HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:31:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.123930.6810@athena.mit.edu>, sst@athena.mit.edu (S. Tucker) writes:
> There's been quite a bit of hypothetical discussion and some mention
> of copyright notices in people's signatures.  I'd like to bring up a
> more concrete example.  This notice appeared at the top of two Hugo-
> Award-nominated short stories posted in a science fiction group:
> 
>   The following story is by Mike Resnick and copyright 1991 by
>   Davis Publishing.  It is published here with the permission
>   of the author.  Permission is granted to transmit this story
>   in the normal flow of USENET, including expiration at the
>   normal expiry time for your system, however it is not to be
>   made available in archives without the permission of the
>   author.  All other rights reserved.
> 
> So what happens if Davis Publishing (not a basement operation) finds
> the stories for sale along with the rest of the month's netnews on
> CD-ROM?  Will they have a winning case, no case, or something that's
> a complete toss-up until it's actually tried in court?
> 
A complete toss-up.

However, the smart money will take note of the fact that the act of 
posting to netnews results in archival somewhere: such action being
taken at the direction of the poster.  

IMHO, the person posting the story knew (or should have known) that 
he was instructing a machine somewhere to archive this post.  He 
therefore commanded a machine to put the post somewhere the copyright
holder did not want it to go: the copyright infringement was committed
by the person who posted.

On the other hand, if the poster finds these stories in and archive and
then calls the sysop of that site and requests that the stories be 
removed because the owner does not want them there, then the sysop
had best comply or the owner of the machine may be liable for 
copyright infringement.

I would view the archive site as a library which takes donations
in the form of news posts and/or buys books in the form of
disks/tapes/CD-ROMs.  

Can the library be held liable if it is given a pirated copy of a
book?

Can the library be held liable if it buys a pirated copy of a book?

Only if the library has been made specifically made aware that it is
loaning out illegal copies of a book.




-- 
"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
From: mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:25:20 GMT
Organization: W.A.S.T.E.

In article <1992Jul27.185437.22795@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>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?
>
>

Part of the purpose, which I have not yet seen addressed here, is 
how to protect all the others with the same name that were not 
arrested.  A fist name last name identification is hardly unique
in a city the size of New York City.
 
I have a fairly common name.  I've had payroll problems because
of mix-ups.  I have collection agencies convinced that I owe them
money merely because I got a phone number the same time someone 
who owed them money disappeared.  My father has be sued for other 
peoples debts. 

In the case above, I could see media representative camped out
on the doorsteps of those unlucky enough to have the same name
as the defendants.  Their denials of involvement would be ignored
by the press in a sort of catch-22 situation.

mark
From: root@fennec.sccsi.com (Scott Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: reverse engineering
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:48:42 CST
Organization: Fennec Information Consulting, Houston, Texas USA

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!
From: rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: phreaks indicted, p.2
Date: 19 Jul 92 07:56:55 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen)
quotes a U.S. Secret Service press release:

>    Rosenfeld, age 21, resides at [....]
> Alfredo De La Fe, age 18, resides at [....]

What the hell is the Secret Service doing here?  Do they routinely hand out
the home addresses of people they indict?

My first response is to think they're attempting to harrass the defendants
by removing their privacy.  Even if they damage their own case, they seem
more interested in damaging the defendants' lives.


           
   Rachel McGregor (rogue@cellar.org) - research contractor, modem junkie
-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-
"It's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, dipped in a rich, chocolatey coating!"
From: gupta@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (Ashok Gupta)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Policies for LISTSERV lists ?
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:59:34 GMT
Reply-To: gupta@prl.philips.co.uk
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK

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 ?

Please email.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Originator: rita@eff.org
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.175933.26136@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>The approach I'd predict is that this survey will be ignored, and there will
>be a strong hint that the EFF considers people who publish such information
>to be 'the enemy' or at least 'not with it', and not worthy of the EFF's
>scarce, limited, and really very valuable and important time.

	Actually, the survey has been forwarded around the office, and
will probably be discussed at the next staff meeting.  But we probably
won't make any official response to it, as it wasn't an official
survey. 

	Contrary to your assertion that we will view the survey
respondants as "the enemy", they will most likely be viewed as people
not interested enough in what the EFF does to find out more about the
organization.  

	Simply because the EFF doesn't make official responses to much
of what goes on in this group, doesn't mean we don't view it as
valuable feedback.  Even the most outrageous crap is discussed and
analyzed for pointers about what we might be doing wrong or need to
improve.  Now, the survey may indicate that our PR is too passive.  Or
it may indicate that we aren't communicating as clearly as we thought
our activities in EFFO.  It could also indicate nothing more than that
there are people operating on false assumptions about the organization
and there isn't much we can do about it if they refuse to read the
newsletters and general information files that get posted here on a
regular basis.

	Certainly, Bronis, I've always responded to your specific
questions about the EFF.

-- 
Rita Marie Rouvalis              rita@eff.org 
Electronic Frontier Foundation   | Inbred Jed sez: Check with the Morman
155 Second Street                | Church before marrying; inbreeding 
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | is everyone's problem.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (Mr. Neat-O [tm])
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.201024.18145@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The press should also be admitted to such trials, on an off-the-record-unless-
>convicted basis.

This just inspired a rather disturbing thought in my mind.  Given the
suggestion that trials be private (before the final outcome) unless
requested otherwise by the defendant, it seems likely to me that the press
might begin to PAY or otherwise compensate the defendants in order to make
the trials open if there was a reasonable potential for profit based on the
coverage.  One can imagine Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) suddenly being able to
negotiate with the networks for $$$ with which he could hire his own legion
of top-notch lawyers and greatly decrease his chances of conviction.

+---------< Eric A. Rasmussen - Mr. Neat-O (tm) >---------+ +< Email Address >+
|   A real engineer never reads the instructions first.   | | ear@wpi.wpi.edu |
|   (They figure out how it works by playing with it.)    | | ear%wpi@wpi.edu |
+---------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+
                     ((( In Stereo Where Available )))
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul27.185036.22561@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
:Dan's point is precisely the one I would have made if I'd gotten here
:first. Blain Strickel's poll is a sampling of a highly unrepresentative
:fraction of the readership of this newsgroup: specifically, those who 
:read the postings in the thread "Re: Phantom Access - EFF" *and* who were
:willing to take the time to respond to Strickel's poll.

Absolutely.  I saw the subject and thought 'Oh, spotty little
hacker time again.  Weird the way these kids are drawn to the eff.
Gives the eff a bad name...' and hit the 'k' key.

G
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4717 misc.legal.computing:1398 misc.int-property:781
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:53:00 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

BV> == William J. Vajk <learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu> 

 BV> If AT&T attacks Mark Williams Company, then your conclusions are
 BV> probably correct. The necessary exception, however, continues to
 BV> exist. After all, $ 100 for the full OS including a development
 BV> system equates to free in my book, in the case of a *nix product.

Of course, if I remember right, MWC is claiming a patent on the idea of
a designated byte order for interchange between machines of differing
endianness.  (Yeah, htonl() and friends probably fall under the scope of
this one.)

More details are probably available in gnu.misc.discuss or comp.patents.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Linux (Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response])
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 07:12:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.202238.18012@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>If you let the second group actually see the physical thing they are
>duplicating, you take a risk.  To let them actually have it under trade
>secret agreement -- that would be crazy.   That's how it has been in
>some cases, like it or not.
>
>I know the authors of Coherent did not have a copy of Unix source around
>when they wrote it.

After hearing this I'm glad I've never seen the AT&T kernel sources.

>My feeling is that if AT&T wants to pursue a trade secret case, they
>have a case.  Which is silly, because the amount of AT&T code left was
>small, and careful planning could have avoided this trouble.  It sounds
>like they were sloppy.

The academic people involved in Unix tend to be very lazy since unix
is effectively free to them. 

>I also see AT&T's side.  One hardly gives people source code to one's
>product just so they can clone it and sell their own version, after all.

On the otherhand AT&T has included most of the features of BSD in there
Sys V version 4. AT&T can't expect to have others do all the work for
free.

>The original V7 Unix was a brilliant innovation, but in today's world of
>megabyte kernels, we forget how small it was, and how easy it would be
>for a modern trained programmer who has never seen Unix source to duplicate
>it.   But that's not what BSD did.

Fortunitly this is what Linus the author of Linux did. Linux has been
completely written from scratch, and instead of costing $1000 it cost
$0.

If your looking for a nice 386/486 32bit OS take a look at comp.os.linux.  
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:54:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.223112.1226@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>I would view the archive site as a library which takes donations
>in the form of news posts and/or buys books in the form of
>disks/tapes/CD-ROMs.  
>
>Can the library be held liable if it is given a pirated copy of a
>book?

Yes.

>
>Can the library be held liable if it buys a pirated copy of a book?
>

Yes.

>Only if the library has been made specifically made aware that it is
>loaning out illegal copies of a book.

I almost skipped this post since it seemed convincing on the
surface, but then I realized that your arguments appear to
be incorrect.

As soon as the library is made aware, it can be held responsible for
*previous* infringement.  The fact that the library didn't know
just makes it ``innocent infringement.''  That's not the
same as being absolved of all responsibility.  If you bring a 
manuscript to a copy shop and ask them to make 100 copies,
they can be held responsible for innocent infringement if
you don't own the copyright.  If that was my book, my claim
against them would entitle me to the profits they made from
the printing.  They don't get off scot-free as you claim.

-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
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4935 misc.legal.computing:1561 misc.int-property:793
From: jessea@homecare.com (Jesse W. Asher)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Date: 29 Jul 92 02:09:10 GMT
Organization: G.O.D Inc.

In article <l6nl2kINNjuk@neuro.usc.edu>, merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) wrote the following:
>
>Further, AT&T's question about the time investment of BSDI in bringing out
>their product [compared with their own cost over many years] will likely go
>a long way toward supporting their unfair competition claim.  If it took a
>small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
>to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
>it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.

I find this very interesting considering how much they stole from BSD
to go into SVR4.  Everything that makes SVR4 viable are BSD
contributions.  I don't think AT+T can say they developed the Unix of
today - all those faculty members and students at Berkeley (and
elsewhere) did.

Sounds like they are running scared.  They ought to be.  I got BSDI
source about two weeks ago, and if it works out, we'll be using it on
the 200 machines we already have and at potentially 1300 customer
sites.  I for one would like to see them pay for having been so
arrogant to long.  The hand writing is on the wall.  If it isn't BSDI,
it will be somebody else.  Perhaps Plan 9, or maybe Windows NT?  The
inexpensive, and yet powerful OS is coming and no one is going to stop
it.


-- 
      Jesse W. Asher                                   Phone: (901)762-6000
                         Varco-Pruden Buildings
	      6000 Poplar Ave., Suite 400, Memphis, TN  38119
 Internet: jessea@homecare.COM                 UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,ieee.general,ieee.usab.general,misc.int-property
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: reverse engineering
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 21:43:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Summary: IEEE changes position
Keywords: IEEE intellectual property

The IEEE-USA's Intellectual Property Committee had worked to
have the IEEE (general organization, not just U.S. Activities)
join in the amicus curiae brief filed regarding
the Sega v Accolade decision.  The following is an excerpt
from the IEEE's official statement of a few weeks ago.
Any typos are mine.

(( note, I'm a member of this committee, so I'm biased, but
this makes the fourth amicus brief the IEEE has had and the second
one that we've been able to get through))

"Because IEEE feels that the decision in Sega v Accolade
threatens to tilt that balance against the public's interest in
fair computer-software competition and against the practice by
computer engineers and computer scientists of their professions,
without providing a needed incentive to software innovation, IEEE
joins in the amicus curiae presentation by ACIS."

"IEEE believes that the judgment is erroneous in two regards
that adversely affect the public's interests: First, we believe that
disassembly of computer code for study, whether or not commercially
motivated, is an expedient necessary to technological progress in
software engineering; and that such disassembly and study cannot be
carried out without to some extent 'fixing' the code, or a
derivative-work version of it, in a 'copy.'  Second, we do not believe
that courts should use sanctions of the copyright law or trademark law
to help computer equipment sellers lock 'unauthorized' software out of
the equipment that they sell to the public."

--->>> BUT WAIT, THERE'S RECENT NEWS <<<---

I just found out that although the IEEE board *had* approved
joining the amicus on the Sega v Accolade, the board just met
and rescinded their approval (meaning that the IEEE will
be removing themselves on  the amicus).  It seems that a
couple of major companies convinced the IEEE that no one
uses reverse engineering!  I understand that these two 
companies will (or have) be joining an amicus SUPPORTING
the decision.  

Right!  Doesn't everyone disassemble portions of a BIOS, or
the Macintosh?

I would like to report back to the IEEE how many people feel
that reverse engineering is (or is not) a common and/or
necessary practice.  Please either respond to this, or email
me (tenney@netcom.com) and I will tabulate opinions.

Aside from the intellectual property issues, this recent
decision makes me wonder whether the IEEE is responding to
its members or to "big companies".

Glenn Tenney

(A member of the IEEE Intellectual Property Committee,
but speaking solely for myself)

tenney@netcom.com
Voice: 415-574-3420   Fax: 415-574-0546


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:29:00 GMT

brendan@cs.widener.edu wrote:
> I have to put forth that it's not often that you get street addresses
> published, however.  You know that "Steve, of Footown", or somesuch,
> was involved; not that they were in apartment 41B.  I've never seen a
> news article give a precise address before.

I work at a large-circulation daily newspaper where the policy is to 
publish the full street addresses of those charged with crimes about 
which we report. This may not be the policy at all newspapers, but I 
don't believe that we are particularly unusual.

In any case, even if a newspaper chooses not to publish such information, 
it is a matter of public record and would be available to anyone who 
requested it. In fact, though I'm not a lawyer, I suspect that it would 
be illegal for a law enforcement agency not to release such information.

It occurs to me that the release of such information does provide some 
protection to the accused. If there was no such requirement, it might be 
easy for law enforcement to seize individuals and not acknowledge that 
they are being held. This is certainly a problem in some other countries.

Furthermore, as citizens, we have the right to know when our neighbors are 
accused of a crime. Since our system provides for a presumption of 
innocence, it's up to us to view an arrested individual as innocent until 
proven guilty. Therefore, there should be no presumed shame in having 
been charged with a crime, only in being found guilty of one.