brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (06/01/89)
In article <3549@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >You mean so they could continue to perpetuate the monopoly they held, and >reap the revenue from same. Stargate, as I understand it, had to compete in the free market that exists for general newsfeeds. I know of no monopoly they held or tried to hold. All they wanted to say was that those who took advantage of the satellite transmission should all pay for it equally. What was so bad about that? Why, I wonder did people care about how stuff they were posting was transmitted? Why did it matter if those who got it by downlink were required to pay if other people could get it by other routes? That's what a free market in net feeds, if you want to call it that, is all about. If Stargate really was cheaper, people would go to it. If it wasn't, nobody would bother and their admonition not to feed wouldn't have meant anything. What I was commenting on was the fact that people weren't satisfied to let Stargate live or die through this system of free choice. They opposed it and put the share-right messages on their postings. Consider the fact that I get netnews on my system. I am fully allowed to let it stop right here and be a leaf. There is no requirement that I share it, and nobody would think of making one! Could somebody require me to give out free accounts and free feeds? Of course not. Yet the message, "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" is very similar to "you may transmit this to your system only if you don't deny anybody access to it on your system." The former was accepted, the latter sounds silly. > >Actually, I worked in that industry, and I can't see how satellite >technology is any cheaper to use now than it was two or so years back. Perhaps the Stargate folks were way out of line. Could be. But it's my understanding that today a 2400 bps uplink is on the order of $2,000 per month. That's was the folks in Vancouver said they were paying, I think. I seem to recall UUNET saying that they run around $50,000 per month of traffic there. $2,000 per month for all of usenet seems like a good bargain to me -- cheap enough that some people have decided it's not even worth asking people to contribute. A 2400 bps feed can send around 17 megs/day of solid data, that's 17 non-compressed megs sent twice based on 2:1 compression. That's about 4 times today's usenet volume. And that $2k/month is about the cost of one fast internet link. Usenet currently runs around 55 megs of compressed data per month, and uunet charges around $2.80/megabyte (TB+ over wats line) This is $192/month. You could buy your downlink quickly at that rate, particularly if you only wanted one downlink per local calling area. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (06/02/89)
In article <3413@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <3549@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >> >>You mean so they could continue to perpetuate the monopoly they held, and >>reap the revenue from same. > >Stargate, as I understand it, had to compete in the free market that >exists for general newsfeeds. I know of no monopoly they held or >tried to hold. All they wanted to say was that those who took advantage >of the satellite transmission should all pay for it equally. But that's the rub, you see. The net as a whole is based on being a broadcast medium, with the copyright on individual postings (if any) held by the poster. No one has, until Stargate, been so crass as to attempt to enforce re-feeding restrictions. Oh wait. You tried that too, remember? And were loudly shouted down. You withdrew the proposal too, if I remember (the "anyone can get this unless I say you can't" attempt to control propagation of r.h.f). >What was so bad about that? Why, I wonder did people care about how >stuff they were posting was transmitted? Why did it matter if those >who got it by downlink were required to pay if other people could get >it by other routes? That's what a free market in net feeds, if you >want to call it that, is all about. If Stargate really was cheaper, >people would go to it. If it wasn't, nobody would bother and their >admonition not to feed wouldn't have meant anything. No, a truly free market in net feeds (as defined by the current policies of the net) allows the refeeding of that net feed that you obtain from any source. Stargate tried to prevent that, and got a lot of flack. They also died. It seems as though the market DID speak. They also only fed a "selected portion" of the groups.... >What I was commenting on was the fact that people weren't satisfied to >let Stargate live or die through this system of free choice. They >opposed it and put the share-right messages on their postings. Putting a "share right" message on your postings is exercising their right of free choice -- after all, the poster DOES hold the copyright on his or her postings to this net, and can place restrictions on them if they wish. What's the problem Brad, don't you like others exercising their rights, but your rights are ok? Sounds awfully fishy to me. >Consider the fact that I get netnews on my system. I am fully allowed >to let it stop right here and be a leaf. There is no requirement that I >share it, and nobody would think of making one! Could somebody require >me to give out free accounts and free feeds? Of course not. > >Yet the message, "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" is >very similar to "you may transmit this to your system only if you don't >deny anybody access to it on your system." The former was accepted, the >latter sounds silly. "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" is analogous to "You can use this posting in rec.humor.funny, but only as long as you don't prevent others from passing the group and this posting on if they see fit to do so." It prevents someone (a moderator, or transmission medium) from saying "you get this feed from me, you can't feed downstream sites, because I want the money that feed would generate". >>Actually, I worked in that industry, and I can't see how satellite >>technology is any cheaper to use now than it was two or so years back. > >Perhaps the Stargate folks were way out of line. Could be. But it's >my understanding that today a 2400 bps uplink is on the order of >$2,000 per month. That's was the folks in Vancouver said they were >paying, I think. I seem to recall UUNET saying that they run around >$50,000 per month of traffic there. $2,000 per month for all of usenet >seems like a good bargain to me -- cheap enough that some people have >decided it's not even worth asking people to contribute. Now, let's see. Stargate was what, some $10 or $20 a month (this is a question; I never took them seriously enough to check it out)? How many feeds do you need before you pay that $2k, and start pocketing the profits? Uh huh. And if you can prevent anyone from refeeding, then the scheme is obviously to get EVERYONE to pay you the $10 a month. Now, let's see. If we have, what, 9000 sites, at $10 a month, hmmm... that's some $90,000! Even if you only get 10% of the sites to use your service, you still make some $7k a month after expenses -- or a profit of 250%! I'd love to make that kind of profit margin in our business! I feel that is a tidy profit, no? And I bet the Stargate people saw the gleam in their eyes as well. Money is like that. >A 2400 bps feed can send around 17 megs/day of solid data, that's 17 >non-compressed megs sent twice based on 2:1 compression. That's about >4 times today's usenet volume. And that $2k/month is about the cost of >one fast internet link. Usenet currently runs around 55 megs of compressed >data per month, and uunet charges around $2.80/megabyte (TB+ over wats line) Oh, but think of this. We feed locally, on a Telebit. We pay about $.05 per minute, and on a telebit we can feed a meg in about 15 or 20 minutes. Thus, we pay about $1.00 per megabyte to pick up news over the telephone. >This is $192/month. You could buy your downlink quickly at that rate, >particularly if you only wanted one downlink per local calling area. Ah, but we only pay $55.00 per month for our feed. Now how long does it take to pay for that dish? And who is going to guarantee that the programming will REMAIN free for the taking? Certainly not that company -- once they have a few thousand decoders out there, it only makes economic sense to start charging for the data! They'd be awfully foolish to not have thought of this, and somehow, I give them more business sense than that. --- (aside follows -- don't un-rot this unless you like seeing people torched, and don't say you weren't warned.) Ogj: Jurer'f gur fgernz bs wbxrf gung jnf cebzvfrq gb pbzr sebz Travr naq gur bgure argjbexf? Gur orarsvg bs lbhe ov-qverpgvbany tngrjnl sbe gur Hfrarg nf n jubyr? Jnf gung whfg fzbxr? Naq abj lbh unir n arj "vzzvarag naabhaprzrag". Terng. Jung fpurzr ner lbh jbexvat ba abj gb cebsvg bss guvf argjbex? -- 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"
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (06/02/89)
Oh, this is getting unbelievably absurd .. Brad Templeton rants: ) All [Stargate] wanted to say was that those who took advantage ) of the satellite transmission should all pay for it equally. No, that they should all pay the set amount. If 20 sites in each region shared a downlink they could pay equally, but then Stargate would only collect 1/20 as much as they wanted. But I'll chalk this error of Brad's up to simple bad phrasing. But the rest of what he said is either dense or crazy! ) Why, I wonder did people care about how stuff they were posting was ) transmitted? Why did it matter if those who got it by downlink were ) required to pay if other people could get it by other routes? People decided that although they were willing to share their thoughts and some of their work for free, they were not willing to provide it for free so that others could (1) sell it for money, or (2) prevent some people from sharing it further. People are generally accorded the right to have some control over how their own intellectual creations are used. Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Templeton? ) What I was commenting on was the fact that people weren't satisfied to ) let Stargate live or die through this system of free choice. They ) opposed it and put the share-right messages on their postings. First off, I doubt that these copylefted articles had much impact on the failure of Stargate. But even so, are you saying that the authors tried to go beyond their rights? Maybe the Stargate people should have ignored copyright problems, as you did this morning in your message <3414@looking.on.ca>. ) Consider the fact that I get netnews on my system. I am fully allowed ) to let it stop right here and be a leaf. ... Could somebody require ) me to give out free accounts and free feeds? Of course not. Relax, Brad. Nobody would dream of asking *you* to give away something for free. But you go right ahead and ask us to give you things free, and on your terms. We don't mind. Really. Can anyone make head or tail of what Brad was trying to get at by all the numbers in his last two paragraphs? I can't. ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/02/89)
<3413@looking.on.ca> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: In article <3413@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Yet the message, "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" is >very similar to "you may transmit this to your system only if you don't >deny anybody access to it on your system." The former was accepted, the >latter sounds silly. The two statements above are *not* similar. The first: "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" does not say you have to give anyone access to your system. It merely states that if you *DO* have sites that feed off of you, that you must allow them to retransmit the message without restrictions. It means that you can't say, "well here is news today, but sorry, you are as far as it can go. You can't send the news on to your leaf sites." It says nothing about having to give out access to anybody who wants it. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 When everyone is out to get you, Paranoid is just good thinking. --Johnny Fever
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/03/89)
I was one of the subscribers in the original Stargate experimental period and I have been watching this discussion with some interest. Forgive me for not trimming the references any more than I have, but some of the remarks lose their meaning if abbreviated. In article <3413@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <3549@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >> >>You mean so they could continue to perpetuate the monopoly they held, and >>reap the revenue from same. > >Stargate, as I understand it, had to compete in the free market that >exists for general newsfeeds. I know of no monopoly they held or >tried to hold. All they wanted to say was that those who took advantage >of the satellite transmission should all pay for it equally. No, the revenue they collected was 100% voluntary and they had no monopoly. Originally the news was fed from cbosgd and then later moved to emory because it was closer to the uplink. The only thing that was fancy about Stargate news was that there was a rather good filter to eliminate copyright material and the only groups broadcast were the moderated groups. The news input to starbeam (the uplink system) was plain vanilla 2.11 news, the feed to the WTBS uplink was packaged and filtered (it also discarded articles prohibiting Stargate distribution). I agree with Brad's statement (in another article) that the demise was more political than it needed to be. I don't understand why people refused to have their articles propagated via Stargate but some did. The initial subscription fees were rather high. On the other hand, I considered the "rather high" fee reasonable because it took a serious bite out of my long distance phone bill to get news at 2400bps. There was redundancy in the Stargate broadcasts so that if you missed something the first time around, you got it again later. That was a blessing for me because I use my satellite dish and there were plenty of times when I didn't feel like staying tuned to WTBS. By the same token there were plenty of other times when I didn't care, so I left it there. Stargate was a marvelous way to collect the bulky and expensive (by phone) groups like comp.mail.maps and comp.sources.unix. As far as I know, each of the original subscribers paid the same amount whether they were DEC or Bill Kennedy. The only "monopoly" was that you had to subscribe, you had to pay, the program material was plain old unadorned usenet news. > If Stargate really was cheaper, >people would go to it. If it wasn't, nobody would bother and their >admonition not to feed wouldn't have meant anything. It was for me, I have the paperwork to prove it. The Trailblazer modem and some incredibly generous news neighbors have brought today's costs into line with what I can afford (ssbn is funded by me), but if the neighbors' generosity was to diminish, I'd be back on satellite reception. >What I was commenting on was the fact that people weren't satisfied to >let Stargate live or die through this system of free choice. They >opposed it and put the share-right messages on their postings. Yes they did and I'm not sure why. There was even open hostility towards the project and the people who brought it into being. The idea of paying to get news isn't new now, nor was it then. There are still phone and equipment bills to be paid. In my case some money went to Stargate Information Services instead of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and AT&T. SIS got fewer $$ than did SWBT and AT&T, that's why I subscribed. I never understood the people who refused to let their articles propagate by a method that was faster and more cost effective for my site. >>Actually, I worked in that industry, and I can't see how satellite >>technology is any cheaper to use now than it was two or so years back. > >Perhaps the Stargate folks were way out of line. Could be. [ $$ figures deleted ... ] I don't think so, in my opinion they'd had been better off had they been able to add some program material other than netnews. There's a cost and a risk associated with that and the /usrgroup funding ran out before they could explore much more than they did. For what they did they did well. The advent of uunet and Trailblazers just swept over what they had and did. Had they had more (in my opinion), they might have been able to expand the subscriber base and done more. > $2,000 per month for all of usenet >seems like a good bargain to me -- cheap enough that some people have >decided it's not even worth asking people to contribute. I don't think that's entirely a fair comparison. The Vancouver folks have hardware sales to subsidize the service (you can't get it if you don't have their equipment can you?) and I'm betting that they have some kind of good deal on transponder time. I don't know which bird it's on, but I would guess one of the Anik's which means I'm outside the footprint (I'm in Texas). Stargate was on WTBS which meant that they were on basic cable throughout the US (Canada?) as well as Galaxy I which has a larger than average signal strength and footprint. >This is $192/month. You could buy your downlink quickly at that rate, >particularly if you only wanted one downlink per local calling area. That's more in line with my figures and Stargate's. Given what I paid for my satellite system several years ago, you'd break even in ten months. That's not shabby. If usenet is directly related to your business, there are probably some tax advantages too... Just in case someone gets the notion that I am criticizing Karl or Brad's remarks, I'm not. I do have a little experience with satellite delivery of netnews, a little better than a year's worth, so some of my remarks might sound critical. Not so intended, don't take them as such. I still think that satellite delivery is a good idea. Maybe the fellows in BC have their act together and it can happen. Let me offer two scenarios, both in Texas, maybe similar ones near you. The Dallas-Fort Worth area has two major news "hosses", killer and texbell. Both are suffering from phone line constrictions and CPU cycles. A very similar situation exists in San Antonio where there is one "hoss", similar circumstances. The DFW area is looking into secondary distribution to relieve the "hosses". That means that leaves might have to call three or four sites other than killer or texbell for all the groups they want but it's still local calling. This doesn't help petro since he still would have to spend the cycles to get satellite news delivery, but it would free up some phone time. Metropolitan areas like Dallas-Fort Worth or San Antonio could benefit by satellite delivery for the reasons I mentioned. Better connected areas like Northern California and Chicago have enough "bones" to be able to handle the congestion. This requires some organization and discipline, but it isn't the end of the net as we know it; I think it's a logical follow-on and progression from uunet. If certain areas, as Brad suggests, got satellite links they could propagate quickly and efficiently within their local or reasonable calling area. Branches and leaves could call the downlinks and propagate within their local or reasonable calling area. We'd save the time and expense of the current "long haul" connections and maybe give some cycles and dial tone back to our uunet's, decwrl's, and others. It wasn't a bad idea when Stargate did it, but I think it was premature for the net at large. Sorry for the length, but I thought it was worth thinking about for all news administrators. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (06/05/89)
In article <1203@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) writes: >I was one of the subscribers in the original Stargate experimental >period and I have been watching this discussion with some interest. > >I agree with Brad's statement (in another article) that >the demise was more political than it needed to be. I don't understand >why people refused to have their articles propagated via Stargate but >some did. The initial subscription fees were rather high. If Stargate had not tried to prevent people from retransmitting the feed once they had it, they would not have had the problem.... In fact the "you may get this only if you can resend it" copyright notices would have exactly zero net effect on Stargate -- if they had dropped the redistribution restriction. >There was even open hostility >towards the project and the people who brought it into being. The >idea of paying to get news isn't new now, nor was it then. But the idea of preventing you from resending your news to someone else as a feed, for free or not, was new, and people did object. (I wrote...) >>>Actually, I worked in that industry, and I can't see how satellite >>>technology is any cheaper to use now than it was two or so years back. >> >>Perhaps the Stargate folks were way out of line. Could be. >[ $$ figures deleted ... ] > >I don't think so, in my opinion they'd had been better off had they >been able to add some program material other than netnews. That still doesn't solve the cost problem... which is a problem that anyone doing this kind of thing has to address! Somewhere you have to get back your money that has been invested, and you can only subsidize service costs with product revenues for a while. Eventually any service has to stand on it's own two feet, or fail. >> $2,000 per month for all of usenet >>seems like a good bargain to me -- cheap enough that some people have >>decided it's not even worth asking people to contribute. > >I don't think that's entirely a fair comparison. The Vancouver folks >have hardware sales to subsidize the service (you can't get it if you >don't have their equipment can you?) and I'm betting that they have >some kind of good deal on transponder time. They may also decide that it is not realistic to continue to give away the programming once they have sold a few thousand decoders.... do those things have the ability to do some kind of decryption? If so, in a few months your "free" newsfeed might just turn into a pay-per-view newsfeed. >I still think that satellite delivery is a good idea. Maybe the >fellows in BC have their act together and it can happen. The only problem I have with the BC people is that there has been no statement of how long the "free" newsfeeds will last. Given the law of business which says "you must make a profit or die", I have my doubts about the seemingly too-good-to-be-true deal here. These decoders that are being sold are likely only good for one thing -- receiving the news broadcast that is being uplinked. When the people who run this show decide that they want some $100 a month to keep receiving that data, and that you cannot resend the data once you have it (ie: they decide to "compilation copyright" the entire stream -- where have we seen that before?), then what kind of deal have you received? You will have two choices -- pay the fee, however outrageous, and drop all your neighbor sites (or buy someone's software to prevent the prohibited cross feeding, hmmmm....), or scrap the investment in the dish and other materials you have made, going back to the traditional methods of receiving and sending news. Sounds like a good way to get squeezed between the walls if you ask me, and a nice handsome profit from a captive market in the waiting for a company in BC. >This requires some organization and discipline, but it isn't the end of >the net as we know it; I think it's a logical follow-on and progression >from uunet. If certain areas, as Brad suggests, got satellite links they >could propagate quickly and efficiently within their local or reasonable >calling area. Again, providing that you can redistribute what you receive. This was Stargate's biggest problem, and if the BC people try this tack they'll likely get the same kind of response from the net at large. I'd like to see a statement of some kind from the folks in BC who are doing this. Something concrete -- as to the length of service during which the feed will be available, fees for the future (if any), and a specific non-revocable renouncement of any intent to compilation copyright the stream they are sending out. Only with all of this would I consider tossing my money in their direction; I don't like being squeezed. To date I've seen nothing of the kind from them -- just a "get the news free, buy this nice cheap decoder and tune our satellite transponder". Remember the old adage -- if it sounds too good to be true, it is, or more succintly, TNSTAAFL (there's no such thing as a free lunch). -- 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"
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (06/05/89)
I give. I've read a couple of these and can draw no connection between the subject and its contents. Geosat is a satellite with an altimeter on it. What's the connection? ........................................................................ The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/05/89)
In article <1203@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) writes: >I don't think that's entirely a fair comparison. The Vancouver folks >have hardware sales to subsidize the service (you can't get it if you >don't have their equipment can you?) ... The same was true (was to be true?) for Stargate, since they were planning on using proprietary decoding technology. (Reliable transmission of data in the vertical interval of video signals isn't trivial.) -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/06/89)
In article <3569@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Again, providing that you can redistribute what you receive. This was >Stargate's biggest problem, and if the BC people try this tack they'll >likely get the same kind of response from the net at large. Although I have no positive knowledge, it seems to me that Stargate's "problem" with redistribution rules has been vastly overblown, to the point of being ridiculous. Only a negligible fraction of messages on the net ever carried redistribution restrictions. The "response from the net" was outraged screaming from a tiny minority. I cannot believe it had a major effect on Stargate's financial viability. What killed Stargate, it seems to me, was extremely slow progress towards putting it on a commercial footing (as opposed to a technology demonstration) plus the appearance of UUNET. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/08/89)
In article <1989Jun6.154822.13971@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Again, providing that you can redistribute what you receive. This was >>Stargate's biggest problem, and if the BC people try this tack they'll >>likely get the same kind of response from the net at large. In article <3569@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Although I have no positive knowledge, it seems to me that Stargate's >"problem" with redistribution rules has been vastly overblown, to the >point of being ridiculous. Only a negligible fraction of messages on >the net ever carried redistribution restrictions. Yes, and Stargate planned to carry moderated groups only, and 99.9% of those copyright notes appeared in postings to non-moderated groups. Stargate failed for economic reasons, period. It simply wasn't set up in a way that made business sense, and the people that ran it lost their credibility. The copyright notices had absolutely nothing to do with it. If everything else had worked, they would be a minor nuisance at most. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
dl@ibiza.Miami.Edu (David Lesher) (06/08/89)
Actually, I can think of a very good reason to encourage some type of *sat news transmission. Central America is now well covered by US television (I spent the last week in Belize City, and there not being much else to do, watched the Cubbies on WGN) transmissions. We could add many interesting folks in that region with a one-way transmission with some form of low volume back-channel for postings.
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (06/16/89)
I'm a latecommer in this discussion, so I dont really know how it got started or who the people in BC are, but a month or so ago I ran across a company called "XPRESS" who broadcasts several wire services over WTBS and CNN. They have a one-time cost of buying their decoder box ($125) and you supply the cable connection. I haven't looked into it any further because I won't have cable this fall, but it does sound interesting. I recall that their data transmission was at 9600 baud, but I dont know if it was ASCII. I dont know if your cable company has to be set up to pass it on, but I hope not! It would be GREAT if a company like this would start broadcasting Usenet News! I bet they'd sell a lot of $125 boxes. -- Glen Overby <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP) ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/19/89)
According to jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers): [about signature copyrights] >In any case, can anyone give any legal argument (quoting laws and/or >cases) that either is anything other than silly? After all, they seem >to require that the (highly-automated) news-forwarding software contain >code that can spot such statements, decode them, understand the English, >and take appropriate action. Sorry, no legal opinion here. However... The In Moderation Network will, in fact, have people looking at each message. That's their "service," to weed out cruft. So if they don't abide by my signature, they can't plead ignorance. And if by some "mistake" they do use my articles, they cannot restrict their customers from freely redistributing it. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (07/22/89)
In article <737@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > In article <3413@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Yet the message, "You may transmit this only if your recipients may" is > >very similar to "you may transmit this to your system only if you don't > >deny anybody access to it on your system." The former was accepted, the > >latter sounds silly. > The two statements above are *not* similar. In any case, can anyone give any legal argument (quoting laws and/or cases) that either is anything other than silly? After all, they seem to require that the (highly-automated) news-forwarding software contain code that can spot such statements, decode them, understand the English, and take appropriate action. This is clearly far beyond the capability of any AI software currently on the market, much less the usenet package. Considering the international nature of usenet, they would also seem to require similar decoding and understanding in at least all of the major languages of the world. Or are you perhaps suggesting that news (and mail) forwarding should be done only after each article has been reviewed for copyright restrictions by the machine's owner's copyright lawyer? This would of course totally and permanently shut down all email and file transfer packages.... Such requirements are rather like expecting that a copier understand and obey copyright notices in the material being copied. This is not a legal issue at all, even when the copyright notice is on the page being copied; when it is on another page in the same document, it is even sillier. Anyone know of a relevant case? (Please don't tell me about cases where a person/organization was held responsible for the copying; I'm asking about cases that imply that a machine should refuse to make a copy based a document's contents.) Perhaps, until the issue is resolved unambiguously by the Supreme Court (World Court?), or valid AI filtering software has been developed, I should take the prudent course of not allowing any forwarding of mail or news on this machine.... -- -- All opinions Copyright 1989 by John Chambers; for licensing information contact: John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/02/89)
This subject is a little misleading.... GEOSAT is the name of a satellite with a radar altimeter on it. NOTHING TO DO WITH NEWS... Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
hassinger@lmrc.uucp (Bob Hassinger) (08/02/89)
In article <17@minya.UUCP>, jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: ... > Anyone know of a relevant case? (Please don't tell me > about cases where a person/organization was held responsible for the > copying; I'm asking about cases that imply that a machine should refuse > to make a copy based a document's contents.) This is a common request WRT audio and video. For example note the recent issues with DAT (Digital Audio Tape) that have delayed marketing in the US. Many want and expect technology that will stop people from copying copyrighted materials automatically. Bob Hassinger ...lmrc!hassinger