HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: News feed wanted in San Jose zone 2
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:51:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


We are located in the North Vally, San Jose. TEL: 408-436-8929(data)
408-437-3031 (voice). 

We are willing to feed other sites, if any up stream site
can feed us.(1 or 2, we have only 1 phone line and limit disk space).

Thanks.


kemnitz@netcom.com

Xref: sparky news.admin:7266 misc.legal.computing:2019
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:17:31 GMT
 <a_rubin.714853151@dn66> <1992Aug27.135436.28268@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Distribution: na

In <1992Aug27.135436.28268@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>In article <a_rubin.714853151@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:

>>That is what I see as weak point of the contract argument; there is no
>>identifiable party representing the net.  It's usually clear who the poster
>>is.
>>Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea

>If, as you say, there is no identifiable party representing the net, then
>who is jj and the others ever going to sue for copyright infringement if
>they ever decide to do it?  :-)  :-)

I can't speak for jj (jj doesn't seem to be doing very well either), but my
understand was that jj was going to sue some unspecified "non-usenet"
usenet sites, such as the CD-ROM distributor.  Now, it's clear that jj does
not have a contract with the CD-ROM distributor.  jj has specifically said
as much, and explicit denial is usually sufficient to void an implied
contract.  The question would be, then, does jj's outgoing feed have a
contract with ... the CD-ROM distributor.

Even this, if handled properly, wouldn't solve the problem of someone
posting someone else's copyrighted material.

I still side with Brad's command model.  News sites (including CD-ROM, and
pay-for-read, whatever that is) are allowing jj to use their resources to
transmit articles.  jj is issuing the instruction to trasmit the article,
and only jj is responsible for its content or distribution through normal
channels.  jj claims to be able to define "normal"; that would be a matter
for the courts to decide, but, historically, "normal" has included
newsfeeds by magtape, FAX (someone has reported), and probably almost any
machine-readable system.  I suspect publishing the article in the New York
Times would be an infringement, but I'm not even sure of that.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Xref: sparky news.admin:7437 news.announce.newgroups:1080
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:30:18 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard):
>You [jj@alice] started this way back when because you didn't like
>Stargate, and included a copyright notice that said "you may
>redistribute only if your recipients can" (or words to that effect).

I invented that phrase.  Whether jj used it is another matter.
-- 
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
From: ses@cmns-moon.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:36:08
Organization: What's your clearance, citizen?
	<1992Aug28.184706.1950@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug28.211823.24785@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com>
	<1992Aug28.231336.4916@portal.hq.videocart.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmns.think.com
In-reply-to: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:13:36 GMT


I just sat down and wrote a little perl script that scans through a list
of newsgroups for postings by C'thulhu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mutlu which have been
crossposted to more than 4 groups, and contructs cancel messages to remove
them.  Although I have tested it by printing the cancel messages to the screen,
I have not run this script with a bullet in the chamber, and I don't intend
to do so.

On the one hand canceling someone else's postings is the Usenet equivalent
of walking down a corridor tearing down someone else's posters; on the other
hand Mutlu's activities are seriously disrupting many newsgroups, and are 
well beyond the bounds of decent Nettiquette. Is it time to take action, or
would any such action lead to Imminent Death Of The Net?

One solution might be to hold a vote; If so, I'd suggest a much higher 
threshold than usual - 2/3rds yes, 200 more yes than no - as any action 
would be setting a fairly big precedent. 

Another would be to let the former members of the backbone cabal hold a 
session of Stupid People Court, and dispense summary justice.

Note that I'm not suggesting that Mutulu be banned; only that the inappropriate
crossposting be stopped, and that the volume reduced to appropriate levels. 
If completely canceling the messages is too strong, then cancelling and then 
reposting to a designated newsgroup would be almost as good, albeit at the
cost of some extra bandwidth (Did somebody mention sci.aquaria.mutlu?)

Simon
p.s.
	Whenever I see a British National Party poster or sticker, I 
	always rip it down or peel it off. 
--
-----
Guest account at TMC 	|	Just Another  WAIS Hacker | DOD# 0612
Xref: sparky news.admin:7277 misc.legal.computing:2027
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:55:01 GMT
 <a_rubin.714853151@dn66> <1992Aug27.135436.28268@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> <a_rubin.714932251@dn66> <23572@alice.att.com>
Distribution: na

I and apparently many others have apparently misinterpreted jj; I apolgize
to jj; and I won't use jj as an example of the problem in the future;
however, the implied contract (offer) model seems incompatible with jj's
copyright, as USENET is not defined.  (I accept that pay-for-read is
defined by jj, but, unless a definition appears in jj's signature, this is
a little worse than a hidden shrink-wrap license.)

I will not quote jj's comments relating to my error in the following.

In <23572@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj, old curmudgeon) writes:

>In article <a_rubin.714932251@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>>I still side with Brad's command model.  News sites (including CD-ROM, and
>>pay-for-read, whatever that is) are allowing jj to use their resources to
>>transmit articles. 
>Utterly false, they can reject articles if they want.  If they don't like 
>people who are trying to make it clear that USENET is a legal use
>of the article, that's THEIR problem, not mine.  Then, they
>should reject them, like some "enlightened" people have
>suggested that we should all reject any copyrighted material,
>just because someone has some respect for intellectual property
>rights.

By posting to a USENet (or altnet, or uw. group), the poster must somehow
authorize sites to propagate that post.  If a copyright notice is
incompatible with that, unless we go to the command model, any site
automatically accepting or further propagating the message in violation of
that copyright, or, for that matter, any copyright of the author who is not
the poster, would be in violation of copyright.  We need a legal model in
which the poster is solely responsible for the content of his/her post. 
(Imminent death of USENet predicted.)  The command model has that property.
The implied contract does not, because, if the poster didn't have the right
to distribute it, each downstream site also doesn't have the right.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Xref: sparky news.admin:7402 news.misc:1598 news.config:374 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:12151 comp.os.msdos.misc:5001 news.sysadmin:1250
From: mjo@ef2007.efhd.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,news.config,fido.unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Need to know about Fido-Usenet gatewaying!
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
Followup-To: news.sysadmin
Organization: International Affairs, Overseas Engineering, "Fordz"
X-Disclaimer: Not an official spokesperson for Ford OPEO

Situation:

I would like to gateway existing local Fidonet echoes into a local
Usenet system.  I would like for this to be a bi-directional gateway,
such that the Usenet people can post and have their posts "make it"
into the Fidonet universe.  I also want mail to work, such that a Fido
person can mail someone that posts from the Usenet easily and vice
versa.  Low-fuss maintenance is a priority.

What I have:

A.  A user with a PC who's more than willing to transmogrify his
echoes in a reasonable fashion such that they make it to the Usenet.

B.  A site that talks UUCP that'd very much prefer to receive the
Fidonet echoes as news batches.

C.  Someone who knows a bit from both the Unix and MS-DOS end who
wants to see this thing happen and is willing to sweat over a hot PC,
gallantly sacrificing time and energy to do the initial setup.  :)

What I think I need:

A.  Software at the MS-DOS end that mutates the Fido echoes we want
into properly-formed UUCP batches in an organized manner.

B.  Software that can talk UUCP to the Unix/Usenet end in an automated
fashion (i.e. when the rest of the Fido transfers are taking place.)

C.  Some idea of the administrative issues that may occur.  I want to
help both the Fido and Usenet communities, not tick them off.

Any assistance would be *greatly* appreciated.  I have directed
followups to news.sysadmin, but if people don't have access to that,
feel free to send me email.  I'd like to get this going relatively
quickly (Labor Day?).  I will post a summary of how I make things
work, *if* I manage to make things work.


						...Mike

-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
From: bsweet@crash.cts.com (Bill Sweetman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: HELP, cnews batch ...
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:08:28 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA


=-=-=
All -

I received a few responses to my plea for help in fixing my news
feed problem ... all asking for more information.  I'll try and be
a little more specific:
   Sun Sparc station 1
   SunOs 4.1.1
   cnews (uucp P-news)

my child sites are not receiving any news, only email.
I don't see any batch files created (C.xxx D.xxx)
but the 'togo' files are full.

some error messages that i see:
   batching possilby stalled for sites:
   sdcrsi

   space shortage(s) limited batching       72 times

how do i start the news batcher??  

any help is greatly appreciated, even some explainations on
the previous error messages would be great.  thanks
for all your help.

ciao,
-bill
   sweetman@sea.com  |  bsweet@crash.com
=-=-=
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HELP, cnews batch ...
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:10:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug27.200829.2376@crash> bsweet@crash.cts.com (Bill Sweetman) writes:
>I don't see any batch files created (C.xxx D.xxx)
>but the 'togo' files are full.
>
>some error messages that i see:
>   batching possilby stalled for sites:
>   sdcrsi
>
>   space shortage(s) limited batching       72 times
>
>how do i start the news batcher??  

The news batcher is getting started just fine, but it thinks you are
too low on space for it to safely create batches.  You need either more
disk space or adjustments to the "spacefor" program, possibly both.
-- 
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
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 1 Sep 1992 21:34:10 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <23608@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
>The law is clear.  If it's not in the public domain, you
>can't copy it.  That's why I put a license in my articles.
>If I didn't, I'd be encouraging people to break the law.

Aw, cmon. You started this way back when because you didn't like Stargate, and
included a copyright notice that said "you may redistribute only if your
recipients can" (or words to that effect). Don't get high and mighty on us. We
know better.

>I don't know why so many people have such a problem with copyright
>law, and why they feel compelled to make USENET a public domain
>network. There's nothing to be gained by making it a PD network,
>and a lot to be lost.  Claiming that it is when it clearly isn't
>and can't be as its currently set up is only inviting some disagreeable
>sod to make trouble.

...using the handle "alice!jj".

The problem is that Usenet cannot exist if arbitrary copyright notices, not in
a standard format that can be easily and cheaply distinguished in the process
of the machine making the copy of the article, are allowed to stand. If I say
"Copyright 1992 James R. Maynard III. Permission is hereby granted to copy
this article to any machine except for machines named alice and owned by AT&T
or its subsidiaries.", do you really support not allowing the network software
to copy this article to your machine?? How can it filter this article out at a
cost less than a full solution to the AI Problem?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: brockr@muvaxf.rferl.org (The Delicate Sound of Thunder)
Subject: dropping hunfreds of groupd?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Radio Free Europe
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:34:00 GMT


Hi,
qthis may noy be the place to ask but I am using nntp 1.5.11 and vnews 1.4.1
ehenever I get to access vnews I get the too many groups, droppimg

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
etc ad infinitum

am i doing somethinh werong or just using old software?

regards,

                Nigel (mallettn@rferl.org, sys man)
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:39:25 GMT
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI

In article <SES.92Aug28233608@cmns-moon.think.com> ses@cmns-moon.think.com (Simon Edward Spero) writes:
"
"I just sat down and wrote a little perl script that scans through a list
"of newsgroups for postings by C'thulhu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mutlu which have been
"crossposted to more than 4 groups, and contructs cancel messages to remove
"them.  Although I have tested it by printing the cancel messages to the screen,
"I have not run this script with a bullet in the chamber, and I don't intend
"to do so.
"

I seem to recall someone else in the past who was accused of cancelling
others postings (although it was not done intentionally, but due to 
local postings getting out on the net...). 
 
Lets see if you are all so quick to condemn ses@cmns-moon.think.com as you
were to condemn this other fellow. Then we'll see if double standards
exist....
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.090054.15897@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>As a typical example, I think the book "The Communist Manifesto" has
>lead to more death and repression than just about anything in history,
>including Hitler.   Those following that book have, both by being
>misguided and by corrupting its message (but using its appeal as a tool)
>killed millions of people and repressed and placed into poverty over
>a billion people.   A BILLION PEOPLE.

More death and repression than the Bible?  Maybe.

(BTW, as a cynic, I tend to think that many of those billion people would
have been no better off without Communism - there's never been a shortage
of tyrants, dictators, conquerors...)

>And then I see people quoting studies that say "Well, we showed some violent
>porn to some men and they tended afterwards to have a slightly
>more tolerant attitude towards violence against women" and they conclude
>"ban porn."  But these same people would never ban Marx.   Yet for them, a
>slight change in attitudes is enough to ban something, and a billion people
>with ruined or shortened lives is not enough.

A while back, I read the book "Perfect Victim", about a young woman
who was kidnapped and used as a sex slave by a man (with the more
or less willing complicity of his wife).  The man used two sources
to justify himself:  hard-core B&D magazines, and the Bible (lots of
interesting stuff in there about submitting to the master, about how
slaves should be docile).

The book, of course, was full of moralizing about how awful porn is.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:37:40 GMT

In <1992Aug28.033102.6114@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager) writes:

>In article 13625@fid.morgan.com, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <X7PNPB22w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>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".
>>
>>No, precisely the correct analogy.  "A copy of my article went to John
>>(and was made by his fax machine).  I didn't even know that John had a
>>fax machine; how can I have consented to having my article distributed
>>on a machine I didn't even know existed?"

>A fax machine is not a copying device.  The person with the fax machine
>did not make a copy, since he was not is possession of an original.  
>John made no copy, if anyone made any copy in your senario, you did.  In
>fact, only you could, since you and you alone had the original.  Whether
>by inattention, inadvertance or incompetance, you sent someone a copy which
>you did not mean to.  

Funny, just a month ago, at a tax conference, someone brought up the
possiblity that a fax machine may be a "copying machine" for the purpose of
depreciation.  Definitions are not always clear.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:59:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23616
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <252@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Has anyone yet resolved the question of whether USENET has been established
>to be a "tangible medium"?
Well, I'm reading your article, yes?

Yes, actualy, it's a good question.  That seems to be irrelevant
to the current discussion, which clearly claims that it can
create tangible (i.e. printed en-masse) copies at will.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Xref: sparky news.admin:7434 news.announce.newusers:137 news.answers:2779