HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:07:48 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Jul24.180926.694@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
> On the other hand, my vague memories of the Stargate discussions are that
> "common carrier status" has no clear cut guidelines on how it can be
> obtained.

Common carriers have adequately documented that they do certain things
in the right ways, and as a reward for this they get a status which lets
them toss off most lawsuits. This doesn't mean that you have to become a
common carrier in order to win the lawsuits. If you and your neighbors
set up an automatic mechanism which lets someone send a message to all
your neighbors simply by sending it to you, why should you be liable for
the contents of the messages?

---Dan
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:36:23 GMT

The HAM ruling still disturbs me.   Yes, HAM traffic is far more restricted.
The courts seem to have ruled that somebody setting up a relay has a duty
of care to make sure the repeater is not used in violation of those principles.

USENET traffic does not have anywhere near the regulations that HAM
traffic does.  Nor should it.

But it is not free of restrictions.  It is still a violation of law to send
pirated material over USENET, and still a tort to publish defamatory
material.  In some jurisdictions, there are questions of obscenity, etc.

If the courts rule that the operators of repeaters (and that is what
most USENET sites are in part, no analogy about it) have a duty of care
to assume that what they relay violates no laws, we are in trouble no
matter what model we hold for the operation of USENET.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:49:56 GMT

In article <mwm.18uf@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>I wonder what it would take to convince the admins at enough news
>sites feel the same way about copying articles with copyrights that it
>would noticably change the propogation of such articles?

Depends what you mean by change.  I would want to *increase* the propagation
of said articles.  Leaving aside the ones where the copyright message is
just a gesture, the real issue is the articles that are truly valuable
and need the protection the author is claiming.

Such articles posted to USENET are a gift, and a valuable gift.  We
should encourage them.  Why should it be so important that they be
usable beyond the one-time posting that we would want to discard them?

I say, bring on the stuff that's worth paying for but which is donated
for one-time use only.   Blocking it seems like a silly thing to do.
"We won't accept your gift unless it's on our terms and is universally
given to everybody forever."   What a strange attidude to advocate.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:19:34 GMT

alice!jj has real problems defining the undefinable term ``USENET'':

In <23296@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com) writes:
>USENET does not include 
>printed media other (perhaps, this is grey, but I'm not prone to
>arguing it) than printed articles to "take home" or whatever.
>It may or may not include CD-ROM depending on the use.  It clearly
>doesn't include newspapers in any form, nor posters in any 
>form.  

OK, fine.  ``USENET'' may or may not include some form of printing.  It may or
may not include some form of CD-ROM.  However:

>Insistance to the contrary doesn't change the
>fact that USENET HAS no standard rules, 

If ``USENET'' has no standard rules, then how can you claim that your
``copyright'' permissions amount to anything more than a hill of beans?  Your
permission has no meaning because ``USENET'' has no meaning.

>is a volunteer
>organization (to the extent it has any organization),

First you say ``USENET'' has no rules, then suddenly it begins to operate as a
volunteer organization!  ``USENET'' has *never* operated as a volunteer
organization, no matter what you believe.  As soon as someone incorporates and
establishes tax-exempt status for an organization named ``USENET'', then
*that* organization becomes a volunteer organization.  Of course, then they
could sue you over misuse of their name! :-)

>and that it is an electronic network that functions primarily
>on the electroinc representation of ASCII bytes.

Finally! An almost acceptable definition of the transmission of netnews!
However, you still don't provide a meaningful distinction between netnews and
CompuServe, which I assume you place in the ``pay-per-read'' category.

>USENET should be happy that some of us explicitly allow 
>copying over USENET, because all those copyrighted articles
>with no notice and/or license may not in lebal principle
>be copyable across the network.

First you accuse someone else of anthropomorphising your ``copyright''
permissions, now you anthropomorphize a non-existant thing you call
``USENET''!  Give it up!  :-)  Your copyright notice contains only six
meaningful words:

>    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved

The rest of the notice has no meaning since you refer to a non-existant entity
which you call ``USENET'', and which you seem to believe consists of some sort
of ``free'' service, since you compare it to something called a
``pay-per-read'' service.  Since a netnews feed costs real money (I pay for a
home feed, Motorola pays directly or indirectly for various feeds, AT&T pays
directly or indirectly for feeds), the service does not come free in any sense
of the word except your apparant freedom to misinterpret it.

If you insist on applying caveats to your copyright notice, please make them
meaningful caveats.

I love a good flame-fest!

/Joe
copyright? what's a copyright?
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject: Someone is feeding articles back into Usenet
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:14:43 GMT
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting

Finally!  I knew I was seeing duplicates but since no one else mentioned
it I was afraid there was something wrong at my site.  A message that I
recently posted however just came back and suggests that the problem is
not local.  Here are the headers from the recent message:

>Path: druid!telly!moore!torsqnt!utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!fuug!demos!kiae!glas!demos!druid.uucp!darcy
>From: darcy@druid.uucp
>Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
>Subject: Simple preprocessor
>Message-ID: <1992Jul17.232621.20226@druid.uuc>
>Date: 18 Jul 92 09:26:00 GMT
>Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>
>Lines: 62
>Nf-ID: #N:1992Jul17.232621.20226@druid.uuc:-1295377463:001:2384
>Nf-From: druid.uucp!darcy    Jul 18 03:26:00 1992

The differences from my original message are the addition of the Sender,
Lines, Nf-ID and Nf-From lines, a different date and stripping off the p
from uucp in the Message-ID line.  This last of course is the main culprit
in resending the message everywhere.  Can someone closer to Moscow please
help clear this up.  I have emailed alexz@glas about this but it is possible
that the problem is occuring before it gets to him so I am posting as well.

Thanks.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid.com)  |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting              |   There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada            |   like no government!
+1 416 424 2871          DoD#0082   |
Xref: sparky news.admin:6136 alt.sex.bondage:14409 alt.censorship:6246 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2384
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 12:56:44 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
> Just one point, so far as European countries being more liberal in their
> attitudes, there is one obvious exception.
> This one, the good 'ol United Kingdom.
> Alt.sex.* dosn't even make it in to the country, which sounds even more
> silly when you realise that one of the main feeds into the UK for netnews
> is via the Netherlands.

Oh, yes it does.  Alt.sex.* have been available in the UK for years.  They
just aren't available from most JANET sites.

> If you find a site in the UK, with an uncensored feed, then they probably
> have a feed bypassing the UKC backbone site.

Not necessarily.  They might just get the articles mailed over their UKnet
feed.

> Yes you can show _anything_ so long as it is 'educational', ordinary
> books, films and videos have a list as long as your arm (thats in stacked
> fanfold paper :-) ) of what cannot be shown, mentioned or whatever.

Actually, the Obscene Publications Act doesn't have anything as useful as a
list of what is and is not allowed.  Magazines and video sellers have to find
out the hard way, by gradually getting more and more explicit until they're
raided, then dropping back a little towards tameness.  Many magazines have
their own guidelines -- like the recently publicized For Women magazine,
which uses a protractor to check that the male models' erections are below a
threshold angle.  [ Now there's an interesting job. ]  Such guidelines have no
legal basis, however.


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 02:05:25 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Jul29.030255.28743@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Tell me, curmudgeon, would you agree that posting something on 
>netnews forms a contract between you and the owners of the macines
>you are using?  or will you summarily deny that reality too?

As much as I hate to agree with the mysterious "alice!jj", I'm going to have
to over this point.

The length, volume, and vehemence of this debate is ample evidence that there
is indeed no meeting of the minds on the issue; no agreement, no contract.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:12:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23257
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <17080@autodesk.COM> booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
>to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.

Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.

Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:08:46 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <6998@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>2) I strongly doubt that "alice!jj" is a legally acceptable way to identify
>that particular person.

Especially since mail sent to "alice!jj" bounces from a site in unisys.com
named "alice", instead of going to "alice.att.com" which is what I assume
"alice!jj" is intended to refer to.

Either there's a conflict in the maps, or uh.edu's maps are wonky.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky news.admin:6366 comp.org.eff.talk:5002 misc.legal.computing:1616
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:59:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul28.011242.14896@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew 
Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> This pay-for-computer-access is total bull.  No one reading netnews
> pays for the use of the computer: if they pay, they pay for the 
> information they are getting.  All the semantics in the world don't
> change that.

And they may copy that INFORMATION freely.  the INFORMATION is not 
copyrighted.  However, the EXPRESSION in which the information is expressed 
may not be copied without a copyright violation, subject to licensing and 
fair use and similar statutory exceptions.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: College of Computing
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.161934.15153@mdd.comm.mot.com> kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey) writes:
>alice!jj has real problems defining the undefinable term ``USENET'':
>
>>Insistance to the contrary doesn't change the
>>fact that USENET HAS no standard rules, 
>
>If ``USENET'' has no standard rules, then how can you claim that your
>``copyright'' permissions amount to anything more than a hill of beans?  Your
>permission has no meaning because ``USENET'' has no meaning.

This is the easiest question I've had today.  If Usenet had never
existed on the face of this planet, copyright restrictions would still
be in force.  The fact that it does exist (whether as something
with no rules or a volunteer organization) doesn't change copyright
law.  There are no special provisions in copyright law dealing
with Usenet, so we must assume that copyrights are reserved to the
author.  The law gives presumption of copyright to the author.  Just because
there are no ``rules'' doesn't mean you can ignore copyright law.

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.readers
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:48:03 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Reply-To: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Followup-To: news.software.readers

jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch) writes:

> booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>
> >I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
> >to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
> 
> Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.
> 
> Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
> something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
> the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.

Only if you're using some brain-dead newsreader that won't let you direct
your own followup to the newsgroup of your choice. Newsgroups in a Followup-To
shouldn't be strictly obeyed with no chance to override, they should be
considered a suggestion by the poster. If your newsreader won't let you do
anything about those newsgroups when you reply to postings, then complain to
the author who wrote it or the sysadmin who installed it or whatever.

								- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 63 3551342
"Jub'f Xvob?"
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:04:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:

>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it?

I think Scott accidentally asked the right question.

It is up to _me_ whether _I_ let _my_ seven-year-old read it.  It is
not up to Scott, nor Congress, nor the local police department.

> Can a seven year old get into
>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>adult book store censorship as well?

Yes it is.  The child's parents have the right to control what the
child sees; a bunch of people who want the child to grow up naive,
innocent, and foolish do not.

> I grew up in an very open family sex
>was NOT an issue to hide. We would talk about sex in a very open matter. I
>still do not belive that an seven year old can really understand what is
>going on. in alt.sex.* or reading penthouse ect. 

So?  A seven-year-old probably can't understand a lot of things.
Should you prevent him from learning by keeping him away from anything
he might not understand?

> If I had a child I may or may not let
>him/her read it.

That's your decision.

>I feel that censorship is wrong in all forms EXCEPT when it comes to YOUNG
>children. The way I see it you are for children to see and read alt.sex.* so
>therefor do you belive that child pornography is ok too? That could be
>censorship as well. 

It is censorship.  I'm against child abuse; I don't care about child
pornography.  (If somebody writes a story in which one fictional
character has sex with another fictional character who is depicted as
being 12 years old, what child is injured?)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:6104 comp.org.eff.talk:4776 misc.legal.computing:1444
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:04:36 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <1992Jul23.190525.29053@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>We can only list that as an expectation if there is no copyright licence
>on the material.   

Putting a copyright notice in a USENET posting does nothing to change
the behaviour of USENET software; thus, it is lunacy to base one's
expectations of the behaviour of USENET on the presence or absence of a
copyright notice.

>This is not, in my belief, something we get a choice about.  It is simply
>the facts.

As is the worldwide copying of material posted to USENET. You can
choose what group and distribution to put on your posting, but you have
NO choice over who gets copies of things from those groups or
distributions.

>The default in copyright law is that you can't copy without
>the clear permission of the copyright holder.   

Posting is clear permission of the poster. If he is also the copyright
holder, then it is clear permission of the copyright holder. 

>You can argue that the
>absence of a licence on a usenet posting is equivalent to that permission,

There is no need to argue this. The ACT of posting is the act of
granting permission.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:19:13 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
>Ok, Chip - you win.

"Please don't throw me into the briar patch!"  :-)

>If I've accepted an article from my feed, then anything it does on my
>system is authorized. That includes cancels.

That's exactly right, in my opinion.

>So canceling an article *isn't* an unathorized use, and not illegal.

Right.  It _is_, however, inconsiderate at best to cancel others'
articles for no reason other than personal opinion of appropriate
cross-posting.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6247 comp.org.eff.talk:4881 misc.legal.computing:1521
From: vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:41:08 GMT

From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
>
>personally i would like to see a Copyright: header so that we can at least
>pick out the articles with explicit copyrights.
>

And delete them.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:04:01 GMT

In <1992Jul21.010753.8114@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:

>>The copyright looks valid. The question is what does "All rights
>>except usenet transmission... reserved" mean? There is no legal entity
>>called usenet. 

>He could have also said "all rights except phone transmission..." and
>there is no legal entity called phone, but you understand it anyway.

Folks, analogies can explain your argument, but analogies alone do not
make an argument.  Before you use an analogy, have an argument that
stands on its own.  *Then* you can use an analogy to help make your
argument.

And get the analogy right!  Usenet is not a transmission mechanism...it
is a distributed bulletin board system that uses various transmission
mechanisms, telephone services included.  Perhaps you could think of
Usenet at the Application and Session levels in the ISO model.  Telephone
service would be near the bottom.  UUCP and ntp would be in the middle
somewhere.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
also: dhesi@rahul.net
"He's metabolically challenged, Jim."
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing