth it.  Claims
such as "if netnews isn't secure, it just doesn't have a future" will
be made.

Actually, I think Kent already said that.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I met and interesting person that way!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
From: yoshi@agora.uucp (Katherine Stewart)
Subject: Re: Credit Cards & Email
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:50:03 GMT



That "magic" box is a clearing house between the merchant/Visa (or mastercard)
/and the cardholder. I am not going to waste bandwidth giving out every little
step that takes place on a credit card approval transaction. Oops left out
the bank on that list!  The approval is what tells the cardholders bank that
the charge is valid. Also that system also protects the merchant from some
fraud, if a card is reported stolen the approval system will tell the 
merchant to confiscate and *destroy* the card on the spot. If it is an
error the issuing bank will replace it. The POS (point of sale) system is
not a requirement for merchants, but because of it's security it is very
popular with most merchants. The system spoken of is NOT secure or safe for
anyone using it.

-- 
Starguard 		yoshi@agora.rain.com 
"I can't change my mind, I only have one."
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:42:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <rx#nf+b.strnlght@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>. . . . 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.

Please.  Even if the mere existence of these postings by individuals
constituted a "Usenet social contract," the "social contract" theory
has not been embraced by contract law.  Perhaps by tort law, for which
case you are going to need duty, cause, negligence and injury to prove
any case.  Usenet is more properly viewed as an anarchy.  Then at least
no one is surprised when things get weird.


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:676 news.admin:7160 comp.org.eff.talk:5451 misc.legal.computing:1982
From: rsnyder@atl.ge.com (Bob Snyder)
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: 19 Aug 92 14:50:04 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs

In article <N3sNPB4w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:

>That day could be the end of netnews.

Imminent death of USENET predicted; film at 11.

Bob
-- 
Bob Snyder, Computing Services, GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
rsnyder@atl.ge.com, (609) 866-6672, FAX: (609) 866-6397, DialComm 8*777-6672
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics - IC Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:01:49 GMT

In <e3@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> This is always followed by someone who claims that they've figured
> out a way to do it.

Yeah, but then Henry or Geoff will beg them to explain their solution.
Tons of flamage will go back and forth because the explaination
won't be very well written.

Finally people will really understand the proposal.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I do it, and so do I!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@silky.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Credit Cards & Email
X-Quoted: 30%
Reply-To: mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:30:04 -0500

Thus said yoshi@agora.uucp (Katherine Stewart):
>                     I doubt if any bank (or even Visa or Mastercard themselves
>) would take kindly to a credit card number being transmitted via modem at
>this time. 

Really?  So, what does that box they use to obtain approvals for charges
over the telephone use?  Magic?  That approval is the only real record
made of the transaction that is checked unless something unusual is
detected, like you complaining.  At least there's a real signature in
that case, though.
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen     mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu     MIME accepted


Otherwise meaningful quotations lose all truth when put in a .sig file.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract?  NOT!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:40:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
: In article <1992Aug17.171337.10576@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
: >
: >In posting here, you enter into an contractual agreement - ignorance
: >of the terms does not alter them in the least.]
: 
: Horse hockey.
: 
: Find me an entity or person with whom I have a valid contract with for
: netnews.
: 
: You keep talking about this imaginary contract.  Are you trying to
: convince yourself?
: 
: Simply repeating something often enough does NOT make it true, as much
: as you might like to convince someone of the existence of this imaginary
: contractual arrangement.
: 
: If there were a contract, please specify exactly what you think is
: covered, what actions are required, what is the consideration, what are
: the penalties for non-completion, where is the assent?
: -- 
: Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
: news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
: There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"

In theory ;) each admin is supposed to determine a policy, and 
method of notifing users about use and abuse of ALL info systems that
fall into their domain. Since the development of USENET has been
ad hoc, I haven't seen a formal practice carried out. The long running
Copyright thread may prove that it is time to make this a standard 
procedure.


Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:12:31 GMT

In <YMDISC3@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Thanks for quoting it for me. It still makes sense. And once someone
>even took me up on it, so we have Clarinet. Maybe next time we'll get
>secure news.

Ok.  I've changed the shell script.  The next time I post it the
text will read:

"But Tom forgot that flame wars never end on Usenet.  In fact, this
would be about the time that Peter da Silva would chime in with
a bit of truth like:"

Is that better?

Tom
P.S.  Yes, I've automated the posting process.
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"Oh! I thought it was one of those useless demos of everything that
    a GUI builder could do." -Anonymous person watching demo of
         Solaris 2.0's graphical tool for managing NIS+
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:663 news.admin:7089 comp.org.eff.talk:5419 misc.legal.computing:1961