dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/19/89)
It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie. The link's been up around two weeks, and there's about 2,000 messages posted there (we kept a backlog to build a "base"). The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed freely. There's something about an "anthology copyright" that I don't want to have trouble with, either. I just want to get the maximum freedom of information exchange possible between these networks; GEnie could *badly* use the technical and international information posted here routinely. I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy. GEnie acts just like another (receive-only) site, but many people here are on GEnie as well. I also wanted to advise Atari employees of this. If someone has a real need not to have their notes forwarded to GEnie, I will be happy to put a "filter" on to prevent it by request; just email me at this net address, okay? I don't want to cause anyone problems. On the uplink, we scan the "subject" field of the USENET note, and use that to determine what "topic" the file goes into as a GEnie note. For instance, this enables us to group all Spectre notes together, all hard disk notes, all TT notes, and whatnot. While I see little possibility of GEnie notes being downlinked into USENET (and it's just as well; the GEnie load might overwhelm USENET, and anyway the cultures are different betwen the nets), I do see a very good possibility of setting up a 2-way mail link, run through here. I am *very* open to suggestions on this; I'm no Unix guru by any means. What I envision, and this would not take too much doing, is having people send notes to the Gadgets UNIX machine (at net address !hplabs!boulder.edu!tcr!gadgets!genie), with some sort of TO: (genie mail address). Going the other way,probably there would be some sort of GEnie ID to send mail to (why not USENET?), and again, an addressing line in the note -- TO: hplabs!well!dsmall. I believe I could handle notes that "bounce back" or flop. Overall, I have found GEnie management to be quite positive to the idea of a link, I think there's real hope for 2-way mail. Hacking the link together took some doing; the primary problem is error-tolerant modem communications. Anyway, I would like to solicit suggestions for how to implement mail (just mail to this address), make sure that if anyone minds having their replies uplinked, they let me know, and in general announce the net connection. It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially if/when 2-waymail gets going. Systems like Compuserve and BIX could also fairly easily be done, now that the methodology is hacked through; also, other areas on GEnie are expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks, USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're doing post notes. Again, GEnie is a read-only site. I'm not dumping the GEnie message load onto USENET; mail is presently not up, but has a very good chance. Finally, yes, Gadgets does make a percentage of connect time people spend in it on GEnie. However, before anyone starts talking about how we're doing this to basically make money, let me point out that since the Gadgets RT started, *all* profits made from GEnie have been sent *directly* outside the company to the volunteers who maintain the RT, and who are underpaid for their work, in my opinion. I personally am making nothing on this. Why do it? Because a long time ago, on the CERL site on PLATO, a person named Sherwin Gooch, ex-PLATO, ex-Atari, and now with Apple, introduced me to the hacker ethic and freedom of information exchange as its primary goal. (No, not illegal exchange, you know what I mean). People on GEnie, for instance, were desperate for TT news; it was available here in abundance. If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and if convinced, drop the link. Likewise, if you think it's an alright idea, don't care, or whatever, let me know. My WELL address is : !hplabs!well!dsmall,or dsmall@well.sf.ca.us. I don't always get on as much as I should. My UNIX machine downstairs, where the notes vector through to GEnie, is !hplabs!boulder.edu!tcr!gadgets [!dsmall if you want me]. I'm such a net neophyte that I don't know *if* it's possible to do a dsmall@something for my address, nor how. Heck, I don't know what FTP *is* or how to do it -- but if someone wants to drop me email, or just a pointer on how to do it, I would be grateful. Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users getting good information on time, for instance. -- many thanks, Dave Small / Gadgets by Small p.s. You realize I don't yet understand how to handle "prepared file to include?" It keeps showing up at the top of my notes. Oh, for the time to do more...
steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/20/89)
In article <15097@well.UUCP>, dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes ... (lots of stuff about Usenet <--> GEnie link.) > Systems like Compuserve and BIX could also fairly easily be done, >now that the methodology is hacked through; also, other areas on GEnie are >expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks, >USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're >doing post notes. I don't think any Usenet news is available on Compu$erve, but it already has an e-mail link to the Internet via Ohio State University. In theory, e-mail to 71234,567 would be addressed to 71234.567@compuserve.com or (from BITnet or other balky mail sites) 71234.567%compuserve.com@saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu Note that the comma in the CIS userid has been changed to a dot in order to meet RFC822 standards. From Compu$erve to the Internet, it's >internet:user@host.domain John Chew <poslfit@gpu.UTCS.UToronto.CA> maintains a list of internetwork E-mail methods and posts it monthly to comp.mail.misc and news.newusers.questions. Last I heard, Delphi was carrying the Usenet rec.humor.funny newsgroup (with Brad Templeton's blessing). I don't think it has hooked e-mail into the free world, even though it would be quite easy -- plenty of other VMS sites have done so. It does exchange e-mail with other commercial services. BIX is not, to my knowledge, e-mail accessible from the Internet and UUCP. However, Jefferson Software in Phoenix (the Modula-2 folks where kbad used to work) has developed a program for the ST that allows the transfer of BIX public conferences into RFC1036 (Usenet news) format, stored in a standard Usenet batchfile, and vice versa. It currently is being used to internetwork BIX with several Citadel/STadel BBS network discussion topics (rooms). I think the software is capable of dumping Usenet news into BIX, and vice versa. -- Steve Yelvington at the (frozen enough to skate!) lake in Minnesota UUCP: ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve
canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) (12/20/89)
In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes (now
much edited):
->
-> It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink
->from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted
->by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie.
->
-> The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information
->bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed freely.
->
-> I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy.
->
-> Finally, yes, Gadgets does make a percentage of connect time people
->spend in it on GEnie. However, before anyone starts talking about how we're
->.... I personally am making nothing on this.
->
-> If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and
->if convinced, drop the link.
Hmmm, I don't think this is very fair to the Usenet community, and I, for
one, object to Usenet being used in such a commercial way. I have no
objection to two-way *mail* links, but I seriously object to all my
postings appearing on GEnie or other commercial networks. I think,
perhaps, the Usenet ``etiquette'' gods may have something to say about all
this as well.
What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will
stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being
``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped
out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then
perhaps GEnie should be disbanded.
--
Diane Barlow Close
{nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada
canada@crash.cts.com
Free Canada -- Trade Mulroneykoreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (12/20/89)
In article <935@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >I don't like Usenet being >``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. I agree. The only way I'd support this would be if someone would write a quick newsgathering/reading program for the ST, and put it up in GEnie's program section. UUPC will mostly work as a base for this. I bet most GEnie subscribers won't be aware that they could be getting the USENET messages for free. Portal, at least, is inexpensive enough that it doesn't make much difference, but trying to keep up with comp.sys.atari.st over GEnie (especially in an area that only has a 1200-baud WhateverNetGEnieUses link) could get quite expensive. >If GEnie is that ``tapped >out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. Or make them carry rec.humor and talk.bizarre. --- " !" - Marcel Marceau Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st koreth@ebay.sun.com ...!sun!ebay!koreth
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (12/21/89)
In article <935@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. >-- >Diane Barlow Close I agree with you, to an extent. However. The flow of information should be regarded as a good thing. It would me MUCH better if EVERYONE could access Usenet, but that ain't so. I'm lucky; I'm a student who happens to work in the computer labs, so I have Unix accounts everywhere. Other people who would like to know have no means of getting to this information. I'd post the info to the local BBSes if I had the time (a working computer would help, too). But I don't. Not for all of it, at least. Mike
hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (12/21/89)
In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: > In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes (now > much edited): > -> > -> It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink > ->from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted > ->by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie. > -> > Hmmm, I don't think this is very fair to the Usenet community, and I, for > one, object to Usenet being used in such a commercial way. I have no Our Once good Newsfeed is crud!. I am thrilled that I can find the missing threads and articles on Genie, I will log in tonight to see what I am missing. Good work! (Just my Opinion). Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzaz!hcj hcj@lzaz.att.com
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (12/21/89)
In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: > What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will > stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being > ``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped > out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then > perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. I disagree. There are sources of information and there are distributors of information. We, the users of Usenet are the source. We have decided to share that information with others. And GEnie is not providing access to that information - for a price. Usenet offers the same but the price is different. In my case, a company that I own part of foots the bill for providing Usenet services to employees as well as feeds to other companies. Other companies provide Usenet access for money. Now, anyone who is on GEnie and reads this can decide they would rather pay a different provider of service. For example, in Seattle there are at least three companies that will provide Usenet access for a price. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (12/21/89)
With reference to David Small's announcement: | It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink | from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted | by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie. I am in complete agreement with Dianne Barlow Close on this matter. USENET is not for profit, and I object to GEnie profiting from people reading USENET postings on GEnie. Since I cannot post the stuff I download from GEnie to Usenet, I fail to see why GEnie should be entitled to charge people to read Usenet articles. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies, products, or publications mentioned above. Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino. Permission for distribution on USENET hereby granted. Distribution to GEnie expressly forbidden. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com % % Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division % % 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 % % (206) 335-2211 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/21/89)
(In regard to the availability of Usenet postings on GEnie) ... In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes ... >Hmmm, I don't think this is very fair to the Usenet community, and I, for >one, object to Usenet being used in such a commercial way. I have no >objection to two-way *mail* links, but I seriously object to all my >postings appearing on GEnie or other commercial networks. I think, >perhaps, the Usenet ``etiquette'' gods may have something to say about all >this as well. An argument could be mounted that Usenet has no gods, only a handful of people who occasionally lapse into delusions of godhood. :-) The best description of Usenet that I have heard is "barely controlled chaos." What is wrong with GEnie making the data available? Is it that GEnie makes a profit? By far the majority of Usenet sites are for-profit companies. Or at least they *try* to make a profit. Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? That standard would equally condemn WELL, Portal and even Crash Timesharing (pnet01 charges for access, according to the nixpub listing). And the universities certainly tend to charge a pretty stiff tuition these days. So scratch them, too. Is it that GEnie somehow prevents free access to the data? Consider that most corporate Usenet sites don't allow *any* public access. GE makes it available to more people, not less. >What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. Plunder is a pretty strong word. Usenet, as in "the community of users who have agreed to freely share data," is not diminished. On the contrary, it is GEnie that is at risk. As more people become aware of Usenet, they may choose to patronize one of the many public-access Unix systems rather than the controlled, centralized, regimented -- and commercial -- services. -- Steve Yelvington at the (frozen enough to skate!) lake in Minnesota UUCP: ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve
chris@ethz.UUCP (Christian Dreyer) (12/21/89)
In article <935@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes (now >much edited): > >What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. That's kinda my VHO as well. One-way transfer is hardly ever fair and I think it won't support the Atari-community either (that should be the point, shouldn't it). -- $ Chris Dreyer St. Gall Graduate School for Economic and $ $ Student Social Science, Switzerland $ $ DREYER@CSGHSG5A.BITNET !cernvax!ethz!chris (UUCP) $
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (12/21/89)
I agree entirely with Diane? on this one. Genie is commercial, and wants money from me to use it. If I wish to give them information, I will join GEnie. A fair? solution is the downlink of their respective items, which I'm sure they'd protest to. As, why call Genie (I ask myself that many times in the past, since, Usenet seems to have a much more knowledgable and reasonable clientel) if one can get the info at no cost to the individual. fair is fair... If GEnites want to read my postings, I certainly would appreciate the opposite. So I vote "NO" to uplink only. And, as previously stated the Usenet administration should at very least "know" about it. -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg (use uuhosts or such to find path to rochester) Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not theirs.
buggs@cup.portal.com (William Edward JuneJr) (12/21/89)
>I'm such a net neophyte Me too *8^( >Heck, I don't know what FTP *is* or how to do it -- Me either, how I've always wanted to send/recieve NetNews and UUCP on MY ST. Maybe with the TT and Unix, eh? Ed June
MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (Marcelino Bernardo) (12/22/89)
Here is my vote against the uplink. It should be two-way or none at all. Regards, Marcelino Bernardo mbernar@erenj.bitnet
bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) (12/22/89)
After giving this topic some serious thought, here is my opinion.
I agree with the previous poster who stated that we either have 2-way
communication with GEnie or nothing at all. I think this would be fair,
where-as one-way communication is not fair at all. If two-way communication
is not installed or the USENET->GEnie uplink isn't removed I'd be willing
to cast an official vote (what ever that means :-) against the uplink.
Brett L Maraldo
--
-------- Unit 36 Research ---------
"Alien Technology Today"
bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
{uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldopatth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) (12/22/89)
In article <330@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >> What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >> stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >> ``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >> out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >> perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. [ ] >Now, anyone who is on GEnie and reads this can decide they would rather >pay a different provider of service. For example, in Seattle there are at >least three companies that will provide Usenet access for a price. Isn't only a matter of time before the NIXPUB listings are posted to any/all of the GEnie conferences? They already appear on Compu$erve and many uses on our local public access site here in New York actually got information about the site from commercial services as well as from publications they had to pay for. Isn't it true that once a user spends a few hours downloading files fromm a service he/she has to pay $5/hr to use and then discovers that the same files can be downloaded form a public access site for a mere $5/month, the thought would occur to that user that said files could be more easily and quickly obtained using less $$? I formerly worked with a lawyer whose personal reputation as well as that of his law firm was being bandied about in "American Lawyer" (also known as the "Inquirer" of the legal profession) and, surprisingly, he was not, in the least bit, dismayed when he read the articles and, in fact, he said "as long as they spell my name and the firm's name correctly, it doesn't bother me at all - any publicity is good publicity!" Now, the question, who, if anyone or, what, if any corporation, could ever control the information flowing through UseNET? They could filter it, and edit it but as long as users can dial in to public access sites they can't stop it or control it. -- Patt Haring patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu -=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-
nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) (12/22/89)
Several posters have said words to the effect "Is GEnie that tapped out that they must raid USEnet?" Ihe link wasn't GEnie's idea ... it was Dave Small's. And the idea was dissemination of information. Not to financially reward GE or Dave Small, or anyone else. Oftentimes, the "Net's" postings are the best source of information on some subjects. I believe Dave's only intent was to spread the wealth of good, hard-to-otherwise-find, information with a segment of Atari ST owners who would be otherwise unable to access the information. There's a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo which at this point prevents a true two-way link. Maybe someday in the future, the problem can be overcome. But in the interests of keeping good information flowing to Atari owners who aren't in a position to access the "Net", I don't see why we should prevent them from reading our postings, wherever they may be able to access them - here or on GEnie. Standard disclaimers apply. Bruce Nelson
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/22/89)
steve@thelake.uucp writes:
What is wrong with GEnie making the data available?
Is it that GEnie makes a profit? ...
Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? ...
Is it that GEnie somehow prevents free access to the data? ...
None of these are the problem. Well, perhaps the 3rd, in a way.
Portal, the WELL, and a few dozen fee-based, NIXPUB-advertised sites
all charge somehow, usually by the hour or month. So does UUNET,
though I believe that UUNET is still formally a non-profit entity. (I
could be wrong, though; I haven't thought about it much for quite a
while.) So charging per se is not the problem, nor is the profit they
gain via charging.
The problem is that they are not sharing back with the rest of us. As
Steve Bellovin said in a note to me last March, one should "hold out
for symmetry -- arrangements where they get the Usenet feed, but don't
feed back, aren't cricket." (For those [few, I hope] who might be
unaware, Steve is one of those responsible for the original
shell-script-based implementation of what we now call Usenet, back in
1979.) UUNET exists for the express purpose of getting people to
share; people on Portal and the WELL can always post. Not so with GEnie.
_That_ is the problem - that they do not, cannot, share. All other
things about them would make them a more-or-less ordinary net.citizen,
but the lack of even the _potential_ for reciprocation is what makes
the link undesirable. From what we've been told about the link, GEnie
has absorbed Usenet postings into its "anthology copyright" (thereby, of
course, making their copyright highly suspect as to its validity).
Also, as Brad mentioned, the lack of an email link is a really serious
problem. Individuals on the other side of the gateway can't be
reached at this point. Only by broadcasting to the Known Universe (of
comp.sys.atari.st) can any single person be found on the opposite side
of the gateway, no matter which side any given user is on. This is
not a good idea on the Usenet. Standing in a crowded room and trying
to have a private conversation with someone 30 yards away by shouting
at one another is, shall we say, suboptimal. You wouldn't want to do
it at the office, you wouldn't want to do it at a party, and you
shouldn't do it on electronic networks. It would have been far
preferable to build an email gateway first, and only then implement a
news gateway.
If the link must stay (and I wish it would either go away or convert
to 2-way), it is imperative that an email gateway be built
immediately, without weird, hackish addressing schemes using extra
fake headers and so forth. This can be done, and it's not even
difficult, at least from this Internet side. (The amount of support
from the GEnie side that would be required, I can't even guess.)
--Karljlm@Apple.COM (Jeff Morris) (12/22/89)
I agree with Diane, also. Usenet is not for profit. GENIE is. If they were to make the Usenet items available without charge( 8^) ) then it's OK. My .02.... JLM #include <std.disclaimer.h>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (12/22/89)
bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) writes: >If two-way communication >is not installed or the USENET->GEnie uplink isn't removed I'd be willing >to cast an official vote (what ever that means :-) against the uplink. There is no legal restriction to who may connect to USENET, therefore there is no binding vote that can restrict who may so connect. Further, since there is no legal restriction to who may connect to USENET, there can be no legally recognized distinction between sites. Thus site restriction messages in notices of copyright are legally meaningless. Yet further, there is no general information flow restriction that can be legally enforced for any site or group of sites. But beyond those mere matters of legality and ethics (which refute the information stoppee's at every turn). Ask yourself this simple question. How long do you think GEnie users will sit still with not being able to post to the messages they can read from USENET? -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, Phn 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 -
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (12/22/89)
In article <330@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: > >> What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >> stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >> ``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >> out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >> perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. > >I disagree. There are sources of information and there are distributors >of information. We, the users of Usenet are the source. We have decided >to share that information with others. And GEnie is not providing access >to that information - for a price. Usenet offers the same but the price >is different. In my case, a company that I own part of foots the bill for >providing Usenet services to employees as well as feeds to other >companies. Other companies provide Usenet access for money. A one way link is simply unfair. Two, way I have no objections to... But, others may. Let me make a fairy tale example. Suppose some chap runs a pay BBS somewhere's, and also has Net access. Lets say he grabs all the goodies, places them on his BBS and charges people to see the info. Is that fair? If I post info/solutions whatever the case may be, I post it for the public... free of charge. I do not see GEnie calling anyone of us, more so the companies that foot usenets bills offering "a slice of the pie". I see no offers of "free exchange" of any GEnie info. In fact its been said that GEnie applys copyrights to info/files etc. So, if I post a code stub, or function lets say, and it ends up on GEnie it is copyrighted by them? This is america, while the word "free" may have went through some changes in 200 years, it does not mean "free to those who can pay". And, esentially, that is what we have here. -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg (use uuhosts or such to find path to rochester) Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not theirs.
steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/23/89)
In article <34975@grapevine.uucp>, koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) writes ... >... The only way I'd support this would be if someone would write a >quick newsgathering/reading program for the ST, and put it up in GEnie's >program section. UUPC will mostly work as a base for this. My UUCP system (thelake) runs under TOS on a 520ST with a memory upgrade and a homebuilt hard drive, and it handles news. There are many software combinations that can put an ST on the net. I'll describe the one I'm using at the moment. A couple of years ago, Dale Schumacher (dal@syntel.mn.org, of dLibs fame) hacked together a UUCP mailer called UUMAIL. It has some shortcomings, but it's quite servicable and easy to set up. I think there are eight or ten Minnesota sites currently using it. Many are fed comp.sys.atari.st repackaged into mail messages by a daemon program at stag.UUCP. About six months ago, I got interested in building the tools to put "real news" on the ST. With some advice from Dale and John Stanley, I wrote an rnews program for UUMAIL that can process batched (not compressed) news, and a postnews program that creates RFC1036-compliant headers and pops them into a text editor. About the same time, John wrote a really nice program called UUREADER that organizes mail and news messages into a tree (unlike Un*x systems, all this software works out of one big spool directory). Kent Schumacher rewrote his UUVIEW file pager to work with UUREADER. Although the resulting combination seems to have entered a phase of endless beta-testing, it does work pretty well. There are other irons in the fire, too -- and I expect that Smail and C News eventually will be implemented under TOS, perhaps with multitasking extensions, as well as under ST-Minix. I'm not directly involved in those projects, so I'll leave it to the iron-tenders whether they want to explain the status of their projects. I mention it only to assure people that even though a lot of users are going to latch onto Unix as soon as it and the TT are available, the mad hackers of the world aren't going to abandon TOS. There are, of course, other solutions. Beckemeyer sells a multitasking UUCP package that may or may not handle news; STadel BBS does UUCP and news; bill@meadow.UUCP said some months ago that he has a working implementation. There may be others. The real impediment to net access is not software, but rather finding a newsfeed. Some of the people who have posted the most flamage on this topic work for big commercial operations like AT&T and Eastman Kodak. Free this, free that, etc. (I'm eagerly awaiting my free phone service and film processing.) Perhaps those sites are willing to pass out UUCP connections and newsfeeds like candy at Christmas. Send them e-mail, not me. :-) -- Steve Yelvington at the (frozen enough to skate!) lake in Minnesota UUCP: ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve
rjd@cs.brown.edu (Rob Demillo) (12/23/89)
In article <2907@ethz.UUCP> chris@bernina.ethz.ch.UUCP (Christian Dreyer) writes: >That's kinda my VHO as well. One-way transfer is hardly ever fair and >I think it won't support the Atari-community either (that should be the >point, shouldn't it). > >-- > $ Chris Dreyer St. Gall Graduate School for Economic and $ It *should* be the point. First of all, I agree *in principle* with the complaints about GEnie using USEnet articles for profit and not reciprocating. This posting is an attempt to represent the other side of the coin...the side (I'm guessing) that David Small saw when he proposed this uplink to the GEnie community. I've been on GEnie, I still am on GEnie, and I see the kind of ST (and other) information that is on there...and I feel that USEnet info is far superior. The conversation threads make more sense, I get a lot of good technical info, etc. GEnie postings consist mostly of non-technical non-informative conversations....there are the odd exceptions, like the RT discussions that Small holds, etc. Let's face it, USEnet is a community of profession CS people, Engineers and scientists - as well as students and graduate students in those areas...GEnie consists mostly of home hobbiests, business professionals, and (generally) non-technical types. It seems to me there *would* be a benifit to the Atari community by allowing USEnet info to go wherever it is needed. In addition, there are 10's of 1000's of people who can *not* get access to USEnet, would you deny them our info/rumors/conversations/etc? - Rob DeMillo | Internet: rjd@brown.cs.edu Brown University | BITnet: DEMILLO%BRNPSG.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU Planetary Science Group | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) "I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!"
robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) (12/23/89)
Well, I was annoyed at first at providing info to a profit organization, but think of it this way: the Net is a *free* information source. Would you object to genie loading on other free info sources, such as pamphlets from the US govt, transcripts of press talks, written works out of copyright, etc? The point is that the info published here is FREE to everyone, and that INCLUDES corporations, governments, and places that charge for making this info convenient to their clientele. Remember, they are charging not for the info itself, but for making the information available in one place to the users who are interested or who may not HAVE another way of getting to this source. I have access free but my company pays an access fee (I believe, and it would be the same for genie). If my company wanted to pass this cost on to the employees who use the service, would that be wrong? Disclaimer: I do not use Genie, nor do I work for Genie, nor do I know anyone who is in any way related to Genies, Djinn, Efreets, etc. Robert C. -- "Helen's the only one who knows what scruples are, and she won't tell us" John said. "Have we got scruples about it, Helen?" "Not a trace," Helen affirmed. -The Reefs of Earth, R.A.Lafferty
robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) (12/23/89)
In article <1989Dec21.221719.13364@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
%There is no legal restriction to who may connect to USENET, therefore there
%is no binding vote that can restrict who may so connect. Further, since
%there is no legal restriction to who may connect to USENET, there can be
%no legally recognized distinction between sites. Thus site restriction
%messages in notices of copyright are legally meaningless. Yet further,
%there is no general information flow restriction that can be legally
%enforced for any site or group of sites.
I don't actually care if Genie uses this stuff or not, but you have
sparked my curiousity; is there no legal way I can stop GENIE from
copyrighting MY material if I post it on USENET?
Robert C.
--
"Helen's the only one who knows what scruples are, and she won't tell us"
John said. "Have we got scruples about it, Helen?"
"Not a trace," Helen affirmed. -The Reefs of Earth, R.A.Laffertyljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey) (12/24/89)
In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes: | It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink | from USENET to GEnie. | ... The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information | bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed freely. It sounds to me like you could be on the verge of making an important contribution to expanding this news group. However, I would prefer to have GEnie allow two-way exchanges. Perhaps if the GEnie people see that they can benefit from the inclusion of the mesages, they will reciprocate and allow their users to respond to this group as well. I know that my contributions are small, but (in my humble opinion), I think they are positive. Somehow it rankles to think that someone else is taking my work, freely given, and translating it into a profit. Moreover, they are imposing their own form of restriction by imposing an "anthology copyright" which some folks interpret (incorrectly, I think) as restricting them from passing it on. -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP ..!uunet!watmath!water!ljdickey ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
(Sorry, Dave.. you knew I'd have to have something to say, right...?) My feelings about a one-way GEnie link to UseNet..? UseNet is UseNet, and GEnie is GEnie... one has a reputation for being a technically oriented, well informed source of information, and the other has let its reputation slide to being a "K-Mart" for cheap downloads. Even if it was CIS or BIX who was involved, everyone here has to realize that a commercial venture will now be making money from every article, message and comment you may post here, without giving anything in return. Of course the GEnie management has been receptive..! While Dave may not make any money from the deal, remember that $5.40 of every hours reading of your messages goes directly into the pockets of people like Neil Harris and Bill Louden (gaak). And naturally, under their "compilation copyright," they aren't going to allow anything to flow the other way, even if it wasn't for the load that would impose on the network. If you want UseNet style information, come to UseNet... if you want <giggle> <tee hee>, go to GEnie... BobR (sorry... no offense intended toward K-Mart...)
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Rob DeMillo mentions: >In addition, there are 10's of 1000's of people who can *not* get access >to USEnet, would you deny them our info/rumors/conversations/etc? In actual fact, I'm accessing UseNet right now through Portal, a *two way* access point into UseNet for anyone who doesn't have access through a University or company. For a *flat rate* fee of $10 a month, plus about $1 an hour for PC Pursuit, I can have two way access to UseNet... So it's not true that GEnie subscribers can't get UseNet info... BobR
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (12/26/89)
Is the Net designed as a means of information exchange? If so then so be it. Surely a one-way link is better than no link at all. I spend well over 75% of my Net time passing information between the other services I am on and the Net and its not fun. The fault lies not with GEnie and other pay services, but rather the Net itself. If the Net is truely set up to facilitate information exchange then its impossible for it to be 'raped' for information sinec that is its only reason for existance right? Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (12/26/89)
The distinction between the Net and GEnie and other pay services goes far beyond the price aspect. Face it, there are things which you can get from an on-line service which the Net does not provide (and never will due to its structure.) I don't mean to knock the Net, just to point out that it is very different from other services. I can get all the free news I want from radio and television, but there is a reason why I BUY magazines like The Economist. Surely you would agree that all information is NOT free, you get what you pay for. Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (12/28/89)
I'm not going to get into the poliical and ethical questions about
the GEnie to Usenet connnection, but I will point out that there is
an (almost) free way for anybody to read *and post* to comp.sys.atari.st
using the Beckemeyer Development BBS at (415) 452-4792. Using
PC Pursuit this is available for a pretty low fee -- I'm sure less
than what it costs to read the messages on GEnie. I don't make
a red cent from it -- nobody does except the phone company and
whatever Comm. service you use. This *costs* me money to run.
It takes up my disk space, my modem, my time, and my CPU. I do
it as a service to my customers and to the ST comunitity -- I also
do it because I *like* to do it. This stuff about indirect profits
because of "good will" is nonsense -- heck I'm not even smart enough
to figure out how to "write it off"!
Anyway all this talk about "no other way to access Usenet" is baloney.
If people really want to access Usenet, there are better ways than on
GEnie, IMHO, of course.
--
David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh
Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what
478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/28/89)
In article <2913@infmx.UUCP>, robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) writes ... > I don't actually care if Genie uses this stuff or not, but you have > sparked my curiousity; is there no legal way I can stop GENIE from > copyrighting MY material if I post it on USENET? Don't panic. You don't lose a thing. A compilation copyright covers only the compilation. It does not remove a public-domain work from the public domain, nor does it infringe on your rights as author of a message (whatever that means -- since you're making public utterances, your rights to control their redistribution are pretty shaky). An analogy may be helpful. Let's imagine that you and I are both professors at Harvard University. We get in a loud argument on the steps of the library about the invasion of Panama. We are so brilliant in our debating that we attract the attention of a wandering reporter for the New York Times, who takes extensive notes. Later we renew our debate in a Usenet conference. One of the Times' several computer-literate reporters sees the exchange. Eventually both our spoken and our written words are quoted at length in a Times story. The Times is protected by copyright and by an army of highly paid lawyers. There is nothing we can do to prevent the profit-making Times from quoting us. There is nothing we can do to prevent the Times from claiming a copyright on the reporter's story. There is nothing we can do to prevent the Times from selling that story to the client newspapers of the New York Times News Service, thereby indirectly making even more profit on our brilliant debate. However, there also is nothing the Times can do that could restrict us from reusing our brilliant words (perhaps we write books about our glorious encounter), nor is there anything the Times can do to prevent the New York Post or the Harvard Crimson from obtaining a transcript of our debate and publishing it. There *is* something the Times can do if you, I or a third party clips the Times article and reprints it verbatim without permission, since it owns the reporter's work. Disclaimer: Although, as an editor, I deal with issues such as these every day, I am neither lawyer nor judge. Even a lawsuit without validity can be expensive. Your mileage may vary. -- Steve Yelvington at the snow-covered lake in Minnesota Reliable UUCP path: ... umn-cs.cs.umn.edu!thelake!steve
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (12/29/89)
Robert Coleman writes: > is there no legal way I can stop GENIE from > copyrighting MY material if I post it on USENET? Steve Yelvington writes: >There is nothing we can do to prevent the profit-making Times from quoting >us. There is nothing we can do to prevent the Times from claiming a >copyright on the reporter's story. >However, there also is nothing the Times can do that could restrict us >from reusing our brilliant words Although I agree with this, my original posting on the subject was confined to the question of whether specific site distribution restrictions were enforceable. Here I would use an alternate analogy, that of a broadcast TV station that wishes to prohibit people on odd sides of the street from viewing their transmissions. Clearly such site restrictions are laughable and could never be enforced, practially or legally. Broadcasting over the airwaves or over USENET is, in principle, the same thing. If you want to narrow cast to preserve your right of distribution selection, you have to find means other than standard TV channels or USENET newsgroups. > Even a lawsuit without validity can be expensive. Agreed. Fortunately there are remedies to that also. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, Phn 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 -
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/30/89)
The base note (sigh) once again talks about USENET->Genie. It says that GEnie will copyright the USENET notes. I have high hopes that they won't. Maybe I'm wrong. I've put in front of them the well-written objections people here have, and asked if we can't work something out. I'll let everyone know what I hear, good or bad. But it seems plainly silly to try to copyright something that's spread across the country USENET style, grass-roots. Sure, Genie is into it for connect time, as is CIS, BIX, Portal,WELL, etc. Again, I have heard *nothing* that says that GEnie would try to copyright the notes -- and I am trying to get them to say they won't. In my opinion it is in their best interests not to. So please go easy on the "Genie is Darth Vader" image, okay? Let's wait and see what they do before judging them. Heck, they bent the rules for me during the Data Pacific / Gadgets fiasco,and supported me,and ended up doing well. I think they're capable of doing it again. Let's not prejudge; let's wait and see. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets