HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 19:00:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: bb6b84df7e294e6896595cfe3cb9e1e7

In article <1992Jul29.182351.7801@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP 
(Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>
>When you post to usenet, you enter into an agreement (contract) with the 
>owners of the machines: they provide information which you want (at a fee, 
>sometimes only phone connect time, sometimes much more) and you give them 
>information to pass on to other users. The news group news.announce.newuser 
>has been built into the source code as a group which the new user subscribes 
>to by default: the purpose of this is to inform the new user of the terms and 
>conditions of use of netnews.  
>
>In n.a.n, under the subject of "A Primer on How to Work With the USENET 
>Community" you will find a statement telling you to assume that what
>you post to usenet is in the public domain unless you include an
>explicit copyright notice.  

	Bull!

	The only contract that *may* be in force is that I can use their
machine and in return, they may use mine, for the purpose of the posters
placing copies of their items on those machines.

	Giving someone a copy is not a surrender of copyright rights.
You've been harping on this "sharing" thing too much.  All that is
happening is that the poster is giving each usenet reader a copy of
their article.  There is no contract with the readers; they possess a
copy, I possess the copyright.

	Chuq's *opinion* has no bearing on the case.  (Especially since
he hedged his bets by inserting the well considered *probably*.)
-- 
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.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:02:55 GMT

In article <23336@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon as usual) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.041935.16561@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> 
> >And you still haven't read the basic rules of usenet, have you?
> 
> Andrew, I suspect, given your inability to engage in discourse of any
> fashion, that I've been reading netnews since you've been in
> grade school.  I helped write the rules, Andrew, with some
> objections to some of the so-called provisions, which I know are
> simply legally incorrect.
> 
> One such provision is the part about public domain.  If you have trouble
> understanding this posting, ask Chuqui and get some independant
> verification.

Wait a minute, two posts back (at least on my machine), you stated that
these posts were not rules, just someone's opinion.  Now they are rules
which you helped write.  So, which is it?

Ah, so now we see that you did not agree with the rules, so it appears
you like to apply the parts you agree with and ignore those parts which
you do not agree with (like the public domain part).     

As to asking Chuqui, I don't need to -- I can read and I accept what
I read.  

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 to the length of time that you've been reading netnews, I was long
out of grade school before the original code was written.
-- 
"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: abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:19:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.91943
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Jul26.064847.8698@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
[exchange on censorship censo^H^H^H^H^Hdeleted)

>At what age is a child fully ready to comprehend sex and alternate things
>like lifestyles and alt.sex.*.

You're asking the net?! Most of us still giggle over expressions like
"social intercourse."

-- 
Al B. Wesolowsky         abw@bucrsb.bu.edu      Chresmology
Boston University      arc9arn@buacca.bu.edu   (cheap rates)
Xref: sparky news.admin:6329 comp.org.eff.talk:4964
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 29 Jul 1992 17:20:33 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Z0THSR6@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Copyright 1992 Peter da Silva. All rights reserved. Permission granted
>for individual archival copies, and automatic transmission via software
>that selects articles for reproduction without human intervention.

This copyright notice is the only one I've seen that accepts the reality of
what is fundamentally Usenet. I suspect it's what alice!jj (whoever that
really is) means when he says "Usenet and like facilities". (...although I
fully expect to be corrected, right or wrong.)

It's a real shame that it takes 3 lines to come up with a copyright statement
that reflects reality, though.
-- 
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_
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:12:42 GMT

> In article <23244@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old grump curmudgeon) writes:
> >Someone charging people to USE THEIR COMPUTER or their communications
> >mechanism isn't charging for information.

[Most of it deleted]


Yeah, right!  Like how many subscribers do you think these 
pay-for-access-to-my-computer companies would get if there were
not information in the computer?  

Face it, nearly everybody on the net gets charges for 
transmission: nearly nobody would be on the net if there were
no informaion (I say nearly cuz I seriously think you might
be here anxiously reading nothing anyway): therefore, people
are paying for the information.  

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.

Just think, all these stupid arguments you keep making are being
sold by the megabyte and someone is making a profit on your 
ridiculous whining!

-- 
"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:6009 alt.sex.bondage:14219 alt.censorship:6089 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2360
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:

>But in the past 10 years, it has exploded into an interconnected,
>worldwide system that appears to have little ability to control the worst of
>its content.

Good!!
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: shaun@octel.com (Ralph Neutrino)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:49:51 GMT

In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>
>That's why I'd like some reasonable mechanism in place so authors (and
>those service providers) can recognize articles that have
>restrictions, and deal with them appropriately.

Like forging cancels?  >:)

-- 
shaun@octel.com  ||  Emergency?  Call @Man's 24-Hour Bass Bin Retrieval Hotline.

"The Tuna is a very serious Fish, but also very Silent.  It has the Strength of 
 ten Men.  I have nothing but Respect for It."  -- Darryl Dung 
Xref: sparky news.admin:6230 comp.org.eff.talk:4864 misc.legal.computing:1512
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:25:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <8411.Jul2521.20.3292@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan 
Bernstein) writes:
> 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 21:20:32 GMT
> Organization: IR
> 
> In the referenced articles, Brad Templeton and Mike Meyer argue about
> ``implicit permission.'' Unfortunately for their argument, ``implicit
> permission'' has little if anything to do with the legal aspects of
> copying articles over USENET. (Try to find ``implicit permission'' in
> any USCA and you'll see what I'm talking about.)
> 
> I think this means that Brad wins by default: as he was saying (though
> he said it badly), there's no way that an author can grant ``implicit
> permission'' for copying his articles.

Well, if you change the terminology from "implicit permission" to "implied 
license", I can cite you several cases where an implied license has been 
found to be binding.

Title 17 (copyright) of the USC probably doesn't include either, but it does 
include requirements that a transfer of an exclusive license must be express 
(i.e., explicit) (among other things), and distinguishes a non-exclusive 
license, which does not have that requirement.  I think (and courts have 
held) that that means that non-exclusive transfers may be implied, including 
implied licenses, your "implicit permission".

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6268 comp.org.eff.talk:4908 misc.legal.computing:1537
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon as usual)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:16:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23336
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon as usual)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul28.041935.16561@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>And you still haven't read the basic rules of usenet, have you?

Andrew, I suspect, given your inability to engage in discourse of any
fashion, that I've been reading netnews since you've been in
grade school.  I helped write the rules, Andrew, with some
objections to some of the so-called provisions, which I know are
simply legally incorrect.

One such provision is the part about public domain.  If you have trouble
understanding this posting, ask Chuqui and get some independant
verification.
-- 
 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
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Citadel site reposting old articles
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:20:03 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Mind.overmind.org, a Citadel site (Fidonet?) has been reposting articles
with new Path:, From:, Message-ID:, and other  headers.  We have over 270 
articles from this site; every one I spot-checked was a repost.

They've only been reposting in ten groups.  Here's how they're spread
out:

	   7 alt.bbs
	   4 comp.lang.forth
	  12 comp.os.coherent
	  44 comp.os.os2.misc
	  19 comp.sys.atari.st
	  39 misc.fitness
	  40 rec.arts.movies
	  10 rec.games.mud
	  56 rec.sport.baseball
	  43 soc.singles

I've sent mail to usenet@mind.overmind.org and to usenet@emory.edu,
their apparent connection to the rest of the net.

Here's an example:
Original------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jtchern@ocf.berkeley.edu (Joseph Hernandez)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: MLB Standings and Scores for Wed, Jul 22, 1992
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:00:10 GMT
Organization: Joseph TeleCommunications Enterprises; Berkeley, California, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: monsoon.berkeley.edu
Via: JTC Enterprises Major League Baseball Department (Statistics Division)

****If anyone would like the standings sent daily to their e-mail address,
********please contact me via e-mail at jtchern@ocf.berkeley.edu. I try to
********update and post them by 9AM (PAC)/12PM (EAST). Thanks.
Repost----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ocf.berkeley.edu!jtchern@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: MLB Standings and Scores for Wed, Jul 22, 1992
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:00:00 GMT
Organization: Joseph TeleCommunications Enterprises; Berkeley, California, USA
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

****If anyone would like the standings sent daily to their e-mail address,
********please contact me via e-mail at jtchern@ocf.berkeley.edu. I try to
********update and post them by 9AM (PAC)/12PM (EAST). Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                           kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                      +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics           "Thanks to the magic of the slow-motion 
camera, we can now show you how ugly the inside of someone's mouth can be."
Xref: sparky news.admin:6181 comp.org.eff.talk:4834 misc.legal.computing:1488
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 21:20:32 GMT
Organization: IR

In the referenced articles, Brad Templeton and Mike Meyer argue about
``implicit permission.'' Unfortunately for their argument, ``implicit
permission'' has little if anything to do with the legal aspects of
copying articles over USENET. (Try to find ``implicit permission'' in
any USCA and you'll see what I'm talking about.)

I think this means that Brad wins by default: as he was saying (though
he said it badly), there's no way that an author can grant ``implicit
permission'' for copying his articles. (This doesn't mean that USENET
distribution constitutes a copyright violation, for two reasons, as I
explained in a previous article.)

And, as he was saying, this is good, because if we were to interpret
USENET distribution of a single article as copying by many thousands of
individuals, then all of those individuals will be liable for (e.g.) the
recent posting of some writings by Douglas Adams.

Are you liable for violating Douglas Adams's copyright?

---Dan
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: pcwood@romulus (Paul Wood)
Subject: history problem ?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:02:45 GMT

Each night at about 2:30am on my system I get a /: file system full message.
Below is my cron entry for doexpire ( I am running cnews/nntp on a 
sun sparc II).  I suspect mkhistory is the culprit as its failed when I tried
to run it by hand.  However, I dont get the "SEVERE SPACE SHORTAGE" message.
I added a chunk of extra tmp space thinking that was the problem but I still
get the filesystem full message.  

59 0 * * * su news -c /usr/lib/newsbin/expire/doexpire

My disk space looks like this.
Filesystem            kbytes    used   avail capacity  Mounted on
/dev/sd0a              15487    6400    7538    46%    /
/dev/sd0g             144559  108843   21260    84%    /usr
/dev/sd1g             256554   23272  207626    10%    /usr/local
/dev/sd0h             197919  154551   23576    87%    /home
/dev/sd3c            1255494 1017667  112277    90%    /var/spool/news
/dev/sd1b              27847    1025   24037     4%    /tmp

Anyone know what program might be doing this ?  Is there a notorius problem
here that I dont know about ?  Any help appreciated.

Also, a large number of files are getting junked because I dont have the
group in my directory hierarchy.  Could it be that the groups have gone away
but some diehard users are still sending messages to them ?  Or must I 
somehow add them to my news setup (if so, whats the best way?).

--

                       -=( Paul Wood )=-
             -=( pcwood@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu )=-
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: This newsgroup
Date: 30 Jul 1992 08:01:32 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1992Jul27.213753.28472@zooid.guild.org> Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Then unsubscribe, no one is forcing you to read this group.

I recently inherited the job of administration of our netnews.  I
subscribed to this group because I thought that it would often have
information that I needed to know in this role.

Since it seems that this group is mostly a flamefest, *is* there a group
like what I thought this would be?

I have a similar question about news.groups.  I subscribed to that so I'd
know which newgroup control messages are probably legit.

In other words, how can a news admin get timely information about the state
of Usenet without having to wade through enormous amounts of junk?
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.050144.17029@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.185007.26058@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>> We have exactly such a mechanism now. It's the
>> "Distibution:" field of the header, and people regularly
>> use it to control the automated copying software to limit
>> distribution of their work. Thus, I would argue that the
>
>The Distribution field only determines the geographical 
>area which you feel is appropriate: anyone can repost that
>message all over the world.

also note that Distribution: is broken in that a fair number of sites
ignore the directive in their batching control file (ie. Cnews sys:all/all)

-- 
[ 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   ]
Xref: sparky news.admin:6288 comp.org.eff.talk:4923 misc.legal.computing:1550
From: dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:20:29 GMT
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <Bs3o46.CKF@world.std.com>, 
	composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem) writes:
> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>  > this is fairly straight forward, although a copyright to an id which is
>  > shrouded in secrecy is sort of wierd.
> 
> Actually, it's fairly common.  Many authors use a pen name -- their work
> tends to be copyrighted under that pseudonym.  FYI...
> 

  Of course, in the "real" world there's generally a publisher involved who
can attest that the person before the court is indeed the "John Doe" named
in the copyright. I'm sure "jj"'s copyright notice is just as valid whether
we really know who he is or not, but I imagine if a court case ever
came up the defense could demand the plaintiff prove he really is "jj",
and this may or may not be easy for him to do. [ it's certainly harder
than if he used his real name and address on the copyright notice ]

-- 
========================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett    Malaspina College         Email: dunnett@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services  Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA        Tel: (604)755-8738
Xref: sparky news.admin:6324 comp.org.eff.talk:4959 misc.legal.computing:1575
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: 29 Jul 92 16:32:28 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 291e2b0ad5aeda3a41976f9dc856d535

In article <1992Jul28.003305.14528@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>For the third of fourth time, (and no-one has countered this 
>yet) read the usenet primer from news.announce.newuser -- it 
>tells you point blank that what you post here is in the public 
>domain unless you copyright it.

As I said elsewhere, I refute that claim.

The "Primer" is only one persons opinion written well before the change
in the US law that implemented Berne Convention rules.

The "Primer" also states it as  "*probably*"  which is certainly NOT an
indication that the poster's opinion is fact.

The law currently clearly has an assumption that is in direct
contradiction to the poster's opinion.

The "Primer" is most certainly NOT (as you claimed elsewhere) the
definition of an implied contract defining Usenet.  It is merely one
opinion in a whelter of other opinions about the net.

Simply repeating a claim over and over again has no effect on the truth
or falsness of that claim.  You could claim over and over again that
"2 + 2 = 5"  and not change the rules of decimal arithmetic.

Try something else, or just admit that the poster owns the copyright on
their own works.
-- 
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.admin,news.sysadmin