patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/07/89)
Actually, I *sort of* agree with Brad's fears, if not his complete logic. I don't think anyone involved with Usenet; either as moderator, sysadmin of some site, backbone site, etc would set out to deliberatly steal or mis-use the stuff posted here. *But I wouldn't trust a couple of the commercial networks at all* And networks like Compuserve, Western Union's FYI, Source, and others which get their $5-7 per hour from users reading data bases -- have for some time been hostile toward Fidonet and Usenet for 'stealing' users from them; people who have wised up to the fact that you don't have to spend $6 an hour to have a good time with your terminal and modem. If they came after [Telecom Digest] -- and I've been told Compuserve would like to have it -- I know it would get me almighty P.O.'ed to do the work every night and have them charge their bozos $6 per hour to read it. Perhaps Brad's fears could be allayed by the establishment of a not-for- profit corporation called the Usenet Cooperative Trust, Inc. or some similar name. Have someone like Gene Spafford and one or two other people as officers of the corporation and trustees. *Let the corporation and/or the trustees of the Trust hold a compilation copyright on the entire output each day.* Modify the news software so that each time a user goes 'rn', as part of the message identifying which groups have unread messages, a message would play out saying that the entire contents were compile-copyrighted by the Usenet Cooperative Trust; that the data herein is for use by persons participating in Usenet and may not be exported without the consent of the trustees of the Trust. People would continue doing pretty much as they do now, but at least such a copyright would prevent the worst of the abuses that Brad fears. It would prevent wholesale lifting of material by the commercial services; and it would recognize the work people like Templeton, Spafford and others do to keep things running smoothly. If some commercial organization or commercial site re-selling Usenet wanted to participate, then they could apply to the Trustees, and the matter be brought to everyone here for a discussion and vote. Everyone would know when something like this occurred, and be permitted to decide yea or nay. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/08/89)
In article <7651@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >If they came after [Telecom Digest] -- and I've been told Compuserve >would like to have it -- I know it would get me almighty P.O.'ed to do the >work every night and have them charge their bozos $6 per hour to read it. And what Brad is doing right now will help to prevent that. Remember he is setting a precedent which will help to protect Telecom Digest until such time as you actively renounce the compilation copyright. Your idea for a Usenet wide community trust is an interesting one, but is it really needed. What is wrong with the moderators protecting their own turf so to speak simply by holding the compilation copyright. Compuserve for one is quite unlikely to do anything as long as you mention those words. They would be afraid to jeopradize their own rights. This also holds for the recent comp.mail.maps problem (someone selling the maps). The moderator just has to add a small header asserting a compilation copyright. Then go after anyone abusing the information in the manner alleged in some recent postings (if he is so inclined). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/09/89)
In article <2213@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >Your idea for a Usenet wide community trust is an interesting one, but is it >really needed. What is wrong with the moderators protecting their own turf >so to speak simply by holding the compilation copyright. Compuserve for one >is quite unlikely to do anything as long as you mention those words. They >would be afraid to jeopradize their own rights. Where the problem would come up is with things like unmoderated groups and messages of any kind where backbones or sysadmins (involved with news at their site) are concerned. Every moderator doing his/her own thing would lead to confusion. And who would protect the unmoderated groups? No, we are all in this together and I think if there is to be some formal protection for the community then it should be net/system-wide. What happens with messages cross posted to moderated and unmoderated groups? Who controls it then? I still suggest that if this is the way to go, then there should be one or two, perhaps three or four persons widely respected by everyone who function as the nominal copyright holders for the entire output. I would sheild them from personal attacks with corporate status, assuming they themselves did not act wilfully against the net. I would compile-copyright the whole thing as of 12:01 AM each day and place the copyright in the hands of the trustees of the Trust. I would modify the software to plainly state that everything herein is compile-copyrighted, and may be used freely, with no further permission required by members of Usenet for their own purposes, etc. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/10/89)
In article <7665@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >In article <2213@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >Where the problem would come up is with things like unmoderated groups and >messages of any kind where backbones or sysadmins (involved with news at >their site) are concerned. Of course this also leads to another question - would it be such a bad thing if (for example) Compuserve gatewayed comp.all into a new sig? (I'll volunteer to be the sig moderator :-) I seem to remember the last time I was reading mac related stuff that someone was gatewaying stuff into and out of either Delphi or Genie. If it is a bad thing, why? Other than perhaps increasing the volume (oh my god the end of the net is near), why is the fact that they charge for access make a large difference. Portal charges, many small sites charge something to help pay phone bills etc. Of course Compuserve does make a profit, but does that really mean that their customers shouldn't have access to UseNet materials? It might be interesting to follow up on patrick's suggestion. Have it done via Usenix or UUNET. They could then act as the organizer for the UseNet sig on Compuservce. Remember that the Compuserve actually pays a percentage to the organizer of the group. This could be used to subsidize UUNET's operations and lower the access costs for people on this side. Along the same lines, I've thought for a while it would be interesting to publish a monthly (bi-weekly?) newspaper containing the "Best of UseNet!". Cull the flames etc out, print related articles together, sell some advertising and propagate by paid subscriptions. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (02/11/89)
> And networks like Compuserve, Western Union's FYI, Source, and others > which get their $5-7 per hour from users reading data bases -- have for > some time been hostile toward Fidonet and Usenet for 'stealing' users > from them; people who have wised up to the fact that you don't have to > spend $6 an hour to have a good time with your terminal and modem. I don't really understand why Usenet people would object to something being carried on, say, Compuserve, just because someone other than makes money from it. The point of posting something to the net is to achieve wide distribution for it. I say, the more distribution the better, provided of course that that distribution is an appropriate one for the individual message. If Compuserve can make money by selling something which is available for free elsewhere -- well, so ? Perhaps what they're really selling is something else -- a *convenient form of access* to the material. Is there some objection to that? You can say right in your article, as I'm doing here, that if the reader doesn't like paying Compuserve fees to read it, there are other places where it's available. The informed reader may choose to seek out other places. If they don't, then Compuserve must be adding value to it in some way, and therefore earning their profit *from that*. If you're now saying "but what about intellectual property" -- I'm not opposed to control of one's intellectual property, nor am I saying that net postings or compilations are not intellectual property. Contrariwise. But I am saying that posting something *to Usenet* carries certain implications. As it says the new users' postings, "Think about where your article is going." If you post it, you asked for distribution. Mark Brader, Toronto "Those who mourn for 'USENET like it was' should utzoo!sq!msb remember the original design estimates of maximum msb@sq.com traffic volume: 2 articles/day" -- Steven Bellovin
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/12/89)
In article <1989Feb10.210824.1579@sq.uucp> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > >> And networks like Compuserve, Western Union's FYI, Source, and others >> which get their $5-7 per hour from users reading data bases -- have for >> some time been hostile toward Fidonet and Usenet for 'stealing' users >> from them; people who have wised up to the fact that you don't have to >> spend $6 an hour to have a good time with your terminal and modem. > >I don't really understand why Usenet people would object to something >being carried on, say, Compuserve, just because someone other than makes >money from it. The point of posting something to the net is to achieve >wide distribution for it. I say, the more distribution the better, >provided of course that that distribution is an appropriate one for >the individual message. If we all made money from it, fine. If some of us made money because of good business judgment in the matter, while others of us lost money because of poor business judgment, then fine also. If we intended to make money from Usenet and we all lost money because of our business decisions, then again, that's fine with me. But the point is, Usenet participants, ranging from moderators of groups to system administrators to Universities which supply phone lines and computers HAD NO INTENTION OF MAKING MONEY (or losing it, for that matter). The idea was that Usenet was to be a cooperative exchange of messages in a spirit of goodwill between various computer sites. I give my time to moderate a group with the understanding that Boston University will give the resources I need to compile/originate it each day. We both give these things with the understanding that people at Harvard, Purdue, Company X, and Site Z will not only make it available at no cost to their users but will in many instances pass it along to other sites without sending me a phone bill with a demand for payment in the process. I don't get paid for moderating; Boston U does not get compensated for the computer resources, and Randy Suess at Chinet does not get paid for the dozen phone lines he has installed at his site. Now in the example cited, here comes Compuserve; willing to take all it can get for free and re-sell the cooperative efforts of others for $6 per hour. There is something to be said about the importance of distributing information; yes, we do want our messages to be widely disseminated, and our information FREELY available to others. We overlook/ignore modest user fees of the $10 per month Portal type or the $50 per year (frequently written off) Chinet type. In the case of Chinet, the $50 covers Randy's own out-of-pocket expenses on phone lines, etc, and not much more. But I do not think we can afford to overlook the commercial resale of our cooperative, goodwill efforts on Usenet. I do not think we can overlook the fact that Compuserve also compile-copyrights the entire load every day. Just try downloading huge amounts of data from Compuserve and displaying it elsewhere! Ask them sometime: would CIS make an exception for Usenet, if they took it for themselves? Would they exclude it from their copyright claims and permit it to be re-displayed elsewhere? I doubt it. If anything, I fully suspect that if CIS did start taking Usenet stuff, it would only be a matter of time until *their attornies* started making threatening noises at us, and making all sorts of condescending remarks. I'd have to say stay clear of feeding commercial networks unless and until we, meaning the Usenet community, have full control of the output, and the terms are to our liking. *Their* reward is in the money they hustle from their bozo users. *Our* reward is in seeing the results of our collective efforts each day. Unless we write the terms, then there should be no terms. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
mhyman@hsfmsh.UUCP (Marco S. Hyman) (02/12/89)
In article <2217@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >Along the same lines, I've thought for a while it would be interesting to >publish a monthly (bi-weekly?) newspaper containing the "Best of UseNet!". >Cull the flames etc out, print related articles together, sell some >advertising and propagate by paid subscriptions. Others have also thought it would be interesting. In the new ``C++ report'' (I think that's the name, the first issues was distributed with the current issue of the Journal of Object Oriented Programming) there will be a column based upon the best of comp.lang.C++. This is from memory -- the report is at home. --marc -- ------ Marco S. Hyman UUCP: ...!sun!{sfsun,hoptoad}!hsfmsh!mhyman Domain: {sfsun,hoptoad}!hsfmsh!mhyman@sun.com
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/12/89)
There's nothing inherently wrong with usenet messages being carried on services like CompuServe, so long as the usenet posters wish it. Asserting our rights, including moderator's compilation copyrights, assures that if it is done, it will be done with the cooperation of the usenet people involved. In particular, without compilation copyrights of moderated groups on usenet, places like CIS could feed in the moderated groups, throw in their own input and claim their *own* compilation copyright on the result. In particular, there would be no control over whether any information ever flowed back from the gateway. With protection, usenet people can insist on a two way link if we want, with the good stuff going both ways. Without it, you can be sure the flow would only be one way. I have nothing against this large other nets joining up with usenet, and in fact I think it could be a good thing, I just feel that it should be a cooperative effort, under netter control as well as theirs. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/12/89)
In article <7687@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >We overlook/ignore modest user fees of the $10 per month Portal type or >the $50 per year (frequently written off) Chinet type. In the case of How about the guy in _Computer Languages_ who has a full page add selling stuff from comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibmpc for anywhere between $60 and $250 per pop. -- ``I've re-written UNIX from, scratch. God told me to'' - Ed Carp decwrl!gryphon!richard killer!gryphon!richard elroy!gryphon!richard
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/13/89)
In article <11954@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >How about the guy in _Computer Languages_ who has a full page add >selling stuff from comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibmpc for >anywhere between $60 and $250 per pop. That is a bit much. Are you certain of this? I've not seen the ads, or the finished product myself. But it would seem to me the contributors to those two groups should make some inquiries of the chap. Either that, or use the old guerilla warfare tactic of *deliberatly polluting the group with wrong information, just to wreck his 'product'.* Under this approach, the users either refuse to post to the group at all, or deliberatly post nonsensical -- but on the surface to an unsophisticated reader -- 'serious' replies. Then the chap winds up publishing a bunch on lies unless he himself is sophisticated enough on the subject matter to see what the authors of the trash are doing to him. And let's face it, if he knew the subject matter that well, he would not have to rip off their messages wholesale. To at least be courteous he would re-write them or something. Seriously, if someone IS doing this, how about some specifics? Let the group here know who, when, where, etc. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (02/13/89)
In article <11954@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
: How about the guy in _Computer Languages_ who has a full page add
: selling stuff from comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibmpc for
: anywhere between $60 and $250 per pop.
I have the February issue in my hands and there is no such ad.
Name names or shut up.
---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!billlinimon@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Mark Linimon) (02/13/89)
Patrick A. Townson writes: > I'd have to say stay clear of feeding commercial networks unless and until > we, meaning the Usenet community, have full control of the output, and the > terms are to our liking. I'd have to say stay clear of feeding commercial networks, PERIOD. I've already had to fend off inquiries from more than one headhunter who wants to tie in their own bulletin board networks; people who (believe me) have not the _least_ interest in the Spirit of Usenet. We already cross the "commerical" line, I believe, in misc.jobs.offered (headhunters) and various replies of the form "my firm can do that" all too often. I'd like to see less of that, not more. With interconnects to commercial networks I can't see how there could be less of it. Mark Linimon killer!nominil!linimon disclaimer: speaking just for myself (you think I work at this? :-)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/14/89)
In article <378@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <11954@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >: How about the guy in _Computer Languages_ who has a full page add >: selling stuff from comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibmpc for >: anywhere between $60 and $250 per pop. > >I have the February issue in my hands and there is no such ad. So I goofed. It's not _Computer Languages_, it's _Computer Language_. I had no idea there was another magazine with such a close name. Anyway, it's the Februrary issue, Vol. 6 Nr. 2 I xeroxed the page and brought it here, but it doesnt have a dopey page number. It's a full page ad, from the _Austin Code Works_ (acw!info@uunet.uu.net) for a WHOLE HEAP of source code, from minix to PC curses to Hershey fonts. >Name names or shut up. Ok, ok: Fred, Barney and Pebbles. Sheesh. -- "Hay hay, mye mye... rock an roll wil nevurr dye..." richard@gryphon.COM gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV decwrl!gryphon!richard killer!gryphon!richard ames!elroy!gryphon!richard
cuccia@yak.sybase.com (Nick Cuccia) (02/16/89)
In article <378@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <11954@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >: [Stuff about firm in Texas selling comp.sources.* code] >I have the February issue in my hands and there is no such ad. >Name names or shut up. I believe that Richard is referring to the Austin Code Works; much of the code that they sell appears to have either been culled off of the net (either from comp.sources.* or from the GNU collection) or from published books (Ted Biggerstaff's code from his book of PC utilities). >Bill >{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill --Nick =============================================================================== Nick Cuccia System Admin/Postmaster, Sybase, Incorporated sybase!cuccia@sun.com 6475 Christie Av. Emeryville, CA 94608 {sun,lll-tis,pyramid,pacbell}!sybase!cuccia +1 415 596-3500 ===============================================================================
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/16/89)
In article <1989Feb10.210824.1579@sq.uucp> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >If Compuserve can make money by selling something which is available for >free elsewhere -- well, so ? Perhaps what they're really selling is >something else -- a *convenient form of access* to the material. Is there >some objection to that? > This argument seems to make sense to me. After all, Unix is not exactly an "uninformed-user-friendly" environment. I think tose of us who take to computers like ducks to water have a tendacy to forget that; most people still need an environment that spoon-feeds the "how to" to them, along with the warm fuzzies that come with graphic enhancements. The average non-hacker is basically approaching the computer as a sophisticated video-game; what they're paying for is the "nice upholstry" and the convenient form of access. >You can say right in your article, as I'm doing here, that if the reader >doesn't like paying Compuserve fees to read it, there are other places >where it's available. The informed reader may choose to seek out other >places. If they don't, then Compuserve must be adding value to it in >some way, and therefore earning their profit *from that*. > Having tried the CompuServe (tm) thing myself out of morbid curiosity, I think that most of what they do can be done much better in terms of informational return per minute or $ in other ways, with or without computer (more often the latter). They seem to be a "Readers Digest" of the BBS world. If *I* were them, I certainly would argue that I was chargeing for the "convenient access". BTW, don't we get e-mail access to their users? (Assuming, of course, we know their address.) I know that ATTmail users can send e-mail to us through registered gates (not that I've found any) but not vice-versa. --Mark Gresham ...gatech!{dscatl!}artsnet!mgresham ARTSNET
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (02/17/89)
> Now in the example cited, here comes Compuserve; willing to take all it > can get for free and re-sell the cooperative efforts of others for $6 per > hour. There is something to be said about the importance of distributing > information; yes, we do want our messages to be widely disseminated, and > our information FREELY available to others. But the people you're complaining about are not restricting the availability of the information by the "free" channels that you want. They are adding an additional channel, which people can choose to pay them for if they wish. I still do not see how anyone can object to that. If you wish to block transmission of material that you composed or compiled, then the Larry Wall Model Copyright Notice seems* sufficient. Of course, if you restrict transmission of something by notice, and then proceed to put it into a distribution channel yourself, it's understood that you are intending distribution to wherever that channel goes and no further. The rec.humor.funny problem arose because Brad appeared to be asking for the preexisting distribution channel that he was using to be modified to match the distribution that he wanted. This, of course, is another story. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com "The conversation never became heated, which would have been difficult in any argument where there is a built-in cooling-down period between any remark and its answer." -- Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (02/18/89)
In article <7651@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Perhaps Brad's fears could be allayed by the establishment of a not-for- >profit corporation called the Usenet Cooperative Trust, Inc. or some >similar name. Have someone like Gene Spafford and one or two other >people as officers of the corporation and trustees. Once such a legal entity has been created, it can be sued. Just imagine what would have happened if [JEDR, MES, *] could have sued "the net". They would have wond a rather nice bounty from the courts. As the net stands, it is logistically impossible to sue. Brad has turned into a net.bully. It's hard to believe that this is the same guy who I submitted a joke (albeit, not a very good one) to a year or so ago. I guess the Brad-Bashing has gotten to him. Glen Overby <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)