karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (08/09/89)
In article <434@tp2.Waterloo.NCR.COM> howard@tp2.UUCP (Howard F. Steel) writes: >In article <sYrS8Ay00WB84go0hh@andrew.cmu.edu> dp22+@andrew.cmu.edu (David >Bruce Pinkus) writes: > > --- some stuff about a fabulous new franchise deleted ----- > >I was under the impression that the NET was not for business advertisement. >If it is, I have a number of friends who would like to advertise throughout >North America for free. Actually Howard, you may be wrong. A few months ago there was a big flap about people using the network resources (whether by posting, or reselling the stream that we call "Usenet") for their personal profit. Now, we all know that lots of sites resell the stream -- they ask others to share the costs of importing their feed(s). This includes Unido, UUNET, and hundred of other smaller systems. That, it would seem, is something that is considered "ok" by nearly everyone. Some people wanted to restrict the right of others to resell parts of the net that they claimed to be "theirs". I was part of a big flap about this, and gave up in disgust -- no one really cared, or so it seemed. Even though there is a distinct distribution for this kind of thing (biz.* groups), people didn't want to restrict the commerce and compilation copyrights to that area -- as long as their champion was doing the commercializing. Now it comes full circle. I have seen two nice commercial ads in the last week. This franchise deal was one, the other was some new hardware product (fax?) that was posted to some 7 or 8 groups. Me thinks that it is only a matter of a very small time period before the net becomes the next big advertising medium. All of you who said "oh, it's ok if <person x> copyrights and sells that group, and it's ok if <person y> posts ads for their book or whatever on the net, even though it's a commercial enterprise" will realize just what you have condoned. The snowball is rolling downhill, and gathering both size and speed. Personally I don't care anymore. If it becomes common practice, well, heck, we may as well post our ads to the net too, right? Looking at it from the point of view of a corporate marketing manager, this is one hell of a cheap way to get some publicity; 500,000 users across the world. Not bad for a few hundred bucks a month in telephone costs. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/10/89)
Karl: thar ya go again! The flap was about whether or not what came off the net, could be used for profit by the person responsible for putting it on the net in the first place. Of course, 'n' thousand people seem to enjoy the postings in questions. So, the idea of merely using that for a profit-making situation didn't add to net.overhead at all. Placing an ad on the net, though, is a bit different. First, it uses net resources for the sole profit of one person. And it is specifically against the charter of UseNet (or so it seems to me). Not so slight a difference. -- Ross M. Greenberg UNIX TODAY! 594 Third Avenue New York New York 10016 Review Editor Voice:(212)-889-6431 BBS:(212)-889-6438 uunet!utoday!greenber BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212
" Maynard) (08/10/89)
In article <1989Aug9.140945.5371@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Some people wanted to restrict the right of others to resell parts of the >net that they claimed to be "theirs". Still refuse to recognize that rec.humor.funny is Brad Templeton's work? Or are you too busy hating? >I was part of a big flap about this, Actually, you and Matt Crawford _were_ the flap. >All of you who said "oh, it's ok if <person x> copyrights and sells that >group, and it's ok if <person y> posts ads for their book or whatever on >the net, even though it's a commercial enterprise" will realize just what >you have condoned. The snowball is rolling downhill, and gathering both >size and speed. *BOGUS CONCLUSION ALERT* *BOGUS CONCLUSION ALERT* *BOGUS CONCLUSION ALERT* Karl, you use a slippery slope argument without showing how the slope is slippery. Allowing Brad to protect and redistribute _his work_, in any form, does not necessaruly lead to the net as advertising medium. Would you prohibit Dave Barry from selling his column at a profit just because he published it here first? It's the same thing. >Personally I don't care anymore. If it becomes common practice, well, heck, >we may as well post our ads to the net too, right? I suspect that any site (including ddsw1) which does this outside of biz.* (which I commend you for supporting) would lose net access if done repeatedly. Seriously, though, why do you insist on continuing this vendetta? All you do is give everyone else the distinct impression of sour grapes. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "Rabid rerouters *love* to route mail to devnull@hell.org" - Brandon Allbery
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (08/10/89)
In article <937@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Karl: thar ya go again! Start with ad hominen; that's in the spirit of the net ;-) >The flap was about whether or not what came off the net, could be used >for profit by the person responsible for putting it on the net in the >first place. Actually, the first flap (there were many) was about someone posting advertisements for a compilation, in print, some of which came off the net (and some of which did not). That was, if you remember, the commercial use which started all the shouting and noise. After this was tolerated we were witness to service bureau ads (Clarinet & IMM), a business franchise ad, and an ad for computer fax products. All in general distribution groups. >Of course, 'n' thousand people seem to enjoy the postings in questions. So, >the idea of merely using that for a profit-making situation didn't add >to net.overhead at all. > >Placing an ad on the net, though, is a bit different. First, it uses net >resources for the sole profit of one person. And it is specifically against >the charter of UseNet (or so it seems to me). There is no charter of Usenet, just some general agreements among the participants. This is not Fidonet; you cannot be "excommunicated" per-se. Why is it ok if one person puts an ad on the net, but not ok if a different person does it? Is it ok if a moderator of a group does it, but not ok if a normal user makes the posting? If I bury my advertisement in another posting so that it is not the only thing that is contained in that "message" is it ok? I fail to understand the fundamental difference between these activities, unless the "correctness" of the action is related to the person rather than the content! Please explain why it is ok for someone to sell a compilation of jokes using the net as a primary advertising medium, but it's not ok for me to sell computer equipment using the net as a primary advertising medium. >Not so slight a difference. No difference IMHO. I've already said that I don't mind the "IMM" and "Clarinet" ideas as such -- it's the increase in bandwidth through our machine to subsidize them, if any, that I would object to, and the posting of ads for the services to a dozen newsgroups. If there is no increase in our costs as a result of the operations, then I have no continuing objection. So far I can't see any increase in our costs related to these ventures -- thus I have no objection. I do object to a double standard when it comes to advertisements on the net. If it's ok to post commercial advertisements for things on the net, then it is. Otherwise, it's not. To suggest that it is ok to advertise pay-for jokebooks or Clarinet/IMM services, but not franchises to some business or computer equipment is absurd. Both generate profit only for the poster, contain no information of general worth to the net at large, are commercial, and add to the volume to the net traffic stream. If it's not ok to do these things, and I think the consensus at this point is that it is not, then those items should be posted to the "biz" groups, so that only those sites which consent to the traffic have to bear it. MCS does exactly that -- yes, we post commercial ads all the time. They go to the "biz" groups -- anyone who doesn't want to pay to receive them has no need to do so, and those who DO want this material specifically have to arrange for a feed -- by doing so consenting to the material contained inside. Rather than blast advertisements at the entire net, I did something constructive about the problem. "Biz" doesn't get a lot of traffic at present, but if it did that would be fine by me. In short, I don't object to commercialism on the net -- but I would like to see it in a place where people who DO object can avoid paying for its transmission. If the net as a whole allows jokebook ads, Clarinet ads, and IMM ads to be posted to rec, comp, misc, and alt groups without complaint then we have little room to holler when people post advertisements for their pet business projects, franchises, software or equipment in comp, misc, rec & alt. >Ross M. Greenberg >UNIX TODAY! 594 Third Avenue New York New York 10016 >Review Editor Voice:(212)-889-6431 BBS:(212)-889-6438 >uunet!utoday!greenber BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/11/89)
In article <1989Aug10.151622.871@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >Actually, the first flap (there were many) was about someone posting >advertisements for a compilation, in print, some of which came off the net >(and some of which did not). That was, if you remember, the commercial use >which started all the shouting and noise. > The only flap I seem to recall getting out of hand was over r.h.f & some of the comercial services. > >There is no charter of Usenet, just some general agreements among the >participants. This is not Fidonet; you cannot be "excommunicated" per-se. > No official charter: you're right. A certain tradition, a certain respect for other people, a certain respect for that which is generally accepted. I consider that a charter. >Why is it ok if one person puts an ad on the net, but not ok if a different >person does it? Depends on the ad, I suppose. "Dinnette For Sale" ads seem to go against the above mentioned charter. "Hey, I'm using this product of my effort to make a buck", doesn't. > I fail to understand the fundamental difference between these >activities, unless the "correctness" of the action is related to the person >rather than the content! If that is all the difference you're seeing, this is most certainly gonna be a fruitless discussion. We should take it to E-mail, rather than pester those about us.... -- Ross M. Greenberg UNIX TODAY! 594 Third Avenue New York New York 10016 Review Editor Voice:(212)-889-6431 BBS:(212)-889-6438 uunet!utoday!greenber BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212