HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Copyright and alt.sex.pictures (was: copyright == ill...)
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:57:24 GMT


From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Copyright and alt.sex.pictures (was: copyright == ill...)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:53:06 GMT


     This is a small bit of history about copyright, sueing and alt.sex.
pictures.  Other people can tell the story better than I, so if any are out 
there, I wish they would chime in.

     The person who used to keep the FAQ on alt.sex.pictures (I think
his name was Brian Reid) said that he once sent letters to Playboy, Penthouse
and Hustler asking them about thier feelings and intentions about things
like a.s.p.  He was at that time thinking of becoming the moderator of
a.s.p, an event that would have been very good for the net.
   The response, as far as I understand it was that if he became moderator,
they might consider sueing to stop a.s.p.  Otherwise, as long as there
was no organization, and no profit being made off thier pictures, they
would not pursue it.

   This is the story I refer to when I say that publishers know about
a.b.p.e. Publishers certainly know about BBS's. The point I think is
clear. They don't care about a little free distribution of thier
material, but want to be able to stop it if it becomes abusive, or
too organized.
   I'm sure Playboy would chock if you said that 4-5 images were all that
was valuable in thier magazine. In this context you might consider
a.b.p.e to be nothing mor than free advertising for PLayboy (and the others)
in violation of usenet practices :-)

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2658 alt.censorship:7035 news.admin:7196
From: bernman@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bernie Hoefer)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:35:35 GMT
Reply-To: bernman@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bernie Hoefer)
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: Purdue University

In article <UeYz6mS00XsEA6g0Vc@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu
(David O Hunt) writes:
---
>If you want to pray at graduation, feel free.  Nobody's stopping it.
>The
>decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer.  e.g.  Valedictorian says
>"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.
>
>Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.  
>What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>(purposefully or by default).
---

	I thought the decision prevents SCHOOL OFFICIALS from
promoting prayer.  A school official cannot ask that a prayer
be said.
	However, does this decision not work both ways?  If
a school official cannot promote a prayer, he or she cannot
discourage it, either.  Would a valedictorian, in his or her
speech, be allowed to say a prayer or give thanks to his or her
god?  Since the valedictorian is not a school official
(he or she not on the government's payroll) it would not be
a case of "government" promoting religion.  But if the school
official tried to prevent the valedictorian from saying anything
about god in his or her speech, would not this ruling be
in favor of the valedictorian?

--
                            /\/B E R N   M A N\/\

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I do not know..."
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:15:38 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:44:12 GMT

stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott) writes:

|An interesting question was brought up:  Is it defensible to allow access to
|a newsgroup that distributes illegal material.  The example given was one
|of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.

Another good question might be: Is it defensible to allow access to a
newsgroup where some people sometimes distribute materials illegal in
your country?

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: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:32:24 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:36:30 GMT

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.233103.12268@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>|Likewise, you do what you want on your system.  Of course, as anybody
>|with any experience on the net knows, if you try to stop other people
>|from reading something they want to read, they'll find a way around
>|you.

>Of course.  That's fine.  Then why is everybody screeching
>about freedom of speech???

Because the ability to obtain material through alternative routes
doesn't make the original censoring right, nor make it any less an
action against freedom of speech and freedom of information.

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

          "I see everything twice!" --Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"

Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

          "I see everything twice!" --Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:32:45 GMT


From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:39:24 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
>recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
>controversial newsgroups.

...

>However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
>controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
>similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
>to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
>to defend.  (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
>much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
>that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
>There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
>bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
>that they are not as much of an issue.)

Just as a point of reference a local commercial BBS is in the process
of being sued by Playboy for charging for GIF scanned from their
magazine. And the attempted "defense" that the BBS didn't scan them
doesn't impress Playboy at all...

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:36:14 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:14:47 GMT

In article <ward1.713735730@husc8> ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward) writes:
>There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality.  I'm
>completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
>original posters main issue.
>
>As far as legality, a few comments:
>o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
>  accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
>  a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is.  Can you copywrite algrothms
>  for example.  I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
>  me, no doubt.

I think the hazy areas are not under discussion right now... they are a
separate issue that I as a news administrator don't really have to worry
about until they are settled.

>o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA.  It is illegal in
>the USA, but not in Germany.  Is the poster breaking the law?  There are
>probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
>the point is clear.  Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
>the poster prosecuted? etc.

This is a good point, but doesn't apply to the major issue under discussion,
which is copyrighted material.  Copyright laws are international.

  - J. Botz
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2581 misc.legal:15997 alt.censorship:6940
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk) (M i c h a e l ;-)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:49:08 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Followup-To: news.admin.policy
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1992Aug13.192347.21686@ludd.luth.se>, bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller) writes:
|> I think this idea of closing newgroups because they carry illegal material is
|> a bit strange. It's not the newsgroup that's at fault. If it's pictures, they
|> can very well be posted somewhere else, or be spread through mail (which
|> I believe already happens). No one (I think) would carry the idea of closing
|> a road because people drive too fast, or would anyone? 

Come on.... things *DO* happen if many people drive too fast down one piece of road:
1) the police keep a watch (from secret hiding places....... THINK ABOUT IT!)
2) there are other measures taken ("traffic calming")
3) and it has been known (and OFTEN APPRECIATED) to actually close the roads !

NB: this is not to say that I do or do not agree with illegal traffic on UseNet (I've
not weighed up all the arguments yet)

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:32:57 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern))
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:32:54 GMT

Hi.

I have read the ongoing discussion in this group with interest at
first.  However, when I thought of it some more, I found that all of
the followups seem to have ignored one central issue:

  If a University or company offers a news feed, it is offering a
*service*.  Usenet is not yet a right, it's a privilege.  A University
or company has every right to control how their computers are used.
After all, they belong to the University or company, not to the
students or employees.  In analogy, a newsstand does not have to carry
each and every available newspaper or magazine.  If I, as the
newsstand's owner, find magazines containing porno photos, fascist
propaganda, leftist propaganda, etc. unacceptable, I will not sell
those magazines which will probably only take up shelf space anyway.

  This does not mean that anybody should read (private) email, by the
way.  Once a service like mail is offered, it must be available in a
secure and unoppressive manner.  For example, I believe it's OK for a
University or company to cancel certain newsgroups, but students or
employees must not be punished for reading any group once it's
available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups must not be done.

  In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
play God yourself and simply cancel the groups.  You should ask for an
official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling.  If you
cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
illegally published material.

  I would like to thank the poster for his rational tone, which has
done everything to avoid unnecessary flamage.  Well done!

-- 
+------- No .sig? OH, COME ON! --------+-"The derivative snuggles  close to-+
| email:  neuhaus@informatik.uni-kl.de | the function---whatever to snuggle |
| snail mail: Stephan Neuhaus/Hilgard- | means; I'm too old for that"       |
| ring 32/6750 Kaiserslautern/Germany  |                       -- Math Prof |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.future]  Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:35:43 GMT


From: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby)
Newsgroups: news.future
Subject:  Re: reading news from multiple NNTP servers.
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:26:54 GMT

The NNTP version of trn can do this, via the NNTPSERVER env variable.  I've
built a script which allows flexible access to multiple servers.  It will
store the required "dot" files (.newsrc, .rnlast, .rnsoft) in a $HOME
directory of .trrn-{nntpserver}-{user $NAME}.  You need to keep separate
.newsrc files for each NNTP server or else trn will get really confused.
Here's how I do it; my default NNTP server is news.cerf.net:

#!/bin/sh
NNTPSERVER=${NNTPSERVER:-news.cerf.net}
suffix=${NAME:+`echo $NAME|sed -e 's/[^[:alpha:]]//g'`}
DOTDIR=${DOTDIR:-"$HOME/.trrn-$NNTPSERVER${suffix:+-$suffix}"}
export DOTDIR NNTPSERVER
if [ ! -d $DOTDIR ] ; then
  echo I am creating the following DOTDIR directory for you: $DOTDIR
  echo This will prevent trrn from conflicting with your standard trn files.
  echo "Please press RETURN to continue...\c"
  read junk
  mkdir $DOTDIR
fi
PATH=/usr/contrib/bin/trrndir:$PATH
export PATH
/usr/contrib/bin/trrndir/trrn
-- 
Mark Bixby                         Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu
Coast Community College District   1370 Adams Avenue
District Information Services      Costa Mesa, CA, USA  92626
Technical Support                  (714) 432-5064
"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2542 alt.censorship:6890
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: freedom of speech
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:34:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes:

[...]
>i was wondering, if we strive for freedom of speech
>where do issues such as libel and slander fall?
>i mean, are they are different issue, or is there
>a line drawn when freedom of speech actually harms 
>someone?
[...]

When the harm to other's rights is clear and present and when more
speech won't work, then compensation or punishment can be justified.

Examples: Falsely yelling fire and causing a panic.
          Spreading lies about someone that damages their
              reputation. 
          Calling someone on the phone day after day after they
              tell you to stop.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 9
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 10:31:08 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<1992Aug13.192347.21686@ludd.luth.se> <01@byu.edu>

I said:

> with a very slim majority in the public domain or owned by the
> posters.

I meant to say there is a slim *minority* in the public domain or
owned by the posters.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2567 misc.legal:15991 alt.censorship:6930
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:38:09 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) writes:

[...]
>  Of
>course, if you believe the law is wrong, you could choose to engage in civil
>disobedience and carry the illegal material anyway, but then you should
>expect to be arrested and taken to court some day.

Copyright violation and libel in the U.S. are civil wrongs, so
you wouldn't be subject to arrest.

[...]
>   As a practical matter, you can estimate the risk of carrying a group by
>determining what percentage of the stuff in the group is clearly illegal
>(copies without permission of copyrighted material in this case).
[...]

This might be a good measure for copyright and libel, but not for
obscenity. In the U.S., material is obscene only if 3) when taken as a
whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value".

I don't know the case law on what constitutes a "whole" material, but
I would think that the impracticality of checking each article
individually would support the idea that a newsgroup should be judged
as a whole.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/miller

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law miller
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:59:13 GMT


Newsgroups: news.admin
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:44:18 GMT

In article <225@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>  The U of Manitoba
>(I think it was) cut of[f] a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
>of the Canadian laws. 

   I may have missed this, but what court was it that found a.s.b in violation
of a law? I didn't know it had got that far yet.

DanZ
-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: 880518l@dragon.acadiau.ca (Nelson Langille)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:04:45 GMT

Yes, but isin't it true that many(mostly all) anonymous FTP sites
contain pictures which are copyrighted?  So what's the difference.

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: sevans@andy.bgsu.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:50:05 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

[Lots of unneccesary rationalizations and excuses deleted...]

> In summary, while I will fight tooth and nail against censorship in
> general when the issue comes up with the local powers-that-be, I am
> tempted to concede that newsgroups which are used to distribute 
> demonstrably illegal materials not be carried.  I am fully aware of
> the complications and problems with such a policy, but I would like
> to see some further discussion of this topic.  I fear that if such
> discussion does not take place, the future of the entire Altnet is
> in peril as the Newsnet becomes more mainstream and gets exposed
> to greater scrutiny.


In other words you are opposed to censorship except where such items
as you are personnally opposed to are the ones being censored??
C'mon, it seems like EVERYONE, even Bible Thumpers, are opposed to
censorship of things they don't find objectionable.  The only criteria
then is if the "powers that be" find that the material should be
censored "for the good of the public".  
Frankly if you use some justification for not carrying one group it
becomes quite simple then to come up with some seemingly just a logical
justification for eliminating others.
Banning groups is like eating lays potato chips, no one can do Just one!
-Steve

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: stantbat@iastate.edu (John S Sinnott)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:05:45 GMT

An interesting question was brought up:  Is it defensible to allow access to
a newsgroup that distributes illegal material.  The example given was one
of the alt.sex.picture groups where copywrited material is often posted.

I think that we can all agree that the burden of proff is on the person 
making the accusation.  Just which picture is copywritten, and is being
posted without perrmission.  To my knowledge, there has never been a case
involving an adult magazine publisher suing a BBS or network because of
.gif files.  

I am not a lawyer, but is it not part of US copywrite law that an owner
of a copywrite must protect his/her property?

I would ask the powers that be to prove someone has broken the law.

Even if they can show wrongdoing, does that mean the group that the post
appered on should be closed?  Are they asking you to set up a policy where
every group that has someone breaking the law (or the groups charter) be
cancelled?  What about people illegally sending pirated software through
e-mail?  Should we get rid of E-mail too?  Or are the Powers only censoring
groups that they object to morally?  What about people who put copywritten
quotes in their .sigs?  Are we going to get rid of every group that has
someone doing this?

If I was the adminitrator, I would ask for well defined rules for determining
under what situations a group can be cancelled and then point out how many
other non-sex related groups would also have to go.

-John Sinnott