dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/22/89)
After receiving mail on some concerns people have had with the USENet -> GEnie uplink, I've gone ahead and shut it down. It won't be back up unless those concerns are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Concerns raised included -- Would GEnie be a 2-way site? Many did not want to see information going only one way. I agree; it should be 2-way. I will say it's necessary to show the potential such a link has before it could be developed from its present kludge to a good link; that's now been done. Would there be e-mail exchange? This is not a big technical problem, and I think it needs to be done, as many notes said. Would GEnie put some sort of anthology copyright on the notes? I very much don't want that, and neither did several other people. Obviously we can't have that. Most of the writers were in favor of the link *provided* there be no copyright hassles, no for-profit on my part, and that there be email and a 2-way link -- in other words, GEnie become a regular site. I see their point and agree. I've found in working with organizations that one example can be more effective than thousands of words (the old writer's adage of, "show, don't say".) As soon as everyone gets back from holiday vacation, I can show GEnie management the benefits for everyone in such an information exchange, with the present; many GEnie people very much want to be part of the Net. While I don't speak for GEnie, I have hopes that something can be worked out that will be satisfactory for everyone. The WELL and PORTAL, both of which I'm on, do charge for USENET access, but I consider that entirely fair; they have equipment and staffing costs, and aren't really gouging anyone. I think it'd be a good thing if we could GEnie to operate in the same fashion. There were concerns that the volume of notes back from GEnie would stress the net. I don't want that, and I don't want a thousand "How do I beat Level 7 on Dungeon Master" notes on the Net, either. Finally, a few writers missed the text on the original note where I said that I make no profit on these notes; the (not large) royalties made on the GEnie Gadgets support area are all donated to non-Gadgets volunteers who maintain the place. I am not allowed to divulge royalty rates, but this is a really low amount of money -- hardly some sort of "gold mine". Overall, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; looking over my original note, I can see I wasn't too clear on my intent, which was working towards bringing GEnie into the Net two-way, with email, without copyright problems. I hardly want to be sneakernetting messages the rest of my life (*sigh!*), it gets old real fast. A few writers mentioned some hassles with Compuserve; I am completely unfamiliar with that story. Ditto with BIX. Anywho, look, it's the holidays, and we all have a lot better things to do than worrying about this. I think the GEnie people I've talked to (who seem pretty sane) will see the potential for *mutually* beneficial information exchange; the link won't reopen until these concerns are worked out to everyone's satisfaction (that means, you'll see it here before anything happens, so there's a chance to discuss it). If I've offended anyone, my apologies; it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. I wanted to demonstrate that the technology to link nets in a good way was here, not cause any fuss or trouble. I very much appreciate those who took time to write email explaining points I hadn't thought of (e.g., anthology copyright). Several notes spoke highly of Richard Stallman and the FSF; getting to talk with Richard at length was one of the highpoints of Hackers for me, and I know a good deal about the FSF. (He certainly doesn't get much good press in the computer trade journals -- most don't even stop to *listen*). What can I say ... I'm a card carrying EMACS user. So to recap, many users raised points I feel are completely valid, had not thought of, and I've responded by dropping the link until such time that it's resolved in an acceptable way. (That means acceptable to you, not to me, ok?) I'm very pleased with the number of people who agree that GEnie as a site is a good idea, provided it's a full, two-way information exchange. The idea of information exchange is alive and well. I also appreciate those who took the time to write before doing some sort of public primal scream; in my experience since '76, screaming on nets feels good, but it's the quiet and calm voices that get things done. It's time to go Christmas shopping here. We here wish you all a happy and safe holiday, and our best wishes for the new decade! -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets by Small p.s. I'll keep you informed of anything that happens relating to this link; however, don't expect rapid action -- you know how bureaucracies are. Also, everyone's off for the holidays in any event.
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (12/23/89)
In article <15158@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes: >I've gone ahead and shut it down. It won't be back >up unless those concerns are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Everyone implies unanimity -- one disenting voice would therefore be enough to kill it. Why don't you rephrase it, "it won't be shut off unless EVERYONE wants it shut off." Your selection of one sentence over the other is arbitrary. > Many did not want to see information going only one way. Tough cookies. You shouldn't let people brow beat you. Doing the right thing does not always win you popularity contests. Sometimes you have to be a moral/ethical leader rather than a follower. This selfish group of USENET whiners is in desperate need of a model to emulate. You have the credibility to be that model. > Would GEnie put some sort of anthology copyright on the notes? Come on, this is a joke, right? I mean I expect a little legal ignorance on the net, but this is hilarious. >no for-profit on my part Caving in to those socialists out there, ehy? Are you going to give up making a profit on other areas of your life to please them also? And why is "profit" always defined in green-backs? Do not all the users of USENET and GEnie profit? If they didn't wouldn't they quit using those services. But back to green-backs. No one has answered my question about why telephone companies, computer companines, modem companies and software companies can all make money off USENET sites and GEnie can't. You guys are being completely arbitrary -- you cannot justify your arguments. > I don't want a thousand "How do I beat Level 7 on Dungeon Master" notes > on the Net, either. What has this got to do with anything? What is this, Small's version of the Canadian Content laws? >If I've offended anyone, my apologies; I should be offended by your whimping out and leaving the GEnie user in the information poor house. But they are the ones really hurt by your caving in to the selfish USENET whiners. >acceptable way. (That means acceptable to you, not to me, ok?) Hey, your off to a bad start if you are trying to please me. Remember Neville Chamberline. -- - 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 -
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/23/89)
logajan@ns.network.com writes:
You shouldn't let people brow beat you. Doing the right
thing does not always win you popularity contests.
Some of us would contend that Mr Small is doing precisely the right
thing by shutting it down until it fits into the overall environment
properly, both technically and politically. His initial implement-
ation fit under neither consideration, and he now understands why.
Sometimes you have
to be a moral/ethical leader rather than a follower. This selfish group
of USENET whiners is in desperate need of a model to emulate. You have
the credibility to be that model.
I don't whine for anybody, Mr Logajan, nor am I in need of a moral or
ethical role model. Name-calling accomplishes startlingly little.
Further, with as much respect as I can muster for Mr Small, he does
not (yet) have the credibility for such things. He said himself that
his implementation of things was not exactly up to par, and that he
doesn't even know how such matters as email addressing are managed.
His suggestions for how to implement an email gateway are, to be
blunt, naive. What he requires is experience; that's all. If he
re-does the link correctly, he'll get that experience. And then he'll
have the credibility, and will have earned the respect of those who
are concerned about the care with which such things are implemented.
No one has answered my question
about why telephone companies, computer companines, modem companies and
software companies can all make money off USENET sites and GEnie can't.
You appear not to have been reading very closely. Quite a few of us
have agreed quite readily that there is no reason GEnie shouldn't make
a profit, given especially precedents in the form of Portal and
others. Many of us disagreed only with the imbalance of the link, not
its existence or the profit to be made from it.
I should be offended by your whimping out and leaving the GEnie user in
the information poor house.
Might it occur to you that he may face somewhat more disagreeable
users on the GEnie side, and that turning the link off is quite the
opposite of "wimping out?" That he will now have to face them to say,
"I had to turn it off because it needs to be redesigned properly?" I
daresay he's got quite a bit of work ahead of himself; he's not
wimping out in the least.
Your predilection toward name-calling completely eradicates any
argument you might have had.
--Karlcanada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) (12/24/89)
Well, the GEnie-Usenet link is down. So much for all the doom-
and-gloom-sayers in news.misc who figured that Usenet is too
disorganized to accomplish anything. I'd say we were pretty
successful (this time).
Some of you might be interested in the events that led me to post
about Dave Small's idea in such a strongly-worded way. Also, it
is my only chance to ``talk'' to Dave directly since he's not
answering his mail (or is it just my mail :-) No surprise there.
I had known about the Usenet-GEnie link for several days before
it was actually announced. When I was first told it existed (not
many details were given) and I thought the link was a great idea.
It presented another place to send news. After all, isn't the
purpose of Usenet to be a free-flow of information,
spreading as much information, around to as many sites, as
possible?
What I didn't know then was that the Usenet news being placed on
GEnie was being covered by their copyright (or at least the GEnie
people figured the news was now copyrighted). I discovered this
fact the day of Dave's ``the link is up'' posting. In a
discussion about a friend trying to obtain several of my Usenet
postings from the Usenet-uplink area of GEnie, GEnie customer
service people threatened to ``sue'' any site found posting news
that GEnie had received from Usenet *after* GEnie had received it
('cause the Usenet news now ``belonged'' to GEnie).
Before all you amateur copyright lawyers send follow-up flames,
let me assure you that I realize the ridiculousness and
unenforceabililty of this situation. GEnie *can't* copyright
something that's already in the public domain. (And I probably
got stuck talking to a tired, over-zealous GEnie representative,
rather than an ``informed'' person.) But, the confusion
surrounding this situation on GEnie's part was enough to get me
worried.
Next I received some reliable information that Dave was on the
verge of licensing the ``link technology'' to GEnie. If we
didn't act very fast to convince Dave to rethink the link, it
wouldn't matter if *his* atari newsgroup-GEnie link were shut
down, 'cause GEnie would be busy draining (and copyrighting) the
rest of Usenet. (And Dave, Mark Booth did NOT give me this
information, so you can start talking to him again.)
Next, Dave's ``the link is up'' posting carried the tone of `the
link is carved in stone, the only thing that I'll change is
whether individual's postings are removed'. After careful
consideration of all the events, I was convinced me that I had to
spurred me to strike in the quickest, hardest manner I
could.
I believed I didn't have much time to waste with gentle, ``let's
think about this guys'' letters. Sorry my strongly worded
posting irritated Dave, but it had the desired effect very
quickly: mobilize as many people as possible to convince Dave to
re-think the link. While I knew that many of you would post
loud, angry responses, I knew that many more would write quiet,
well-reasoned responses (showing *both* sides of the argument) in
answer to my posting. I believe my ``inciteful'' posting put
many, many more reasoned responses in Dave's mailbox than if I
had written an easily-ignored, calmly-worded appeal to the net.
I wanted to spur as many people to respond as possible, and I
think I was successful.
That's not to say I was just in this ``battle'' to raise the cry
and then leave. No sir. I was prepared for the long haul. Dave
actually surprised me when he withdrew the link so suddenly after
only a few days of protest. His first posting led me to believe
that the link would be here for a long time no matter what.
So now I don't have to write to the management of GEnie, and I
don't have to organize petitions, and I don't have to appeal to
sites feeding GEnie to stop. There was even a movement to change
news sending software so that it attached ``copylefts'' to *whole
batches* of news, thus preventing GEnie from using many, many
postings.
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation must be
commended for coming up with, and organizing the execution of,
that last idea. I'd also like to thank Richard for placing the
FSF's lawyers at my disposal. I'm very happy I didn't need to
use them.
I'd like to thank Dave for giving the net the best Christmas
present we could ever have wanted: peace for the present and
hope for the future.
I'd like to go on record as saying I'm NOT against sites that
make a profit from Usenet, nor do I have many problems with read-
only sites. I do, however, have serious problems with any site
that tries to copyright my (or anyone's) postings and prevent the
dissemination of information.
I'd like to work with Dave to make the GEnie-Usenet link viable
and useful (for both sides). If Dave declines my offer (and I
expect he will :-) then I hope he at least posts his link ideas
for the net for discussion *before* implementation. It would be
even better if he accepted the help and support of the many, many
knowledgeable people who volunteered it this week.
Well, that's all I have to say on the topic. The rest of you can
continue this discussion (as I know you will). Don't let it
degenerate into too much name-calling. :-)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone (even you,
Dave :-)
--
Diane Barlow Close
{nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada
canada@crash.cts.com
Free Canada -- Trade MulroneyBob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Oh well.. my ST was down for surgery for a few days, and I see I've come in late, so everyone ignore my previous few postings on the subject (I'm sure you will)... What I'm surprised that no one has suggested throughout all of this is that GEnie just bite the bullet and become a UseNet site. Portal has been mentioned several times in the discussion, but Portal is a paying member of UseNet and has full two-way access. The way GEnie was doing it was by getting in "the backdoor", for free. There would be no "flood" of GEnie material, as only messages specifically posted to UseNet (as with Portal) would appear on the newsgroups. However, it would take money to set up as a UseNet site, and it would take software to handle the newsgroup feeds. That would take a bit more selling than just offering them something for free. BobR
steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/26/89)
In article <25357@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com displays some basic misunderstandings that are fueling this whole bandwidth-wasting discussion. This is an attempt to clear them up for everybody's sake. > What I'm surprised that no one has suggested throughout all of this is that > GEnie just bite the bullet and become a UseNet site. Even the most vocally antiGEnieans have suggested precisely that. > Portal has been > mentioned several times in the discussion, but Portal is a paying member > of UseNet and has full two-way access. The way GEnie was doing it was > by getting in "the backdoor", for free. Paying member of Usenet? Paying whom? Not me. I may forget my phone number sometimes, but I wouldn't forget a check from Portal. No siree. It doesn't work that way. Usenet is NOT a physical network. Usenet is NOT a legal entity. Usenet does NOT have a corporate existence. To be on the network, you don't have to pass muster with any sort of screening committee. There isn't one. You don't buy a license. You don't have to get a node number. Usenet is not the Internet, nor is it Fidonet, nor is it run by the government or by universities or even corporations. It's just something that happens, by consensus: Site A agrees to exchange messages with site B. Site B agrees to exchange messages with sites C, D and E. If Site A doesn't like Site E appearing on the network, it can decline to participate in the network. It has no authority to forbid Site E from joining. > There would be no "flood" of GEnie material, as only messages specifically > posted to UseNet (as with Portal) would appear on the newsgroups. That's up to the site (GEnie). > However, it would take money to set up as a UseNet site, and it would take > software to handle the newsgroup feeds. That would take a bit more selling > than just offering them something for free. Usenet software is free. Usenet news standards are quite simple and well-documented. If I can figure it out, I'm sure it's intelligible to General Electric, one of the world's largest industrial corporations, and its data-networking subsidiary (of which GEnie is a minor component). Everybody, PLEASE, before you get all worked up in a dither and start flapping your arms, take the time to bone up on the network. Read the postings in news.announce.newusers. Go to the library and read Harry Henderson's excellent article on Usenet in the Waite Group's "Tricks of the Unix Masters." Read news.misc and news.admin for awhile. Do your homework. Keep the flames in the fireplace. -- THE FINE PRINT: This message is Copyright 1989 by Steve Yelvington. You may not read it. Oops! You've already read it? Now you're in deep sh*t. I'll feed you to my fire-breathing attorney, who will take your car, your house and (gasp) your computer, then destroy your city and the city of each of your relatives, and the entire planet Earth and maybe the Milky Way galaxy, and get a court order to seize Usenet and give it to the bloodsucking capitalist leeches. (No! Not the leeches!) (Yes! The leeches!) Also, if you try to post a copyright-restricted response, your monitor will explode and blow your head off, and you'll get warts on the palms of your hands. If you believe this, you must send me $1.5 million in gold and a faster hard drive. Oh, by the way, I own GEnie. I'm just kidding. Really. Happy New Year! -- Steve Yelvington at the snow-covered lake in Minnesota Reliable UUCP path: ... umn-cs.cs.umn.edu!thelake!steve
dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (12/27/89)
[Let me start by saying that while this reads like a flame of Diane, that it isn't. It is a flame against a much larger group, not just one person. Diane's note was just a convienent starting point. --- dlm] in article <966@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) says: > Next I received some reliable information that Dave was on the > verge of licensing the ``link technology'' to GEnie. If we > didn't act very fast to convince Dave to rethink the link, it > wouldn't matter if *his* atari newsgroup-GEnie link were shut > down, 'cause GEnie would be busy draining (and copyrighting) the > rest of Usenet. (And Dave, Mark Booth did NOT give me this > information, so you can start talking to him again.) Very interesting. I talk to Dave far more than most people and I NEVER heard anything about his "licensing the ``link technology''. I suspect that your "source" wasn't as well informed as he/she thought. > That's not to say I was just in this ``battle'' to raise the cry > and then leave. No sir. I was prepared for the long haul. Dave > actually surprised me when he withdrew the link so suddenly after > only a few days of protest. His first posting led me to believe > that the link would be here for a long time no matter what. Dave withdrew the link since he was SURPRISED that so many people were against it. Especially since he had said he was working on it in the past and no one complained. So he went ahead and set up a simple pass though to GEnie, announces it and suddenly was the target of lots of attacks. Given that why shouldn't he take the easy way out and shutdown? Remember he thought he was doing something people would approve of. And where in the first posting did he say the link was going to stay up no matter what? (I believe you are reading what you want to into his note.) I happen to think that a Usenet to GEnie link, either one or two way is a bad idea. Mainly because of the high S/N ratio on the commercial nets like GEnie (at one time or another I've used all of them). But if such a link goes up I'm not going to worry about it. I'm already on several of the commercial nets, having what I say here also posted there doesn't change things very much. I am very surprised at how many people treated this. People are now using this as a way of bragging that they were ready to fight the battle till the bitter end. And how if it hadn't been for them that Usenet would have been ruined. Almost sounds like they (and there are lots of people in that "they") need the PR in order to join the "net gods". This all could've been handled, politely, with a few email messages to Dave telling him why he was wrong to setup a one way link to GEnie. He does read and answer his mail. (It does take awhile, his mail/news feed adds at least 1 day, and often 2 days, each directtion.) Instead there was a wild attack with no attempt to try milder measures. Oh well, maybe it was just time for a good flame war and Dave was just the easiest target. Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druwy.ATT.COM
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/27/89)
In article <4578@druwy.ATT.COM> dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: | I happen to think that a Usenet to GEnie link, either one or | two way is a bad idea. Mainly because of the high S/N ratio on the | commercial nets like GEnie (at one time or another I've used all of | them). But if such a link goes up I'm not going to worry about it. | I'm already on several of the commercial nets, having what I say here | also posted there doesn't change things very much. I don't much like the idea of a one way link, for reasons previously stated. I would be in favor of a two way link, because it would allow feedback from the GEnie side, which possibly would contain useful info. I believe that I can write a copyright notice which allows redistribution of my articles to any forum which allows a response, should I feel that was needed. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon