HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:09:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.075115.9397@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>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.

	This argument has been going on for a while now and it just struck
me that it sounded vaguely familiar.  Maybe we need to define USENET as a
common carrier (shades of Stargate).  As a common carrier (I think), we
(news forwarders) just move the bits and are not liable to the poster,
recipient or actual copyright holder.  I don't know if common carrier status
has ever been applied to automatic physical distribution (CD-ROM, mag tape);
as oppossed to electronic (modem, NNTP); but it might even cover that as
well.  Only the a human reader would be liable for any violations of
copyright.  This would protect sys admins and automatic forwarding sites (of
any kind) from lawsuits while at the same time allowing alice!jj to place
some restriction on non-automatic distribution of his work.

	Of course, this might not allow me to email a friend one of Brad's
postings from rec.humor.funny.  Nor would it allow most republishing of
USENET articles without express permission in newspapers or similar media.
(This always passes by human eyes (if not a human mind) before publishing.)
On the other hand, my vague memories of the Stargate discussions are that
"common carrier status" has no clear cut guidelines on how it can be
obtained.  Not to mention the difficulties in doing so for a non-organized
organization like USENET.

				Bill Bogstad
Xref: sparky news.admin:6226 comp.org.eff.talk:4859 misc.legal.computing:1509
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Not time for Bandy
Date: 13 Jul 92 15:06:48 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> I subscribed to news.admin some weeks ago to see what this cancel
> thing was. With some astonishment I read all the agony was written
> about the pour soul. He had cancelled over 400 messages! What a sin.
> Just yesterday I reposted 57 articles from this one single site since 
> they had gone lost at the Swedish backbone. Several of the articles
> were reposted for the third time. When I original posted them they
> were lost because of faulty setup at the backbone site. Really
> where the error was at the other occassions is unclear, but there
> is still problems with articles randomly disappearing. Bugs in
> C-news are suspected. (In the batch of 57, nine didn't make it.)
> 
> So with a news network where article regularly disappear due to
> faulty software or human screw-up, the fuzz about 400 more lost
> articles seems completely out of proportion.

Hundreds of people die on the roads every day.  So to complain about my
murdering a couple of car drivers is to blow my actions completely out of
proportion, right?

But gilliesque analogies aside, not even I think that the Great Prophet Henry
Spencer (RTFM) deliberately tries to make C news dump as many innocent users'
articles as possible.  He just makes mistakes, suffers poor design decisions,
and so on.

Bandy *deliberately* tried to cause the loss of hundreds of articles.  If you
can't see the difference between a deliberate action and an accidental one,
you should seek urgent moral guidance.

You might argue that it was "accidental" that he cancelled 'legitimate'
articles (whatever that means) rather than just alt.cascade cross-posts; but
that's being evasive. Bandy's motivation was to destroy articles; precisely
whose articles is of no particular relevance compared to the question of
whether articles should be destroyed at all.  Henry Spencer's motivation is
*not* to destroy articles; rather, it is to propogate articles -- but if and
only if he thinks it is safe to do so.  Big difference.

My argument with Henry Spencer is over when it is safe to propogate articles;
my argument with Bandy would be over whether he should be even trying to do
what he wants to do in the first place.


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.
Xref: sparky news.admin:6028 alt.sex.bondage:14241 alt.censorship:6113 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2365
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:41:49 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
}Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
}It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
    ...
}Universities in both Canada and the United States shy away from 
}censoring access to news groups that cause offence.

}"Some university sites in other locations," said a recent policy paper 
}by the Iowa State University computation centre, "have already come 
                                 (that's) center (down here)
}under internal and external criticism for the use of state and federal 
}funds to store and distribute items which are alleged either to be
}illegal or objectionable.
    ...
}Iowa State decided it would not restrict access to networks, but set up 
}a program to warn users about material they might find offensive.

As regular readers of some of these newsgroups are no doubt aware,
the original ISU open access policy [which I helped write] has been
superceeded by a (imho) less enlightened policy [which I did not].
[the final outcome is still uncertain]

I am not aware of any such "program" (computer or otherwise).

John
-- 
John Hascall           Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:36:58 GMT

In article <05YK02og1c=001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>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)).

Just so long as you're not miffed about what EFF stands for.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: tar@uunet.uunet!mercomp (Theresa Russo)
Subject: ignore this messages
Organization: Mercury Computer Systems
Distribution: mc
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:28:34 GMT

this is a test - ignore this messages
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 12:46:59 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <T7BDoB34w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >However, it is the case that inappropriate Followup-To: lines aren't terrori
> >by any stretch of the imagination.  Show me someone who's suffered terror as
> >a result of a Followup-To: line and I'll show you someone who should stop
> >dropping acid.
> 
> What about the guy who almost lost his job as a result of the email
> (which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
> important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?  (OK,
> I don't know that it happened, but it's plausible.  And you asked :-)

Try posting to misc.test.  You'll get about ten mail messages.  You can get
more mail by posting something stupid.


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.

Xref: sparky news.admin:6218 comp.org.eff.talk:4852 misc.legal.computing:1503
From: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:20:56 GMT
Reply-To: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au
Followup-To: news.admin

In <mwm.1bah@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:

>In <13712.Jul2615.14.0692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) wrote:
>> ``Expires:'' would do the trick, don't you think? I'd call it
>> ``Non-Automatic-Copying-Permitted-Until:'' but it's the same idea.

>Expires is close to "Non-...". That is the opposite of the desired
>mechanism, though. A new header would seem to be the obvious
>candidate, but it should be called
>"Restrictions-On-Automatic-Copying:", since the idea is to allow
>automated mechanisms to catch and reject an article under conditions
>specified by an author.

How about the following?  These were some random thoughts I threw together a
few days ago.  I don't propose that this would be the "final version", but
it was what I came up with.  The main wrangling would be over the identifiers
to use in the "X-Copyright-Distribution" header.  Probably the names of the
headers could be shortened, but that's just more wrangling.

IMHO, a nice feature of these thoughts is that copyright messages are copied
into follow-ups, muting some complaints about fair-use and quotations, but
that would require a massive newsreader software upgrade, so maybe it's not
that good after all. :-)

Comments?

Cheers,

Rhys.

--------
ORIGINAL ARTICLE COPYRIGHT.

Example:

	X-Copyright-Message: Copyright 1992 Rhys Weatherley
	X-Copyright-Distribution: unlimited

These headers can be placed in either the main header or the auxillary header.
The auxillary header is to be encouraged however to prevent them being dropped
when passing through gateways, and so it is "up-front and visible" in
newsreaders that suppress displaying the header, giving no one an excuse to
say that they missed it.  If the "X-Copyright-Distribution" header is not
present, then "unlimited" is assumed.

FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE COPYRIGHT.

Example:

	X-Copyright-Message: Copyright 1992 Rhys Weatherley
	X-Copyright-Distribution: unlimited,not-cdrom
	X-Copyright-Reference: <9346@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
	X-Copyright-Message: Copyright 1992 Fred Nyerk
	X-Copyright-Distribution: unlimited,not-cdrom

The copyright messages are in reverse follow-up order.  That is, the current
message comes first, then the message being followed-up to, and then the
follow-up to the follow-up, etc.  Thus, when forming a reply it is simply
necessary to add an "X-Copyright-Reference" line, preceded by the current
user's copyright lines.  If the user does not have a copyright message, then
only an "X-Copyright-Reference" line is added.  If an "X-Copyright-Reference"
line is already present, then it is assumed that there have been one or more
users in the thread that don't have copyright messages, and have already added
the reference.
--------
--
Rhys Weatherley, University of Queensland, Australia.
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au  "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160358.10550@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.184805.19243@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>>Giving away (forwarding to friend, etc) yet still retaining a copy for
>>yourself happens all the time and while a technical violation
>>is in my opinion a totally unenforceable aspect.  I seriously doubt that
>>there is ever likely to be a finding of copyright violation for a single
>>reproduction situation.  Copyright violation suits are filled because
>>the holder of the copyright sees a significant lose of expected
>>revenue because of the violation.  It would be interesting to see
>>if there's any cases that have happened in the past involving only
>>a single "illegal" copy being made of a generally bland/normal
>>document (as opposed to a famous painting, etc.)
>
>Yes there are analogous situations involving sheet music.  Churches has been
>successfully sued because a soloist just wanted to make a single copy for
>the pianist.  You will find noone more rabid about copyright issues then
>the people in the music industry.  The church was accused of multiply counts
>of copyright violation, most of which involved several copies made for
>the whole choir, but some of the counts were of the "single" copy variety.

However, as you point out, the "single case" only showed up because of
the multiple case situation (the choir) that was the root cause of the
violation being identified.  Had there ONLY been the case of the one
copy made for the organist, there probably would not have been any
pursuit of the situation.  In fact, the situation likely would have
never been known to anyone but the copier and the organist.  So, while
a copyright violation, the ability to learn of and then sue for a 
single case like that is highly unlikely.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:6228 comp.org.eff.talk:4861 misc.legal.computing:1510
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:58:31 GMT
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa

In article <1992Jul27.022855.27237@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>,
peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
> So your feed regularly violates the instructions of
> posters in mishandling of their work, and you are
> condoning their behaviour by not asking them to stop.

No, the posters' instructions are not necessarily being violated.
"Distribution:  foo" does not mean "Do not distribute this article
outside the 'FOO' area", it means "Please distribute this article to all
places that want the 'foo' distribution".  There is usually a high
correlation between the set of systems in the 'FOO' area and the set of
systems that want the 'foo' distribution, but (except for certain values
of 'foo' and 'FOO') the two sets are not congruent and the poster of an
article with "Distribution:  foo" should know this.  (For example, my
system intentionally receives the 'usa' and 'na' distributions.)

Yes, there are also unintentional leaks in the distribution mechanism.
These should be closed:  "/all,!local" must die.

> I also believe that with a combination of the
> "Distribution:"  and "Expire:" fields, with a few agreed
> upon extensions, we can manage to control Usenet
> distribution enough to keep it out of the hands of the
> lawyers, provided site admins agreed to abide by a few
> simple rules (like, set up your site to adher to clear
> instructions already included in the headers).

I agree.  The first problem seems to be to find the right model of
what Usenet is.  Then we need to agree on necessary extensions and
implement them.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za             Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:00:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <nu@byu.edu> gritton@byu.edu writes:
>> On the other hand, why shouldn't existing child porn be in
>> libaries?  Why is the mere possession of pictures (merely
>> an arrangement of colored dies) a crime?
>
>   By making the posession a crime, it make it more difficult to make
>and distribute the stuff. The idea is that by removing the customer
>base, the producers will not make as much profit, and may find some
>other hobby.

A pretty silly business overall, since the consensus of expert opinion is
that the child-porn business was miniscule and so were its profits.  The
normal porn distributors wouldn't handle the stuff, so the market was tiny.
Far more got spent on outlawing it!
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Talking about Beals
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:36:59 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <1992Jul20.132116.8348@lth.se>, bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) wrote:
> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.

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

	<mike
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:12:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.032455.23496@cc.gatech.edu> duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.002241.16018@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>but don't expect the whole network, which existed long before your brain
>>damage, to bend to your will.
>
>Look, copyright existed long before the net did.  Why does the 
>net get special privileges to violate jj's copyright?  It is
>the responsibility of those wishing to make use of copyrighted
>materials to get permission to use that material.  Just because
>the net exists in a certain state doesn't mean that copyright
>law doesn't exist in our semi-mythical Usenet.  For all we know,
>current Usenet practices might be found to be in violation
>of copyright laws.

i didn't ask to make use of jj's articles, someone in effect is photocopying
them and stuffing them under my door.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 519 893-6085 ]
[             I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.              ]
[              Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!               ]
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:23:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.030330.20663@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:
>
>>Posting to Usenet is akin to speaking on a box in Hyde Park. Regardless 
>>of what the speaker intends, he/she is speaking in a public forum and
>>the speech/posts may generally be reproduced. Usenet contributions are
>>public comments in a public forum.
>
>Bzzzzt. Sorry Jim, wrong answer, but thanks for playing though.
>
>Tiny Tim could decide "hey, I think I'll try to make a comeback" by singing
>several new songs in Central Park. That doesn't convey the right of recording
>and republication of said recordings to me.
>
>Certainly, fair-use does play a role though.

 
In a public forum:
Tiny Tim's performance of presumably copyright material, a matter governed 
by existing law, is quite different than Tiny Tim pontificating on the
virtues of Ms. Vickie. At issue in this thread is whether original
speech, offered to a public forum, is fair game for reproduction.
Some say that under no conditions can such speech be reproduced in
whole or in part. Those who stick to this position are on shaky ground.
If Al Gore sings the entirety of "Tomorrow's Gone" in the middle of a
speech, I am still restricted in my own use of it. But, such restriction
does not also limit my right to reproduce the contents of his speech or
snippets of the song relevant to a story about his speech. Re-recording
others' songs in a performance of your own is quite different than reproducing
(under appropriate conditions) the text of those songs.
 
The "Tiny Tim" example illustrates the complexity of the issues. But, it
does not challenge the contention that original Usenet posts such as
this are public. As somebody suggested earlier, the question is what
types of restrictions, guidelines, and norms should guide re-posts that
protection abuses of reproduction while also protecting the right to
reproduce.
 
jt
 
 

R
R
R
R
R
R

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:16:36 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
>What [if a person] almost lost his job as a result of the email
>(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
>important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?

Inconvenience, sure.  Terror?  Riiiight....
-- 
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
Xref: sparky news.admin:6165 comp.org.eff.talk:4819 misc.legal.computing:1478