HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:33:59 GMT
Organization: Ians' Playhouse

In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? 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?
>
>     You miss my point.  My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults.  I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too.  Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.

OK when it comes to children I do have a line to draw. Being a gay person I
am open to anything for adults except for child pornography. ( Not fiction
only the real thing). I am courious what would you censor to adults? And yes I
do agree with where to draw the line is debatable, and can be a VERY volitile 
subject I'm sure.

Scott



-- 
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin   Voice   1-215-546-9959
UUCP 	...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott  or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com  
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:49:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.022855.27237@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>The fact that people "regularly try"
>to limit distribution would argue that we have intent to
>control copyright, and widespread copyright abuse.

Or it implies that "distribution" doesn't mean what you think it means. I
think of it more like a courtesy tag on the messages saying "I'd like to use
the resources of machines in the bay area to copy this message, so if you're
not in the bay area it's OK to drop it on the floor".
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: randy@rls.UUCP (randall l. smith)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: inews -C, probably a FAQ
Keywords: FAQ
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:17:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Internet

Hello all,

I've been trying to create newsgroups locally to no avail.  I only know
of a single way to control net news 2.11B, aka B-news and that is via
inews and the rmgroup distributed with the 2.11B software.  Even that
little kernel of information does not let me create or remove newsgroups
on my local node.  (Yes, I know 2.11 is out of date.  Yes, I have C-news
and have not yet built it.)

For group creation the command, inews -C something something something
gets the group created.  I got out the inews documentation and it referred
me to some documentation the wasn't with the distribution.  Figures. 

inews -C comp.dumb.group, in part says;

> inews: you either want to use addgroup (see newsaux(8)) to make
> inews: comp.dumb.group locally or this to make it network-wide:
> 
> Control: newgroup comp.dumb.group
> Subject: newgroup comp.dumb.group
> Newsgroups: comp.dumb.group
> Approved: you@hostname

There is no such utility as addgroup.  It figures as well.

So.  Here I am with an end node, and no way to create local groups or
remove them.  Any idea how one goes about invoking inews -C properly?

Cheers!

- randy

uucp: randy@rls.uucp
bang: <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy
inet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
note: Will be President for food.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:10:47 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
>In <2A6F0073.5A79@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) wrote:
>> Each site must have granted permission for such articles to arrive in
>> order to see and examine them.  So they are _not_ unauthorized.
>
>Sorry, but by requesting some set of newsgroups as a feed, I've
>authorized postings appropriate for those groups.

Evidence, please.  Where is the "appropriateness" field of the sys
file?

>> And even if they were considered unauthorized, from a site's view,
>> local removal and global cancellation have the same effect.
>
>No, they don't.

Yes, they do -- because by the time you know that an article merits
cancellation, you have *already* paid for it.
-- 
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.admin
From: matt@gbrmpa.gov.au (Matt)
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Organization: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:28:22 GMT

In article <JBW.92Jul26000243@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>
>   I agree with the point of not letting children see or read alt.sex.* ...
>
>Why?  Do you feel it is better to keep children ignorant of some things?
>Do you think sex is wrong or shameful?
>
>I find censorship of anything at any time for any reason to be wrong,
>immoral, and evil.
>
>-- 
>Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>

True to a point. Not everything discussed in this group is satisfactory 
material for a childs perusal.

-- 
Matt Crowd - Systems Support - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
matt@gbrmpa.gov.au				       cpmwc@jcu.edu.au
OPTi 486-33/8/105 OS/2                          Amiga2000/3/52/Dos 2.04
Xref: sparky news.admin:6090 comp.org.eff.talk:4768 misc.legal.computing:1440
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:18:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23296
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul23.081204.18538@ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:

>In the free areas the expectation is wide and uncontrolled distribution
>of verbatim copies.  If it's a verbatim copy (including the headers)
>then it's part of Usenet; regardless of the medium, which might be disk,
>satellite, CD-ROM, tape, punched cards, newspapers, posters in public
>places, or anything else presently in use or not yet invented; and
>regardless of the time of distribution, which might be several months or
>years after the original article was posted.  If it's not a verbatim
>copy, then it is restricted according to normal copyright law.
That's not the expectation, and yoiu are very well aware of it.
Verbatim copy doesn't enter into it any more than having
a notice or not enters into to. 

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.  Insistance to the contrary doesn't change the
fact that USENET HAS no standard rules, is a volunteer
organization (to the extent it has any organization),
and that it is an electronic network that functions primarily
on the electroinc representation of ASCII bytes.

(re: quoting in reply articles)
>I think that explicit copyright
>notices should not be capable of preventing such quoting in followup
>articles.
Agreed.  I don't think MOST quoting goes beyond current fair
usage, though.  Fair usage includes debate, or did at
one time.

>Permission to archive verbatim copies of the article is automatically
>granted by the act of posting.  Permission to unshar the posting and
>archive the constituent files is assumed under Usenet extended-fair-use,
>but can be restricted by explicit copyright notices.

Permission can be granted and excluded for anything.

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.  Those of us who grant
license do so in part to prevent such issues from arising,
and we ALL should do it.
-- 
 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: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:11:39 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
>In article <2A6FF4A4.78C2@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Inconvenience, sure.  Terror?  Riiiight....
>
>Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.

As Peter da Silva observed, you can get more E-Mail by being stupid
than you'll ever see from misc.test automatic replies.

It is unrealistic to believe that misc.test E-Mail could cause someone
to lose his job -- unless, of course, his employer had already decided
to fire him and was just looking for an excuse.
-- 
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.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: the "vi vs emacs" wars (was: Re: NetNews/CD .  . .)
Organization: Bunyip Information Systems (the archie people)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.184833.24464@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.165138.11470@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.023517.28331@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>>In article <77N802.Q1b=C01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>>> "If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section 
.  .  .
>>>    How could a sysop possibly have the ability to access all posts to 
.  .  .
>>I think the point is that it doesn't matter that the sysop didn't read the 
.  .  .
>I think the important point in this whole discussion is that the initialion
.  .  .
>Very simple anaolgy....If I have two copy machines linked together
>such that you make a local copy and also a remote copy in Timbuktu,
>the one that then must decide to NOT post/copy at all.

I suddenly realized where I've heard all of this before -
THIS IS THE VI VS EMACS WARS!!! We've remapped some words,
but it's exactly the same flamewars I've seen over in
comp.editors every time some new-comer posts the question
"I'm new to UNIX, which editor is better for me to learn?"

Basically, we have two fundamentally differing views of
the world. Some people believe that editors should be
modeful (that is, that posters can expect copyright law to
apply in a mode outside of "Usenet", that it's okay to
apply copyright to Usenet and that proerty is not a crime
(hey, it's my insight, let me have my cheap shots...! :-))
while some think that editors should have only a single
mode, and an associated powerful programming environment
(that is, posting something to Usenet means you are
agreeing to buy into a not quick clearly stated socialist
view of Usenet that clearly implies accepting the loss of
control over your work and its descendents, that you agree
to let others decide what you can do with Usenet and that
you can't extend it, change it or bring realworld
considerations into the game(again, guess which side I
come down on! ;-)).

Those who subscribe to one view seem incapable of
accepting the validity of the other view (in fact, is may
seem that if the question "which is 'right'" there can
_only_ be one answer).

Does this insight help answer the question? I doubt it,
but it does explain that nagging ringing noise I've had in
the back of my head for a while. The "vi vs emacs" wars
have always left me with such a ring noise...



				- peterd
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: a notes site is at it again
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:15:18 GMT

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.

I think the Nobel prize for computing should be awarded to the person
who designs a virus which attacks and debilitates any site running
notes software.

-- 
Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | Let the wayward children play.  Let the wicked
Unicom Systems Development   | have their day.  Let the chips fall where they
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   | may.  I'm going to Disneyland.  -Timbuk 3
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: This newsgroup
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
	<1587ksINNdnb@early-bird.think.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:11:55 GMT

In <1587ksINNdnb@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin):
> 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?

Read news.announce.newgroups; kill everything but the Current Status
and New Groups Summary articles.

Read news.software.b if you run a B News or C News site.

Vote your conscience in the news.admin reorg.  There were two requests
for discussion and three calls for votes posted to news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, news.admin and news.sysadmin.  Polling ends 1 August.
Presuming the three proposals for news.admin.misc, news.admin.policy
and news.admin.technical all pass, the last as a moderated group, then
you should be able to pick a little better the admin area which
interests you.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6353 comp.org.eff.talk:4994 misc.legal.computing:1600
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: 30 Jul 92 03:55:38 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul29.210126.23262@math.okstate.edu>, 
gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric Gindrup) writes:
> Me, *I* think (occasionally, I promise...) that anything which is posted
> to public Usenet is in the public domain. 

My opinion is that anything posted on usenet is copyrighted, but that the act 
of posting created an implied license for "normal usenet propagation".

Copyright abandonment (which is what putting something into the public domain 
is) requires a pretty high level of evidence that the copyright holder is 
abandoning it.  Inclusion of a copyright notice has been sustained as showing 
that the holder did not abandon.  I'm not aware of any cases that considered 
the copyright abandoned by implication (note: I'm not _aware_ of any.  But I 
haven't looked hard, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some ruling 
like that somewhere).  Even the destruction of the original, and all known 
copies, was insufficient action in one case.

So I can't see it as being public domain.

But the implied license may dilute the value of the copyright to such an 
extent that the two might appear synonymous for most practical purposes.

The interesting question (and I don't claim to have an answer; I still think 
the discussion is like calling a pitch a ball or strike just as it leaves the 
pitcher's hand) is what is the extent of that limited license, or using the 
phrase of my opening paragraph, what is "normal usenet propagation".

If I was a poster, I'd argue that it excluded commercial magazines, and I 
would sue for infringement, assuming a reasonable chance of obtaining any 
significant damages existed.

A CD-ROM is tougher; is this "normal usenet propagation"?  You'd have days of 
testimony by expert witnesses, leaving the jury to decide in favor of the 
testimony that they understood (or thought they understood) the best (bring 
out all those inapt analogies, guys; the one that convinces the jury is the 
winner).

What about express license terms (such as jj's) which contradict the implied 
license?  Which controls?  My _guess_ is that the implied license would 
prevail in situations where the content of articles was not examined by the 
individuals assembling the copy (e.g., CD-ROM), but that the express license 
would prevail in a situation where a commercial magazine took the article, 
read it and saw its value, observed the license, and published it in spite of 
that.

This would make an excellent topic for a law review article, but 
unfortunately, I've committed to writing about whether and to what extent 
copyright is applicable to fonts and typefaces.

-tc

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,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while....
> I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
>alt.sex.*...

     Why?  Isn't that Censorship too?  Don't children have
Absolute Freedom of Speech too?  Gee, I guess everyone has a
point where they draw the line, eh.

> Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
>that those who attend universities are of legal age.

     There's a very bright kid at my university who is about 13
or 14, and who I believe has computer access.  Based on your
comment above, I guess it's a good thing that they cut off
alt.sex.* to undergrads.

>... If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
>you don't like the  content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
...

     Blah blah blah.  Now it's such a mantra that no one even
has to propose censorship, people just recite it whenever
anything slightly challenging to their ideas comes up.

--Jamie.                       ,
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca           (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet"      `   (not)
Xref: sparky news.admin:6078 alt.sex.bondage:14358 alt.censorship:6184 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2370
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:47:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23274
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <E1LHJ07@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <23244@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old grump curmudgeon) writes:
>>risk.  There was one example introduced where it was clear
>>that the feed wasn't even clearing average costs as compared
>>to e-mail, but you should't feel free to generalize.

>They are obviously clearing average costs or they would have shut it down by
Peter, we know you have a problem with this, so why not stop the
99th edition of this argument.

You seem to ignore "... as compared to e-mail...".  

Face it, Peter, no matter what you claim,  copyright exists,
and you're not free to do whatever with the articles
that you allow to propigate to your computer.  

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.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6006 alt.sex.bondage:14212 alt.censorship:6086 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2358
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Beals - Third Strike
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:18:09 GMT

rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>It takes some serious effort to rack up three well-known strikes. I don't
>know of anyone else who has been caught so many times being delinquent.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? 

And, for the record, I don't know the sucker. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

       "When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut."