HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:41:40 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Jul22.191735.11599@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Sure, model it like broadcasting, only better, because there is no
>spectrum to allocate and thus no excuse for government regulation.

Usenet is not broadcasting.

Usenet is not LIKE broadcasting.

Usenet is not Hyde Park.

Usenet is not LIKE Hyde Park.

Usenet is its own medium, with some aspects in common with broadcasting,
in some ways it's more like newspapers and magazines, some like community
cable channels, and it's got more than a little of the soapbox. Different
parts of the net are different, and different mixes of analogies are more
appropriate.

Clarinet is VERY much like broadcasting, because you have made it that way.
comp.risks is like a journal or magazine, and some people keep copies the
way they do old National Geographics. comp.sources.* is like a files-oriented
BBS system, especially at sites that do a lot of archiving. alt.folklore.
computers is like an "@" party at an SF convention. Some of the comp groups
are like question-and-answer sessions at Usenix.

Usenet is like an elephant, and you've got an outstandingly clear view of
its trunk.

More than anything else, *where* you post is important. Much more important
than what you decorate your article with.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
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: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:48:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.025503.6884@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>     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.
>
>Sexual buttons?

     Yes, sexual buttons.

>Sexual buttons?

     Yes, sexual buttons.

>Sexual buttons?

     Yes, sexual buttons.

>  What are those?

     You'll find out some day, I'm sure.

>  Are you saying that there are certain
>things that just viewing them causes rational thought to stop and some
>sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing to happen?

     No.

>  Is this something that you
>are personally aware of or is it only those mythical "others" that this
>happens to?

     Yes.

>Just curious.

     Glad to be of help.

--Jamie.                       ,
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca           (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet"      `   (not)
Xref: sparky news.admin:6008 alt.sex.bondage:14218 alt.censorship:6088 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2359
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:20:53 GMT

Someone suggested I mention that the Globe and Mail's Fax number is
+1 416 585-5085.

"The Editor of The Globe and Mail welcomes letters from readers on any
subject but reserves the right to condense them as may prove
necessary.  Letters should include the name, address and daytime
telephone number of the writer."

The usual citation style is "Colin Plumb, Toronto", with a title inserted if
appropriate.  The letters in the 20th's paper are 150 to 400 words long.

Oh, yes, change that posting to "reprinted *with* permission."
-- 
	-Colin
Xref: sparky news.admin:6200 comp.org.eff.talk:4844
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul26.154408.21628@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
:Some sites keep articles for a day or to while others keep them for
:weeks.  Expires, when used politely, provides a mechanism to overide
:this for some specific articles like FAQs and such.  If many users post
:articles with short expire times they they disappear too soon from long
:expire sites.  If the articles have long expire times then they'll blow
:short expire sites out of the water (and if those sites shorten their
:maximum expire they interfere with "real" uses of the header).
:
:Overloading expires in this way is probably a bad idea.

What happens if you put something unparsable as a date in the
Expires; field, such as "Expires: yes" - or perhaps just the
fieldname itself with co content?  Would that be ignored by normal
usenet mechanisms?  In which case we *could* overload it to
mean 'no permanent storage please'...

G
Xref: sparky news.admin:6128 alt.censorship:6243 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2382
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:25:42 GMT
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

In article <1992Jul23.152745.14722@samba.oit.unc.edu> 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.

>  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.

--Jamie.                       ,
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca           (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet"      `   (not)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Keywords: copyright
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:37:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.160324.15844@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
:It seems like you are implying that if these CDs cost more than
:$10 or $20 then the distributors are no longer charging just
:a modest packaging fee.  But what is your musician friend going
:to press on those CDs?  Is he going to press 1000 blank CDs?
:Or is he going to write some music, buy some instruments to play
:that music on, and pay for some studio time to record it?

Well let's say I've got a DAT tape drive and a nice fat hard disk
already being used for backup and Usenet. So I start writing
compressed Usenet to a backup tape. That's not hard. No one even has
to be there! So I send a tape to the CD company, who charges me...? My
guess is $2-4 per CD in quantity. Oh, maybe $6 if it's packaged
nicely.

So how much for a big fat Usenet CD? $20? $30? Remember, I can buy a
CD of music--which has a whole lot more engineering and talent put into
it--for $10. So the Usenet CD better be reasonably priced.

Sean
-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
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.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:51:15 GMT

In article <mwm.1am1@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>As has been pointed out elsewhere, this isn't really something we can
>have choice about. Posting must include implicit permission for many
>kinds of copying; otherwise to many of the people providing services
>to the net are open to lawsuits.  Anything else leaves to many people
>to vulnerable to lawsuits.

I think you got this backwards.   Posting can't include implicit permission
or the people providing services are open to lawsuits.   Let's assume
that in this message I included a binary of Lotus 1-2-3.

		<Binary of 1-2-3 deleted to maintain brevity>

The fact is that I can't have given you permission, explicit or implicit
to copy this posting because it is not within my power to grant that
permission.  If you hold that normal USENET posting works by the granting
of such permission, then you truly open up net members to major lawsuits,
and every deep pocket site would leave the net upon the first such
ruling.

Only under the opposite interpretation -- that no permission is involved
at all in net copying, because it is automatic, commanded by the poster --
could you ever be found innocent of infringement here.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
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 15:14:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23335
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon as usual)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul28.011242.14896@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>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?  
And they seem, in general, to pay no more ON THE AVERAGE
for nutnoise than they do for anything else, like alt groups
(not part of USENET, remember?), and the like.

In other words, they pay to use the computer, despite
your inability to admit the obvious fact.

Please stop trying to change reality, it won't work, and it
will only convince more and more of us that you have no
respect for 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.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: Utility for removing spool dirs of deleted newsgroups
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul13.193907.24231@geovision.gvc.com> news@geovision.gvc.com (News Administrator) writes:
|In <Br8tDo.J9M@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|>In article <1992Jul10.173438.7200@cosy.sbg.ac.at> lendl@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Otmar Lendl) writes:
|>>Is there any tools which compares the spool area with the
|>>active file and removes all unneeded directories ? 
|
|>Not at present.  Probably a useful thing to have.  Not hard to write.
|>Say...
|
|C-News creates directories as it needs them, right?  I always run a job
|about once a month that removes any empty directories (actually, it does
|a depth-first find, and does an rmdir on every directory, and ignores
|errors).  I figure it can't hurt anything, right?


	why bother?


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 \*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/
 _< /_	 "Awaken the Geek Within" - Anthony Robot
Xref: sparky news.admin:6307 comp.org.eff.talk:4941 misc.legal.computing:1563
From: lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:46:22 EDT
Organization: LORC Enterprises

gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) 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.
> 
> -george william herbert
> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
>  ++ copyright (c)  george william herbert.  All rights except usenet ++
>  ++ transmission and inclusion in followup/reply articles reserved.  ++

On no!!! You will HAVE to sue Fidonet, then... I saw the message in a Fido
echo also...  Is Fidonet part of Usenet (or is it the other way around??:-))
Ummm... 54,000 or so active Usenet sites, 18,000 or so active Fido nodes...

BTW, I run a bona-fide Usenet site.  I am thinking very seriously of also
running a Fido site, as much of the discussion on Fido is appropriate to
my needs.

The Fido gateways (multitudinuous!!) have the capability of automagically
gating a newsgroup either:

1.) Into a unique echo, which means that it is still Usenet, just being
transmitted on an FTN network

2.) Into an existing Fido echo.  This is where things get hairy.

So,. in case number 1, your copyright is valid and copying across is allowed.
In case 2.... Since the Fido gateway is automatic in nature, there can be no
filtering by a human.  So, is you copyright infringed??

Note also that, as far as Fidonet is concerned, there is no difference 
WHATSOEVER between cases 1 and 2.  The only possible difference to the Usenet
side is whether the echo was created BY the gateway or not. As far as Fido
nodes are concerned, it is yet another echo.

I don't want to think about it any more.... I'll just stay content reading the
current arg--discussion on news.admin, whatever flammable contents it might 
have... :-)


Lamar Owen, Systems Consultant, GE Lighting Systems, Hendersonville, NC
***********************************************************************
 Opinions expressed herein are the author's and do not reflect policy
   or opinions of the General Electric Company or its subsidiaries.
***********************************************************************
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: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:25:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
(Jamie Andrews) writes:

>     You miss my point.  My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw;

Which is not true.  Some of us just don't believe in censorship.

> 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.

I'll even let you give whatever you want to your children, if you
think it's in their best interest.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:03:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165510.16557@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>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.  
	Actually, what we have is a lack of any empirical evidence
demonstrating this connection, despite the best attempts of pro-censorship 
forces to manufacture it or deliberately misinterpret data to give this
appearance.

>
>
>>>  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.
>
	My use of thatr turn of phrase was, of course, a direct slam at the
original poster's use of a similar phrase to criticize someone who was opposed
to censorship.  Of course the infamous "Cindy's Torment" doesn't "present
any argument".  Neither does "Terminator II" or "Mary Poppins", for that
matter.  As the man says:
>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)--

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
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: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:21:00 GMT

In article <23272@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.121002.583@mala.bc.ca> dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:
> 
> >   Just curious: what form did these articles take. To my mind if they
> >were reprinted verbatim - including the headers and signature - and 
> >usenet was attributed as the source, then I would think this should
> >be "fair use".
> Oh, really?  Copying an entire work without explicit permission,
> away from the medium it started in is "fair use".  Not by any
> scale that has EVER been proposed by anyone who wanted to
> stay in business.  
> 
> In any case, it was berefit of header and signatures (at that
> time I didn't have a notice in my header) but that wasn't really important,
> it was more than a quote, and that's all that matters.
> 
> By your argument, a newspaper column that's widely distributed could
> be copied into more newspapers because it's "already present in
> many copies".  Your argument is simply blind both to the law
> and to the idea of intellectual property and the rights of the
> property owners.

And your brain is simply ignorant of the concept of sharing: what you give
you *really* give -- to the publi in the case of netnewsc.  If you don't 
believe that netnews is sharing, then go back and read the primer (it is 
there to give you fair warning of what you are getting into -- ignorance
of it can hurt you), it is posted monthly in news.announce.newusers .

Copyright law does not protect works which you give to the public.

As you implied, once you found the good sense to put a copyright 
notice in your posts, the duplication was restricted to usenet
distribution channels -- which you commanded to duplicate.

"Golly, Wolly, when I stopped giving it away, people stopped
using it any ol' way they want!"  Profound!

-- 
"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: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:25:22 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <EVMHKB7@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> In article <136@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
> >It is not the medium, but the usage.  Backing up to a CD-ROM (ok, WORM)
> >would not be wrong.  Selling copies of the magtape for profit would be.
> 
> Why? People sell Usenet feeds, and in various times and places Usenet has
> indeed been fed via magtape. The CDROM is just another Usenet feed.

Exactly - as far as I can tell, there isn't any real difference
between:

"I'll let you have an NNTP feed, and send you this months bill at the
end of the month."

(which is what some commercial service providers do), and

"I'll collect a feed for you, and send you the CDROM and a bill at the
end of the month."

	<mike
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: CWRU Freenet information needed.
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:52:56 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

I don't know if this is the right place or not, but...

I have not been able to access the CWRU Freent via telnet or ftp for over a
week now. The address I was using is 129.22.8.82. Now, all the happens is
eventually my system gives me a timeout message after trying.

Are the down?

If not, could someone please e-mail me the the address?

DC
Xref: sparky news.admin:6358 comp.org.eff.talk:4998 misc.legal.computing:1608
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:32:04 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <4877@tuegate.tue.nl>, gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) 
writes:
> PS How come these messgaes are still so widely crossposted?  Can't we
> settle on one group to concentrate them?  comp.org.eff.talk seems
> a good place and a lot of the articles in this thread on that group
> are to that group alone.

I'd prefer misc.legal.computing.  This is a legal issue relating to 
computers, not the Electronic Frontier Foundation (I'm probably muffing what 
EFF stands for)).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Commercial Advertising in News Groups
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:32:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland, Department of Electrical Engineering

Hi,
	I just have a quick question for the news.admin group.  What is the
policy with regards to commercial advertising in the news groups?

	On the few times that I have seen new IBM-PC clones advertised by
obvious commercial resellers, there have been tremendous protests and flames.
	
    ....but...

	When job shops, headhunters, and recruiters advertise their client's
job requirements, no one seems to mind.  Why is this?

	When a job gets filled thru one of these net advertisements, the
recruiter that posted the advertisement gets paid MANY thousands of dollars
for making the match.

	How is this different from the PC reseller, who makes a few bucks on
each machine?  Am I looking at this all wrong?  What are the rules anyway? 
Or is anarchy the governing policy?  Your polite comments are requested.

Chuck Harris
chuck@eng.umd.edu
Xref: sparky news.admin:6237 alt.newgroup:13