HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Aston University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:07:40 GMT

dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe) writes:
: 
: Also remember that the fact that the word "bondage" is in the name of the 
: newsgroup (or bestiality or whatever) sends out a very, VERY negative 
: impression to most mainstream people.  They think our practices are weird 
: and only for the mentally sick, not anything a stable person would do.  
: On the other hand IMHO we all have less qualms about ways to express our 
: sexuality, and are more apt to explore different practices.
Also do these newsgroups not tell people how to perform potentially dangerous
activites safely???
There are plenty of newsgroups which send out suggestions that are less
that flattering to people.
e.g.
alt.suicide.holiday
or whatever...
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:49:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.084133.5751@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall) writes:
> In article <14b4hcINNdub@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul15.204128.28013@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> >
> >And what precisely would you make of my .signature?  As far as everyone
> >who actually knows anything about copyright law has ever told me,
> >and what I've read in the law, it's perfectly valid and will hold up in court
> >if anyone breaks it.
> 
> The copyright looks valid. The question is what does "All rights
> except usenet transmission... reserved" mean? There is no legal entity
> called usenet.  You can't possibly know how all the sites in the world
> which constitute what we loosely call usenet transmit their news so it
> is pretty difficult for anyone (say a court) to determine what your
> condition means and whether a particular means of copying violates your
> condition or not. Where is it written down that usenet excludes
> hardcopy, cd roms etc?
> 
> Sure you own the copyright on anything you write (and outside the US
> you don't even need the copyright notice), but posting it to usenet is
> in effect an implicit granting of the right to anyone to make whatever
> copies they like.
> 

By posting a copyright and then filing the copyright, you enable yourself
to claim statutory damages if a fool like me decides to write a book 
based on or including your post.  But you are right, giving a work
to the usenet community permits anyone who want a personal copy to 
make one, even if you do copyright.  

Obviously, most of us who copyright (& I occaisionally do) hold our
own works in higher esteem than the average person does.


-- 
"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 news.admin:6294 comp.org.eff.talk:4928 misc.legal.computing:1555
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles - What about CANCELS?
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:29:57 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <JAAPJL.92Jul28121302@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov> jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
>Someone would issue a cancel (justified, IMO), and the article would
>be removed from all systems (automatically, or by the newsadmin who
>gets mail because he's disabled cancels).

Now *there's* a very interesting point.  How does the CD transmission
mechanism cope with cancels?  Recall all the CDs and replace them?

This is a *serious* point: I once posted a hyphenation program to
alt.sources and was immediately jumped on by a senior person from
AT&T who said the code was based on part of their troff source (It
wasn't - it was based on one of their technical papers which was
published - but I wasn't going to take on AT&T single-handed :-( )

Anyway, I had to issue a cancel and personally check all the archives
and ask for copies to be removed.  What the hell would happen if
5000 CDs had gone out with this code on it?

Graham
Xref: sparky news.admin:6040 comp.org.eff.talk:4747 misc.legal.computing:1422
From: jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:43:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23273
Distribution: world
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In <23244@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old grump curmudgeon) wrote:
> In article <mwm.17wz@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>In other words, this sounds like the "no for-profit redistribution".
>But the first case does exactly that.
Does what?  First, you replace my words with your
phrase "no for-profit redistribution".  Those words that you
use are, you are well aware, are NOT what I've
said, you've misquoted me in order to set up your
straw man, that you'd like to burn down.  Well, pardon
me if I scream "fire" while it burns.

>So we now have two unanswered questions instead of one.
Both of which exist only in your head.

>Say, for instance, a magazine/newsletter that I publish and give, or
>that someone else publishes and gives away, and I don't get paid for.
>But from your comment above, that's not clear at all.
You'll have to go some to convince anyone that a magazine is
"usenet-like", that a magazine is propagated automatically
in computers, and is never printed on paper except by the
end-user.

>But that sounds like charging a
>premium for netnews, which you explictly stated *wasn't* ok.
Only to you, it sounds like that.


>Am I violating your copyright?
Doesn't sound like it.

Then again, if you were doing that, you COULD drop me a note
like lots of sensible system admins have done, and gotten
permission to do so at no cost, thereby disambiguating
the situation completely, just because you asked
nicely.

More than one person doing something they thought was "questionable"
has asked.  I've said "no" to exactly one person, and that because
it WAS what I considered the equivalent of publication.  That
person has honored my copyright, by the way.
-- 
 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.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 03:41:31 GMT

In article <23274@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon) writes:
>I find it surprising that so many computer professionals have so little
>regard for intellectual property when it's in bytes instead of paper.
>Especially since their livelihood depends on their like intellectual
>property.
>-- 
> 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.

copyrights, like anything else, lose their signifigance(sp?) when plastered
across everything.

putting a copyright in your .sig is like forcing people to sign a waiver 
against injury/disease before using a public toilet.

it makes no sense.

now, if your article contained some useful/creative information, it might
warrant a copyright, but you insist on using a copyright as a tool for
limiting distribution, not to protect your words from abuse.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[      "'Tis better to clutch a glowing squid than curse the darkness."       ]
[                                                     Archie McPhee Catalog   ]
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: alan@ernest.dseg.ti.com (Alan Edmonds)
Subject: Re: a notes site is at it again
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc. - Plano, Tx
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:44:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.081518.23288@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>Yes, that beloved messaging system from hell is at it again.
>
>glas.apc.org (which appears to be the same as the Moscow site glas.uucp)
>is corrupting article Message-ID's and spewing them back into the net
>through their notes gateway.

Now where is that auto canceler when you need him? :-)

-- 
Alan Edmonds                                     Texas Instruments, Inc.
I don't speak for TI; TI doesn't speak for me    M/S 8513
Work phone: (214)575-6427                        6620 Chase Oaks Blvd.
Email: alan@ernest.dseg.ti.com                   Plano, Texas  75023
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: canceller's address again
Date: 14 Jul 92 10:50:20 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >How can I set it up so that someone coming along and cancelling hundreds of
> >articles he didn't post isn't a problem for me?
> 
> Disable cancels at your site.

Doesn't help if the cancel catches the article before the article reaches my
site.


mathew
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: thompsop@cognos.com (Paul Thompson)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Summary: Cascading not illegal! 
Organization: Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:56:36 GMT

	There is no way IN HELL that cross posting is illegal.  The arguement that
it constitutes 'unauthorized' use of the system is not well founded.  There
are no authorities on the net.  Who could 'authorize' what is appropriate
or inappropriate to be cross posted.  Admittedly, cascading is extremely
annoying, but it is not illegal.  Even the proposition that what the mad
canceler did is illegal is dubious at best.  I seriously doubt the courts
would accept that as a criminal matter.  Besides, what kind of evidence could
one possibly submit that would be accepted in a court. (Well, we all talked
for two months or so.......)

-- 
Paul Thompson                        Standard Disclaimers Apply 
thompsop@cognos.com                  Random quotes from random
(613) 738-1338  x3489                       individuals here: 
	                   
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:55:10 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:

>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>	Eh?  Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>>material they find offensive?
>
>     No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.

Oh?  I suppose you're one of these people who believe that pornography
causes rape, even with evidence to the contrary?  Foolishness.  


>>  Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>
>     What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"?  It's a
>piece of violent erotica.  You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.

Again, who cares?  What is your point here?
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Followup-To: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:11:22 GMT

In article <8153.Jul2521.07.4892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>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?

I don't know, but apparently Amateur Radio repeater operators have been
held liable for the contents of messages they relayed

I'm crossposting this to rec.radio.amateur.policy for support, refutation,
and clarification. Followups directed back to the original groups.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky news.admin:6404 comp.org.eff.talk:5036 misc.legal.computing:1643
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:14:24 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: e3e9825075a1109dd726d740e6e29651

In article <21TH7U6@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.161343.12432@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>>In article <08QHG06@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>I don't know, but apparently Amateur Radio repeater operators have been
>>>held liable for the contents of messages they relayed
>
>>The recent situation with Amateur Radio had nothing to do with
>>copyright (nor with "liabel or slander" for that matter).
>
>Yes, but it DID hold repeater operators liable for the contents of
>messages they relayed, even though they had no mechanism for controlling
>those contents. The details of the messages themselves are not relevant:
>the fact that they were responsible for them is.
>
>I was not making an analogy. I hate people trying to explain Usenet by
>means of analogy. I was pointing out a VERY relevant precedent. And a
>very scary one, too.

There is a *very* significant difference in the situation.  The Radio
Operators are licensed by the government in their use of a "scarce
resource" (the electromagnetic spectrum) which the government is
administering in "public trust".   The Radio Operators, whether Amateur
or "Professional/Commercial" have always been held responsible for the
contents of what is broadcast on the EM spectrum.

Usenet is, on the other hand, a "cable" service.  Carried on the
equivalent of telephone circuits, and thus falls under the rules that
have abounded in that medium for a long time.  The "telephone company"
IS a common carrier, not responsible for the contents of the messages
carried.  There is no "scarce resource held in public trust" here.  If
more capacity is needed, add another wire or circuit and adjust the
parameters of the system, voila!

Usenet, despite several models proposed to the contrary, is not a
broadcast medium.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.binaries.apple2 moderated
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 01:21:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul24.103011.6265@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.035052.2177@uunet.uu.net> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg "Life..." Berigan) writes:
>>   Neither the moderator nor his assistants should be held responsible in
>>   any way if a virus or commercial program slips through.  The moderator
>>   and assistants will expend effort to try to ensure this doesn't happen,
>>   but no guarantees are expressed nor implied that that these efforts will
>>   be 100% effective.  The moderator and assistants reserve the right to
>>   cancel any posting in comp.binaries.apple2 that is deemed inappropriate.
>>						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I'm not sure I like that last part (mind you, I'm still for moderation).
>Maybe it should be "... deemed inappropriate as stated in the charter"?
 
Agreed, it should be spelled out exactly in the charter. If it does pass,
lets at least iron out any apparent problems.

>-Tero Sand

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: soc.culture.tamil
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca (K.Srinivasan)
Organization: IREQ, Hydro-Quebec, QC, Canada
Originator: srini@acr

sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) says:
     ---------------------------
 "The results of the newsgroup `soc.
 culture.tamil' was posted on 8th July
 and soc.culture.tamil passed 645:143.
 In the five days waiting period that
 followed, only four corrections were
 pointed out in the net and I took into
 account all of them and incorporated
 the corrections suggested promptly. 
 The result after the five days waiting
 period was 645: 144 and soc.culture.tamil
 passed in the voting with a margin of
 nearly 500 votes."
   ------------------------------
I would like to add that in the 20 days (not just 5 days)
that followed the posting of final voters list, there has been
NO ADDITIONAL ERRORS REPORTED BY ANY ONE
  ---------------------------------
 "( Soc.culture.tamil 
 is receiving about 150 articles per week,
 while soc.culture.nepal is receiving about
 15-20 articles per week. )"
 -----------------------------------
That gives a good indication that the number of people interested
in forming s.c.tamil could easily have been 10 times those for
s.c.nepal, which had passed. A number like 645 Yes votes for
s.c.tamil appears not at all high by any standards.
     
The authenticity of the votes is 
 already established in the results and the e-mail address list posted

K. Srinivasan srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:42:56 GMT
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Jul20.190105.23028@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
|In article <1992Jul17.203501.26417@uunet.uu.net> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|
|>Create:
|>  comp.unix.usg.svr3         System V Release 3.
|>  comp.unix.usg.svr4         System V Release 4.
|>  comp.unix.usg.misc         Other versions of System III and System V.
|
|    Usg?  What the heck is usg?  Look, I'm not a rank amateur here, but
|    what about persons just starting out in Unix?  How are they going
|    to know what usg is?
|
|    We around Chicago refer to Unix as Berkeley (or BSD), System 5,
|    System 7, SunOS etcetera.  I haven't heard the term usg in ages.
|    Drop it.
|

I agree here -- if you want to distinguish between BSD and "that other Unix,"
just use "att" or "at+t" or whatever.  Who cares if it's technically correct
-- it's certainly clearer than "usg".


ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:31:54 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to t9114145@phillip.edu.au:
>I have heard of an Amiga emulator for Unix too - written on a Sun system
>I believe. No graphics, just file system and some basic text-only stuff.

That's nice, but until it has substantial discussion, I wouldn't
worry.  We can't deform the hiearchy for every future development that
may or may not happen.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.sys.sgi reorganization
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:30:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.033048.13776@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> bogstad@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bugstad) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.082706.819@news.uni-stuttgart.de> andreas@awstar.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Andreas Wierse) writes:
>>...
>>I agree to these groups with the exception of bugs: ...

>Just to get my bit in.  I agree and sent email to the person running the RFD.

What, there's a bug in the RFD? Call out the programmers... right, you lot,
what's this business of releasing beta articles? No, that's no excuse, up
against the wall. Right.

I'm drumming you all out of the net. Let's have your plastic pocket protectors
(rip), your box of extra-pale bandaids for nerds (rip). OK, bring in the hair
stylist: make these goons up to look cool...

(this is what you get when you read news.groups right after alt.fan.goons)
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: OSF/1 newsgroup?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:07:56 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend):
>a quick grep of my .newsrc (2113 groups) didn't show any groups
>specificially dealing with OSF/1 issues.

Okay, that's a new one for the Son Of comp.unix.* Reorg:

    comp.unix.osf1        Open Software Foundation's OSF/1.

-- 
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 news.groups:16251 rec.models.rc:3109 rec.models.rockets:1987 alt.models:1006 rec.models.railroad:1501
From: dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dick Palace)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.models.rc,rec.models.rockets,alt.models,rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.models.scale
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:19:51 GMT
	<1992Jul29.182733.15633@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Jul30.125149.3738@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD


How about rec.models.mustangs.  I love P-51 mustangs. 8) 8) 8).

Dick
--
Dick Palace         Goddard Space Flight Center      (301) 286-9464

dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: news.groups