HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@jlc.mv.com (John Leslie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:27:16 GMT
Organization: John Leslie Consulting, Milford NH

In article <1992Jul24.010436.28323@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>Putting a copyright notice in a USENET posting does nothing to change
>the behaviour of USENET software; thus, it is lunacy to base one's
>expectations of the behaviour of USENET on the presence or absence of a
>copyright notice.
>
   Neither can an automated program compiling CDs behave any differently
because of a copyright notice in the text.  On the other hand, if there
was a "Copyright:" header, that reasonably _could_ trigger the exclusion
of an article.

   I'd bet that this question came up as NetNews was being designed --
our predecessors seem to have thought most things through pretty well.  
But I'm not sure I agree with the omission.  If there were a clearly
defined way to express your wish that your article NOT be placed on CD,
then people could use it and CD pressers could honor it; and we might
be spared a pile of court cases which seem pretty pointless to me.

John Leslie <john@jlc.mv.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: markw@gvlf7-q.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber)
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:53:09 GMT

In article <YMQHEZ@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> ... mail sent to "alice!jj" bounces from a site in unisys.com
>named "alice", instead of going to "alice.att.com" which is what I assume
>"alice!jj" is intended to refer to.
>
>Either there's a conflict in the maps, or uh.edu's maps are wonky.

There's a conflict in the maps. At some point, the original alice
was dropped from the uucp maps, and a new alice (a machine in the
unisys.com domain) was registered. There is no map entry for either
machine in the maps now, but connections to both machines are mentioned
in other machine's map entries. Most of the paths to Unisys's alice
have been eliminated, but not all. The connection to the "real" alice
is via Princeton, so princeton!alice!jj should work, or maybe try
alice!jj@princeton.edu, or jj%alice.uucp@princeton.edu.

Hope this helps,
Mark

-- 
  Mark H. Weber                   | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM  
  Paramax Systems (A Unisys Co.)  |     UUCP: ...!gvls1!markw
  Great Valley Laboratories       |      FAX: +1 215 648 2891
  Box 517, Paoli, PA  19301  USA  |    VOICE: +1 215 648 2112

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.080910.5730@unislc.uucp> thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes) writes:
>From article <1992Jul22.191735.11599@clarinet.com>, by brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton):
>> In article <mwm.19cx@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>>>
>>>So - anyone have any ideas on what the compromise could be?
>> 
>> 
>> Sure, model it like broadcasting, only better, because there is no
>> spectrum to allocate and thus no excuse for government regulation.
>
>Not to ignore Brad's lucid comments, which I didn't include, but we seem
>to be looking for a good metaphor to bounce these ideas off.  When I try
>to explain News to my family/friends, I compare it to a REALLY big party
>held in a ballroom with lots of loud people talking about every concievable
>subject.  I am perfectly free to wander between people and listen to any
>of the conversations, and even participate if I want.  In this setting, I
>believe that I would have no rights over my speach.
>
>Is this valid?  Anyone?

No, this is not valid.  There is a small, yet extremely critical
difference between your analogy and copyright law.  At the party,
everyone is presumably speaking into the air without writing down
their ``speeches'' beforehand.  For copyright law to apply, the
work in question must be ``fixed in a tangible medium of expression.''
This includes paper as well as on disk.  Thus, usenet postings
are subject to copyright protection.  How much or how little protection has
yet to be decided by a court, so all of you people who repeat "by
posting to Usenet, you effectively lose your copyright" could be
proven completely wrong.  Repeating yourself isn't going to help
either.

If someone took a single article of mine, printed it, and sold
it alone for $100, I think that would be a case of copyright infringement.
Normal means of transmission (such as NNTP) are part of news.
Somewhere between the two extremes is a line (yet to be determined
by a court) that separates the two.  Just because the line is
very, very fuzzy and many people stand on either side doesn't
mean that line doesn't exist.  This line is not too difficult for
a court to make a ruling on.  Now, they might say anything short
of printing a single article and selling it for profit is
part of ``news'', but that's all pure speculation right now.

-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
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Talking about Beals
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul20.132116.8348@lth.se> <mwm.18u9@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:32:35 GMT

Mike>  == Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> 
Bengt> == bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) wrote:

 Bengt> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim:
 Bengt> this is wrong.

 Mike> So what does this have to do with what Andy did?

Well, he definitely cancelled other people's articles, I don't think
anyone is arguing that; it's debatable whether you can call it "whim",
but it doesn't appear to have been "well planned" by the standards of
USENET.  He didn't put out feelers on news.admin or nntp-managers, as
far as I know; he certainly didn't test the code enough.  Premeditiation
was probably there, but he didn't meditate sufficiently :-)

Cancelling other people's articles out of personal disagreement with
their crossposting, then.
--
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: 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: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:22:41 GMT

In article <23336@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (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.

hold on a sec.

you helped write the rules for usenet?

surely if you are a net.old-timer, you must have suffered a head injury
sometime ago.

the attitude you are copping(sp?) does not seem to mesh with the attitudes
i expect from net.old-timers.

if you wish to copyright your articles, go ahead.

if you want to restrict distribution, that is your responsibility.

but don't expect the whole network, which existed long before your brain
damage, to bend to your will.

-- 
[ 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   ]
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:26:14 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <Bs0or1.GCJ@Caere.COM> mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones) writes:
>To me the point of protecting children from exposure to certain
>subjects is to allow their parents the freedom of choice in how to
>raise their children.  Freedom means freedom with responsibility --
>including how to raise your children.  Adults should not and must not
>have such restriction to access.

Seconded.  It is not our place to introduce your kids to sexual
wierdness such as may be presented in the alt.sex groups.  More
to the point, it is not *your* place to introduce *my* kids to
ANYTHING of that nature.  That is my job and responsibility.  To
say that children should not be "protected" from this stuff is
to *REMOVE* the rights of their parents to make decisions about
how their children are to be raised.  If the parents want to
grab alt.sex (or Hustler, or "10" <g>) and make it available
to their children, that is their decision.  If they do not
wish to make this material available to their children, that
is *also* their decision to make.



		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Never speak in absolutes.  It will always lead to trouble.
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:53:09 GMT

>The issue is the effect of the material on people.

We've all seen pictures on the news of cops carrying loads of magazines and
pictures out of a captured child molester's house.  They tell you it's
sexually explicit material and pictures of children.  What they don't tell
you is that a good deal of the time, the "pictures of children" is largely
or entirely things like pajama ads out of Sears catalogs and such.

Obviously, children modeling PJs in Sears catalogs has quite an effect on
some people - it turns them in to child molesters. 

Or do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, certain people are drawn to certain
types of material, rather than your assertion that everyone in the world but 
you is passively waiting for an inanimate object to "effect" them?  Naah..

>it just affects you by pressing sexual buttons, which are not subject to
>rational thought.

Don't project your lack of control on the rest of us.  Believe it or not,
most of us do not fear one day being unable to control or channel our urges.
I find this statement insulting and untrue.  People who think it IS true
scare me a bit, though.

  Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:33:29 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

First - I don't for a minute believe that inappropriate cross-postings
are illegal, any more than I believe that cancelling someone elses
article is illegal. What I believe is that the two go hand in hand;
one being illegal means the other must be. Now..

In <2A6F0073.5A79@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) wrote:
> According to mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
> >The only way for a site to protect itself from such illegal resource
> >usage is to make sure that the articles are never transmitted to their
> >site.
> 
> That's impossible.  No site knows what newsgroups an article is
> cross-posted to until the article has already arrived.  Therefore,
> 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. As such, any
inappropriate crosspost is unauthorized use of my machine. Doing that
intentionally (and in the cascaders case, maliciously) is clearly
illegal.

> 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. If you really believe they do, why not let everyone
who pays some form of per byte charge for their news send you the cost
of recieving all those articles. I don't think anyone charges for cpu
cycles or disk-hours anymore, but people certainly used to, and those
are also resources that won't come back with local removal.

> Therefore, this situation (massive cross-posts) offers no grounds for
> cancellation: simple local removal would be equally effective _and_
> harmless to neighbors.

If local removal were equally effective, I'd agree with you. But the
only way to prevent future real money charges caused by followups is
cancelling the original, illegal article.

	<mike
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: Email -> Usenet Re-direction Service
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:49:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul14.152410@aminet.uucp> barrett%aminet@nuconvex.com writes:
|
|If you really need a email-to-news gateway, YES, there are a few. I use to
|use them. The best one is on decwrl. You can get details by sending
|email to postmaster@decwrl.dec.com, but basically it's something like:
|
|new.admin   ->     news.admin.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
|
|put ".usenet" after the group name and send it to decwrl.


	I wrote one of these a while back, which has
	turned out to be particularly robust, if you
	don't mind the overhead of an awk script (no
	I don't have perl).  I'm not sure it this is
	a bug or a feature but it will turn a single
	blank line into a legal news article...


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 \*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/*\*/
 _< /_	 "Awaken the Geek Within" - Anthony Robot
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:01:06 GMT

In article <4878@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.013523.15134@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>:WRT you granting permission on something you don't own: suppose I
>:include some of your postings from rec.humor in a book, take the 
>:book to a printer (completely lacking any info which would reference
>:your ownership of some of the enclosed pages), have it printed, and 
>:then distribute those copies.
>:
>:Would you go and sue the printer?  You wouldn't win in any case, as
>:the infringement would be mine.  
>
>Bad example unfortunately.  I'm fairly sure in Britain it *is* the
>printer who is sued.

As in the United States.  Yes, I could sue the printer.  And don't
say I wouldn't win, because I probably would.  It's called
(you've heard this term before, I'm sure :-) ``innocent infringement.''
The printer would owe me as damages the profit he made from
printing the work you brought to him.

-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 news.admin:6390 comp.org.eff.talk:5020 misc.legal.computing:1631
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, copyright curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:36:08 GMT
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, copyright curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul29.030255.28743@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <23336@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon as usual) writes:
>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?
My apologies, Andrew, they're "rules", that being quotes of contempt.
If you think they're anythign else, ask Chuq!  They are
in his article.  So, ask him.

>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?
Of course there is no contract whatsoever.  This is a simple
volunteer service, where my machine offers other machines
an article, or they ask for it.  They don't have to take it.
Either automatically or non-automatically.  Now some of
us have feelings about non-automatically, and some of us have
feelings about having to pay extra for "USENET" as opposed
to alt.foobar, or the homebrew digest by e-mail, and some of
us feel very strongly about people outright stealing material
from the net for printed media, therefore we make it
explicitly clear that we do not permit such, at least
on any implicit basis.  That's pretty simple, it's very,
very unrestrictive, and it seems that all (most, if you're
one) site administrators know that, and don't mind at all.

If you are so upset at these facts that you have to keep screaming
and stomping your feet like my two year old woman child, why do
YOU read this stuff?

First, you claim a contract by attachment.  Somewhere, somebody
wises you up to that. Then you claim a set of "rules".  Multiple
somebodies wise you up to that.  Now, you claim an implicit contract,
but of course we have no such thing.  What's next, gonna try to
get my name on a piece of paper?  

Good luck, Andrew.

And give up, Andrew, you're wrong, simply wrong, and the
less charitable than I could think you're trying to deny
intellectual property rights.

-- 
 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:5989 alt.culture.usenet:446
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The Great Floating USENET Copyright War (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 26 Jul 1992 13:49:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

[We don't get misc.legal.computing here.]

In article <1992Jul26.024410.27395@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe
of the Den) writes, in response to the mysterious "alice!jj"'s copyright
notice:
>Actually, it occurs to me that the portion "alice!jj" *may* not be a
>legally sufficient identification of the authorship of the work.  What
>effect might that have on the ability to recover damages?

Hmmmmm. I hadn't thought of that, but you have an excellent point, for three
reasons:
1) It makes no provision at all for someone off the net (or, for that matter,
someone who doesn't know how to deal with a bang address) to request
permission for republication.
2) I strongly doubt that "alice!jj" is a legally acceptable way to identify
that particular person.
3) If such a case comes to court, it would be difficult to prove to a court's
satisfaction that the plaintiff is indeed the person who wrote those words.

-- 
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_
Xref: sparky news.admin:5999 comp.org.eff.talk:4728 misc.legal.computing:1406
From: dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:10:02 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <23255@alice.att.com>,
     jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch) writes:

> Does it?  Perhaps some of us weren't very impressed when we found 
> some of (my, at least) articles in a magazine or two, well past
> the "fair use" stage.  Some of us are also opposed to active editing
> (except on moderated newsgroups) on usenet.  Don't presume to
> guess what people want, why not just take them at face value?

   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". I say this because I don't see a significant difference
between a few thousand paper copies of your article in a magazine and
a few thousand electronic copies on usenet. Since you have no way of
limiting the electronic distribution of a posting it shouldn't matter if it
also appears in print - as long as the original format and content is retained.
If the articles were edited and/or you weren't credited as being the author
then I think that's plagiarism. Did the magazines staff take these
directly, or did some third party compile them and submit them as his own
work? It would have been ethical of the publisher to pay you whatever rate
they normally pay their contributors ( in the same way that I'm paying you
the same rate as I pay usenet contributors to "publish" this posting on my
system - in this case nothing ) 

========================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett    Malaspina College         Email: dunnett@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services  Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA        Tel: (604)755-8738
Xref: sparky news.admin:6236 alt.censorship:6319 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2404
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:51:44 GMT
Organization: Aston University

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
: >The issue is the effect of the material on people.
: 
: We've all seen pictures on the news of cops carrying loads of magazines and
: pictures out of a captured child molester's house.  They tell you it's
: sexually explicit material and pictures of children.  What they don't tell
: you is that a good deal of the time, the "pictures of children" is largely
: or entirely things like pajama ads out of Sears catalogs and such.
: 
: Obviously, children modeling PJs in Sears catalogs has quite an effect on
: some people - it turns them in to child molesters. 
: 
: Or do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, certain people are drawn to certain
: types of material, rather than your assertion that everyone in the world but 
: you is passively waiting for an inanimate object to "effect" them?  Naah..

You would never convince the censors of that.
Otherwise it would be one of their major arguments supporting their case
out of the window.

I wonder, in fact how anyone who wants to render writing, pictures or
whatever about sex can possibly be older that about 13 themselves.
(how old is sucessful IVF?)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Xref: sparky news.admin:6130 alt.censorship:6245 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2383