jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/03/89)
I sent this in mail to Brad Templeton, but it seems appropriate here as well. In article <2706@looking.UUCP> you write: > The licence to transmit the group over USENET has changed slightly. ... > In general, I now require all sites which derive > income particularly from selling USENET access to ask permission. > Most sites don't have to ask. Computer centers that are mainly in > the business of selling general computing don't have to ask. > Pay-to-use BBS systems and people who sell network access as a > major feature have to ask. I think Portal had better contact me > real soon now. Brad, what's all this stuff about "license to transmit this group?" You are the moderator. You do not have some of the ownership rights you are claiming, and as a long-time news administrator I do not recognize the right you are claiming to prevent uunet from receiving rec.humor.funny unless you say it's OK (guess what they sell as a major feature?) -- or anyone else. By agreeing to moderate a net-wide group, you implicitly agreed to transmit it net-wide, under the existing terms of the way Usenet operates. If you're going to start causing major trouble for us admins by requiring us to consult our lawyers every week, we'll just have to can you. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing -- attempting to restrict the free flow of discussion and humor. Knock it off. You're turning into almost as much of a pain in the ass as JEDR. If you attempt to cut off Portal or the Well or anybody else, we'll just laugh in your face and ignore you. >The problem with censorship is that it desensitizes people to violence. >Censorship IS violence. So is extortion. Exactly what do you want the Portal people to do so you'll agree to send them rec.humor.funny? Give you a cut of their income? -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) (02/03/89)
In article <2844@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
=Brad, what's all this stuff about "license to transmit this group?"
=You are the moderator. You do not have some of the ownership rights you
=are claiming,
=...
=Knock it off. You're
=turning into almost as much of a pain in the ass as JEDR.
Here, here! Brad sure has become proprietary with OTHER people's work.
The purpose of moderation is to keep the newsgroup focused, and, in the
case of r.h.f, limit the volume and set a minimum standard for postings.
Brad has NO ownership rights unless he copyrights the material, which
would be pretty funny since it's not his creation.
I supported Brad during the last recall drive. I'm beginning to think
I made a mistake. R.h.f needs a moderator, not some sort of propagation
Nazi.
--
The right to transmit this posting is freely given, even to site "looking".
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.combrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/03/89)
Since this was brought up in public as well as in private, I must answer in public. Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. All this on top of the considerable time I put into moderating the group. The whole battle isn't even over yet, and in some ways it is escalating, as you will all soon find out. All this because I have worked hard to give you folks, for free, something you tell me you enjoy a lot. After all these attacks, I had to ask myself why I was submitting myself to such abuse, defamation and personal hardship. Believe me, it's not pleasant to be called a racist on the front page of major newspapers, and to become the enemy of the president of your alma mater. So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in my authority to control that, too. So I have affirmed my compilation copyright(*) in the group, and said all free usenet sites can carry it, and that other sites have to ask. I have also said that just about anybody who asks will get a yes. But it is *my* decision. If a commercial service like Compuserve asks, I might say no, or ask for their standard moderator arrangment -- that's all. I don't really know what Portal is, but if I decide they're making money off what I do, then I have the right to control it. That's all for now. But believe me, if attacks on me keep up, it's not going to be all. Most of you folks have been really tremendous in sending me messages of support and thanks. I know you're out there and thank you for your help. (I've just written a program to thank you all, which I will shortly release freely to the net.) But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if somebody else can make money off of my work. If you're right in saying that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. -------- (*) A compilation (editor's) copyright, for those that don't know, is a special copyright on a work or service that is a collection of works by other people (both PD and copyrighted.) It claims no ownership in the individual works, but rather on the work to collect, edit, select and publish them. It means that nobody can redistribute a significant part (or all) of the collection without the editor's permission, or use the compilation as a sourcebook for further compilations. All moderators have a compilation copyright on their moderated groups, unless they explictly renounce it. They have to declare it to enforce it, however. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (02/03/89)
(Hey, Brad, correct me if I have any of this wrong.)
In article <1448@vsi1.COM> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes:
: Here, here! Brad sure has become proprietary with OTHER people's work.
: The purpose of moderation is to keep the newsgroup focused, and, in the
: case of r.h.f, limit the volume and set a minimum standard for postings.
: Brad has NO ownership rights unless he copyrights the material, which
: would be pretty funny since it's not his creation.
He does have a copyright. Read his monthly posting for the details.
The copyright is for the compilation, not the contents. In other
words, though he generally has no copyright on the material contained
in the newsgroup, he does have a copyright on the collection of
material, a thing that would not exist save for his effort. Such
copyrights are perfectly normal for the kind of thing he does. As I
understand it, every moderated newsgroup has such a copyright (though
the distribution of the newsgroup without the copyright notice voids
the copyright), even if the moderator(s) don't know it. Brad does,
and has made that explicit.
: I supported Brad during the last recall drive. I'm beginning to think
: I made a mistake. R.h.f needs a moderator, not some sort of propagation
: Nazi.
Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit? It is not to prevent
anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the
event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the
newsgroup.
Because of him saying what he does, there are two legal possibilities:
if the offended party hasn't obtained his permission he gets thrown
out of court. If he has, then he has agreed to the bullshit, and gets
thrown out of court. End of problem.
BTW, it is clear from Brad's posting that he doesn't like this
bullshit any better than you do.
---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!billjbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/04/89)
In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, >considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and >literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. I'm sorry to hear that, but it simply isn't relevant. >All this because I have worked hard to give you folks, for free, something >you tell me you enjoy a lot. After all these attacks, I had to ask myself >why I was submitting myself to such abuse, defamation and personal hardship. You are only a gateway. It's the people that post the jokes that are giving it to us. You are replaceable. >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, >and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in >my authority to control that, too. Oh, rot. I recommend that everyone include a GNU-style copyright (you can only redistribute this article if your recipients can as well) to all submissions, for both rec.humor and rec.humor.funny. > So I have affirmed my compilation >copyright(*) in the group, and said all free usenet sites can carry it, and >that other sites have to ask. You are asserting that a particular principle of copyright law applies in this case. But you are not distributing a compilation. You are distributing articles ONE AT A TIME, almost exactly as received except for a new header and .signature. If you used a digest form you might have an argument. Your book is a compilation and compilation copyright applies there, because it's a book and there is a lot of law that applies to books. There haven't been any test cases at all about USENET, so any assertion you make about what the law is is debatable. >If you're right in saying >that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. You're welcome to stay if you act like a good net.citizen. If you aren't, you are replaceable. I, for one, will continue to pass all groups I'm currently passing along to my downstream sites, even if you should "forbid" one from receiving it. You have no power to make your decisions stick, and since this is an anarchy, that's all that matters. -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/04/89)
In article <371@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit? It is not to prevent >anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the >event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the >newsgroup. If so, then why is he singling out public access sites that charge fees as a special case, when all the flaming and legal challenges are coming from universities? -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) (02/04/89)
In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
=[[a lot of stuff on what a hardship is to moderate r.h.f]]
=
=So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it,
=and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in
=my authority to control that, too.
It is not "your" group. You just the moderator.
=So I have affirmed my compilation
=copyright(*) in the group,
You are not compiling an anthology here. All you've done is take other
people's work, stick your own copyright notice at the bottom, and
redistribute it. It wouldn't hold up in a US court.
=That's all for now. But believe me, if attacks on me keep up, it's
=not going to be all. Most of you folks have been really tremendous in
=sending me messages of support and thanks. I know you're out there and
=thank you for your help. (I've just written a program to thank you all,
=which I will shortly release freely to the net.)
=
=But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if
=somebody else can make money off of my work. If you're right in saying
=that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave.
I was one of those people who was glad you stood up against JEDR and all
of the trouble, but your recent actions suggest that you are now on a
campaign to establish the r.h.f is your personal property. While I
sympathize with your problems that have come from moderating r.h.f, I
would like to point out that would be no great loss if you gave up your
post to someone else. You are not the only person on the net who is
capable of moderating r.h.f.
As a moderator, you have the right to selected what gets distributed
in r.h.f. If you think that you have the right to control who gets
to propagate it, then I laugh in your face. I, for one, would gladly
contribute to the legal defense fund for anyone who you tried to prevent
from propagating _any_ USENET group.
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comjfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (02/04/89)
In article <371@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit? It is not to prevent >anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the >event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the >newsgroup. Huh? Censorship is censorship. Preventing one person or one thousand is no different. The effect of Brad's policy change is that some sites ENTIRE COLLECTION OF USER'S won't be able to receive r.h.funny. This is more like revenge than censorship. Oh - and Brad came out and said if money was to be made he might like a slice of the pie. Not that I see anything wrong with this, I support his recent compilation efforts. But let him sell books, not newsgroup redistribution licenses. >Because of him saying what he does, there are two legal possibilities: >if the offended party hasn't obtained his permission he gets thrown >out of court. If he has, then he has agreed to the bullshit, and gets >thrown out of court. End of problem. First, he can publish a notice at the beginning of every article that the information contained might be offensive. Second, he can rotate every questionable joke article. Since the reader must take an explicit action to read the article, he would be considered to have accepted the risk. To make it slightly more airtight, each rotated article could have a special decoding string prepended to it that the user must type in to decode the article. Or ... There IS a technological solution in there someplace. Censorship is what got this started in the first place. Censorship is not the correct solution. -- John F. Haugh II +--Quote of the Week:------------------ VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Get it through your head: InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | CARS ARE THE ENEMY." UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +------ -- Bob Fishell ----------
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/04/89)
(Followups redirected to news.groups....) In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Since this was brought up in public as well as in private, I must >answer in public. As will I. >Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, >considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and >literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. >All this on top of the considerable time I put into moderating the >group. The whole battle isn't even over yet, and in some ways it is >escalating, as you will all soon find out. This moderation of the group was a personal choice; we should not be penalized (or subject to your "control") just because your lack of discretion in "ok"ing material (or ANY other cause) brought you some grief. "You will all soon find out?" How about some details and facts to back up the threatening words, Brad? >All this because I have worked hard to give you folks, for free, something >you tell me you enjoy a lot. After all these attacks, I had to ask myself >why I was submitting myself to such abuse, defamation and personal hardship. >Believe me, it's not pleasant to be called a racist on the front page of >major newspapers, and to become the enemy of the president of your alma >mater. But it is your choice to either bear or discard such a cross; a choice that I would _hope_ you made (and continue to make) with some semblance of a sound mind. It is also your right to seek redress from those papers and universitie(s) if you truly feel you were wronged. The law provides just compensation for those who were slandered or libeled. It is not your right as a moderator, who was voted in by the net at large, to change the charter of your group at whim and to designate who may and who may not receive the material! This is Usenet, not "Brad.Templeton.Net". >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, >and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in >my authority to control that, too. WRONG. There you and I (and I suspect, most of the remainder of the net) differ. You are a moderator - that is NOT a position equivalent to editor, or even publisher. R.h.f is not _YOUR_ group to do with as you please. You may be the shepherd of the group, but you are NOT a self-declared God! >So I have affirmed my compilation >copyright(*) in the group, and said all free usenet sites can carry it, and >that other sites have to ask. I have also said that just about anybody >who asks will get a yes. But it is *my* decision. If a commercial service >like Compuserve asks, I might say no, or ask for their standard moderator >arrangment -- that's all. I don't really know what Portal is, but if >I decide they're making money off what I do, then I have the right to >control it. No you don't, any more than I have a right to demand $x for a copy of a posting that I make to the net on the basis of where it's distributed. I posted it, it's out of my hands, it's on the net. (Those who feel otherwise -- note that Brad here has ALSO claimed that postings to rec.humor, unless otherwise noted, are fair game for his "compilation copyright". Anyone STILL think there isn't a problem with this last statement of Brad's?) Also note the "if I decide that they are making money" above. This is about as pompous a statement as I have EVER heard on this network. Look, who are you to decide? We do have "contributor" accounts here - people pay for the access. Part of that is Usenet, of course. People pay for Usenet access (sometimes). We _lose_ money on these accounts if you want to count them strictly as a profit/loss type of situation. We don't, of course; MCS receives the Usenet, and marginal cost of providing access to outsiders is reasonable enough for us to bear with a small amount of help from the users of this resource. Are we (or any other public access system that collects a fee for use) subject to your whim? I think not! I know that _I_, as an administrator of this Network, will not beg for the "right" to transmit, forward, store or read r.h.f. I _WILL_ nuke r.h.f from our site and all our downstream feeds if this bull-cocka about you flexing your muscles continues, and I will advocate that other sysadmins do so as well. How's that for preemptory action Brad? What goes around comes around. >That's all for now. But believe me, if attacks on me keep up, it's >not going to be all. This is not an attack on you, this is an attack on the policy that you have set. There is a difference and I hope you recognize it. >But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if >somebody else can make money off of my work. If you're right in saying >that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. The net is laughing. Even worse; I'm drawing a motion together. Read on for the real good stuff. >(*) A compilation (editor's) copyright, for those that don't know, is >a special copyright on a work or service that is a collection of works >by other people (both PD and copyrighted.) It claims no ownership in >the individual works, but rather on the work to collect, edit, select >and publish them. It means that nobody can redistribute a significant >part (or all) of the collection without the editor's permission, or use >the compilation as a sourcebook for further compilations. > >All moderators have a compilation copyright on their moderated groups, >unless they explictly renounce it. They have to declare it to enforce it, >however. There I (and I suspect, the remainder of the net) disagree with you. If the net as a whole allows this precedent to be set (allowing a compilation copyright to be EXERCISED by an individual who moderates a group) then we're in real big trouble. Brandon could decide who could receive comp.binaries.ibm.pc. How about comp.sources.unix? Or any of the others? Who are YOU to claim that someone can (or cannot) receive the group when distributed with PUBLIC FUNDS? I perceive a call for $$$ here by Brad (from those sites which make money off Usenet use!); that's something that even a die-hard capitalist like myself simply cannot stomach. It started with the joke book, and your compilation copyright on that. No, I won't get on the soapbox about that issue -- it's long dead, and everyone who thinks about it must conclude that you're not making a killing on it. But this item is another matter entirely -- you've now come out and stated your intention is CONTROL of the group, and even the right to profit from it and it's material. You've asserted that rec.humor, a NON-MODERATED group, will be ALSO tapped for material for your "private forum"; jokebook and all. Brad, it's gone too far this time. As a result: ------------------------ OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT -------------------------- This is an official announcement of a discussion period (2 weeks) to remove rec.humor.funny from the Usenet. The discussion period begins now, Fri Feb 3 17:15:27 CST 1989, and will run until February 17, 1989. I'm sure you all know by now (if you really read this far) how I feel on this matter. After two weeks a vote will be called by myself. If 100 more YES votes than NO votes are received during the 30 day voting period at the address designated, I will petition the backbone to issue an official "rmgroup" for rec.humor.funny. Please note that this proposal follows existing guidelines for newsgroup modifications. DO NOT send votes now -- they will be ignored. DO NOT post votes at any time -- they will be ignored. I will post a public address for votes when the two week discussion period is over. The discussion period and vote will be cancelled should the backbone take appropriate preemptory action, or should Brad publically recant his postings regarding the "ownership" of Rec.humor.funny, and once again "permit" the entire net to receive and forward the group without encumberance. If you're going to act, Brad, act fast -- if you wait until the vote begins I doubt it will matter much what you decide to post. Get your Nomex suits out, guys and gals -- the "fun"ny is just beginning. And please do post your opinions. Email flames discarded; public discourse will be read and considered commensurately with it's value. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/04/89)
OK folks, if you really want to apply the principle that a moderator's compilation copyright over a moderated group doesn't mesh with USENET, then the following things have to go (or have their copyrights ignored): A) The OtherRealms fanzine B) All postings that say, "you may only redistribute this if your recipients may." C) Matt Crawford's rec.humor postings which prohibit my redistribution of them in rec.humor.funny D) All "freeware" software that allows free non-commercial use, but prohibits or restricts people from selling it. (This includes, as far as I know, "rn", "inews" and other programs that the net would have trouble doing without.) E) All GNU software (Really a special case of class D) F) rec.humor.funny Compilation copyright of an ongoing database or on-line service is a well established principle, in spite of what have been said here. I will admit people seem more worried about this than I expected. Let me say that in no way am I out looking for legal actions or the removal of sections of the net from the distribution list. Nobody is going to become an unwitting copyright violator because they forward groups to neighbours. Unless this attack forces me off usenet, I have no plans to interfere in any way with the actions of free usenet sites. At the same time, all the policies and rights I detailed have always existed for me and for all other moderators who don't renounce them. I have merely clarified them, and left some avenues open for me to deal with a certain small group of people who are out trying to wreck my life because I moderate this group. Right now there's nobody I plan to say no to, other than some of those who wish to destroy the group. On the other hand, if Compuserve could carry this group without asking me, and they got 40,000 readers like USENET, and the readers spent 30 seconds on each joke, Compuserve would draw $200,000 PER MONTH in connect time from it. Some of you are saying that I can't have a policy that would control that. Actually, that number looks nice and big. Perhaps I will follow the instructions of some of the attackers here in news.admin and give the group its own hierarchy that is charged for... I'm being semi-serious here, at least if the attacks keep up. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/04/89)
In article <1448@vsi1.COM> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes: >In article <2844@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >=Brad, what's all this stuff about "license to transmit this group?" >=You are the moderator. You do not have some of the ownership rights you >=are claiming, >=... >=Knock it off. You're >=turning into almost as much of a pain in the ass as JEDR. > >Here, here! Brad sure has become proprietary with OTHER people's work. >The purpose of moderation is to keep the newsgroup focused, and, in the >case of r.h.f, limit the volume and set a minimum standard for postings. >Brad has NO ownership rights unless he copyrights the material, which >would be pretty funny since it's not his creation. > I'm not saying I agree or dis-agree with Brad but remember there are plenty of precedants for what he seems to be trying to do: - rec.mag.otherrealms - alt.gourmand (nee mod.recipies) - license to retransmit / copyright in various signature's last year Both Chuq and Brian Copyright their moderated groups. Chuq with very specific copyrights on the contents, Brian with same. Last year many people put quite restrictive copyrights and retransmission criteria in their articles to combat a perceived threat from the Stargate project. Brad is protecting his investment of time and enery in r.h.f. If you don't like it don't read it. Feel free to campaign for rec.humor.funny2, with a new moderator. I know that argument by invective is becoming the UseNet standard but I don't think we have to brand Brad a traitor yet. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
rissa@chinet.chi.il.us (Patricia O Tuama) (02/05/89)
In article <2718@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: [...] Well, I have some questions: 1) is it even possible to limit enforcement of copyright to a segre- gated class (ie, public access sites)? I thought copyright pro- tections apply uniformly across all classes; do you have the right to selective enforcement? 2) assuming you do have the right to this kind of limited enforcement, do you have any reason to suspect or fear that you will suffer any kind of financial, professional or personal loss if public access sites continue to receive YOUR news.group? 3) there are public access machines that do not charge user fees; can we assume your selective enforcement policy does not apply to them? 4) has Compuserve or any similar system approached you WRT to carrying r.h.nf? Does Compuserve carry any newsgroups now? >Actually, that number looks nice and big. Perhaps I will follow the >instructions of some of the attackers here in news.admin and give the group >its own hierarchy that is charged for... I'm being semi-serious here, >at least if the attacks keep up. Perhaps the Usenet community should begin charging you to carry YOUR newsgroup and/or hierarchy? You once computed for me the cost of the average posting and email message. How much would you be willing to pay to propagate YOUR newsgroup? Classic Trish
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/05/89)
In article <2718@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >OK folks, if you really want to apply the principle that a moderator's >compilation copyright over a moderated group doesn't mesh with USENET, >then the following things have to go (or have their copyrights ignored): You misunderstand my objection, Brad. Have your copyright. I assert that by posting to Usenet, you implicitly give permission for every host to pass the articles in question to any other system using normal news propogation techniques. Given this there is no problem with your examples: >A) The OtherRealms fanzine No problem, since the copyrights give permission to redistribute the fanzine electronically. Furthermore, Chuq negotiates very specific agreements with his contributors: they maintain copyright, he gets one-time rights to publish, etc. >B) All postings that say, "you may only redistribute this if your > recipients may." No problem, because this is an attempt to enforce what has always been standard net protocol against an effort to subvert that principle. >C) Matt Crawford's rec.humor postings which prohibit my redistribution > of them in rec.humor.funny No problem: he can say whatever he wants. >D) All "freeware" software that allows free non-commercial use, but prohibits > or restricts people from selling it. > (This includes, as far as I know, "rn", "inews" and other programs that > the net would have trouble doing without.) Again, no problem. I have a big problem with "shareware" that solicits funds over the usenet, but that's a different debate. As long as my system is allowed to send it to other systems I have no problem. >E) All GNU software (Really a special case of class D) See above. The net, like GNU, is based on free sharing of information. >F) rec.humor.funny It hasn't been a problem up to now. Other people objected to your "compilation copyright" when it came to your jokebook; I did not. Here is what I am asserting, and nothing else. Read carefully. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | When you post an article to Usenet, you give permission, by that very | | act, for the administrators of all machines on the net to pass that | | article along to any other machine on the net. You give permission | | for everyone on the net to read it. This applies whether you are an | | ordinary user or a moderator. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ In other words, you relinquish some, but not all, of your property rights to your material by the act of posting to the net. If this principle is eroded in any way, I need to replace my /usr/lib/news/sys file by a very good AI program to see if I can legally send the article in question to my downstream sites. I refuse to do this, and I won't tolerate you attempting to create this situation. -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/05/89)
In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, >considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and >literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. >All this on top of the considerable time I put into moderating the >group. You are to be commended for your hard and diligent work with the rec.humor. funny group. Although I've had no ill health or legal expenses as a result of my work with comp.dcom.telecom/[Telecom Digest], I've certainly had my share of telephone bills and nights with little sleep. I work a full time job and have a part time job three hours per night three nights per week which pays for my hobby. Since like your group, I publish the Digest at least once daily and usually twice considering the volume of mail, I usually get home at 10:30 PM, grab a bite to eat, and spend the next three hours on line to Boston. Then I get up at 7:30 in the morning and start all over again. Anyone who says a moderator has a glamorous job is full of beans. >All this because I have worked hard to give you folks, for free, something >you tell me you enjoy a lot. But more important, do YOU enjoy it a lot? If it has become a hardship, or something that causes you a lot of personal grief, then you should cease participating in it. The day I grow tired of comp.dcom.telecom will be the day I wave bye-bye, and the day [Telecom Digest] bites the dust and goes in the bit bucket. >Believe me, it's not pleasant to be called a racist on the front page of >major newspapers, and to become the enemy of the president of your alma >mater. I'm sure it isn't, but it was YOU who made the concious decision that rec.humor.funny would include the type of humor which many people find obnoxious. YOU set the pace there. You may couch it in terms of freedom of speech or whatever you like; you may be quite right. But YOU chose how to moderate the group; just as I choose how to moderate comp.dcom.telecom. Some people have dropped from the mailing list since I took over from jsol, and others have eagerly joined. I make the decisions there, and you have made yours. >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it.... But it isn't really yours, any more than comp.dcom.telecom is mine. I view Moderators more as persons placed in a position of trust to manage some portion of the net resources. If the group is your personal property, then why don't you start paying the cost of transmitting *your property* all over the net? You are dependent upon the good will of the backbones and other major sites to transmit your material freely. They in turn are dependent upon your good will in producing a polished well prepared group every day. It is not a one-sided thing here: Lots of people cooperate by giving their best to Usenet. >So I have affirmed my compilation >copyright(*) in the group, and said all free usenet sites can carry it, and >that other sites have to ask. I have also said that just about anybody >who asks will get a yes. But it is *my* decision. Well again, what would be your reaction if one of the major backbone sites took the same attitude about its work? 1. Our machine is spending hours each day receiving/passing news. 2. We are spending much time, money and effort to do what is apparently pleasing to a large number of people. 3. Therefore *from now on, we control it; it belongs to us*. 4. We hold a compilation copyright, and people will start asking us for permission to disseminate the groups. Now would YOU like that? What if someone decides that based on their work with the overall Usenet, that THEY are going to enforce a compilation copyright on the whole thing every day? After all, the backbone in a sense does 'compile' all the news groups and pass them along. >I don't really know what Portal is, but if >I decide they're making money off what I do, then I have the right to >control it. That's really rich. Portal is first and foremost a chat system with local news groups. They charge $10 per month for unlimited usage. The users hang on line for hours at a time; all for $10 per month. Usenet access is a small part of what they offer, and your group would be 1/300th of that, if the last count of available groups is correct. With all due respect to John Little and Phil Sih, sysadmins for that site, they are all a bunch of pissants. (BTW, that is pronounced peh-santz, not piss ants.) What a novel concept! Getting rich from Portal royalties. >But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if >somebody else can make money off of my work. And I repeat, if you wish total control, then you should be paying for the transmission time and the disk space on all the machines you occupy. >If you're right in saying >that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. No one is, or at least no one should be laughing at the work of any moderator or other person involved with the daily mirror of life known as Usenet. I do what I do here because (a) I enjoy it, and (b) it is a way to pay for the many benefits I've received from being part of the Usenet community for awhile now. What I wish you would realize is that there are lots of people in this together, in a cooperative effort to educate, entertain and inform the user community. Because of the unique nature of Usenet and Fidonet, the type of control you are asking for is a slap in the face to a huge group of other people. To have the type of control you desire, you should remove rec.humor.funny entirely and locate it on Compuserve or a similar service where the Moderator does indeed have a commercial and contractual arrangement with the operators of the network. And based on your strong feelings in this matter, I'd not think you were wrong in moving to a commercial system, although I'd certainly miss reading the group each day. >All moderators have a compilation copyright on their moderated groups, >unless they explictly renounce it. They have to declare it to enforce it, >however. Yeah, but what if EVERYONE who labored a couple hours each day on Usenet and got a $325 bill from the phone company last month decided to enforce it? Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator 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 -- 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
mrm@sceard.UUCP (M.R.Murphy) (02/05/89)
In article <2718@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >OK folks, if you really want to apply the principle that a moderator's >compilation copyright over a moderated group doesn't mesh with USENET, >then the following things have to go (or have their copyrights ignored): [Others deleted; in my opinion, it is not brad@looking.UUCP's right to decide what must go except at his site. USENET is as has been stated many times, an anarchy.] >F) rec.humor.funny [More deleted, not with the intent of quoting out of context, I hope.] >I will admit people seem more worried about this than I expected. Let I think concerned, not worried, is the feeling. The principles involved are important to many of us. [More deleted, not with the intent of quoting out of context, I hope.] > >On the other hand, if Compuserve could carry this group without asking me, >and they got 40,000 readers like USENET, and the readers spent 30 seconds >on each joke, Compuserve would draw $200,000 PER MONTH in connect time from >it. Some of you are saying that I can't have a policy that would control >that. That is exactly right. > >Actually, that number looks nice and big. Perhaps I will follow the >instructions of some of the attackers here in news.admin and give the group >its own hierarchy that is charged for... I'm being semi-serious here, >at least if the attacks keep up. If brad@looking.UUCP wants to set up a BBS, a Time-Sharing Service, a Compuserve(tm) look-alike, and charge folks to read the material he compiles, then I think that is fine. If he can con other folks into writing the material for free or for pay, then also fine. Many of the jokes mailed to him are written by professionals for professionals. Is due rigor exercised in proper attribution and royalty? Who knows? If brad@looking.UUCP uses USENET as a transport mechanism and expects to control ANY site in its retransmission, then I will remove rec.humor.funny from our site. That is my right. I think that it may also be my duty. Pompous, eh? What is done to the least is done to all. Somebody else said something like that before I did. I would reference them if I knew who it was. --- Mike Murphy Sceard Systems, Inc. 544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA 92069 mrm@sceard.UUCP {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd}!sceard!mrm +1 619 471 0655
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (02/06/89)
In article <371@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <1448@vsi1.COM> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes: >: Brad has NO ownership rights unless he copyrights the material, which >: would be pretty funny since it's not his creation. > >He does have a copyright. Read his monthly posting for the details. >The copyright is for the compilation, not the contents. While nobody is questioning this kind of copyright for a book of r.h.f. compilations, I suspect that the Usenet activity of passing along 'approved' messages without changing their content would not qualify. A book or other single body of collected material is in itself a creative work. Newsgroup moderation, on the other hand, is a destructive act rather than creative - Brad's main function is to reject jokes, not create them. Can one copyright moderation? Don't bet on it. Because I, as site administrator, choose to reject postings containing binaries, and since my software appends my site name to the 'Path' of each article passing through here (thus altering its content), does that give me the right to claim copyright on everything passing through this site? Well, I could _claim_ it, but no one and no court would recognize it. What's the difference? >Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit? It is not to prevent >anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the >event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the >newsgroup. If you hadn't noticed, the JEDR affair never made it to the courts. It was 'tried' and argued in the media, at MIT and Waterloo U., and of course on Usenet. Explicit copyright wouldn't have changed a thing. Further, I would suggest that explicit copyright on r.h.f will cause MORE trouble for Brad than keeping the status quo. By claiming rights to the material in r.h.f, Brad is also explicitly acknowledging legal responsibilty for its existance. One could not say "Hey, I just pass the stuff along, I don't create it", while claiming copyright on it. Either you're a source or a conduit - not both. >Because of him saying what he does, there are two legal possibilities: >if the offended party hasn't obtained his permission he gets thrown >out of court. If he has, then he has agreed to the bullshit, and gets >thrown out of court. End of problem. In your dreams. One can obtain the jokes in r.h.f with permission, find them offensive, and attempt to prosecute and/or sue. Just saying that people read your remarks at their own risk does not give you additional rights to write something libelous (pornographic, whatever) with impunity. >BTW, it is clear from Brad's posting that he doesn't like this >bullshit any better than you do. And he may one day be sorry he started it. -- _____________________________________________________________________ Evan Leibovitch, System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (02/06/89)
>In article <1233@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> I wrote: Brad says that all of this is just for protection against JEDRs. From the actual facts, this seems to be the case. Why not just trust him until his actions prove otherwise? In article <380@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.uu.net (Rick Farris) writes: > I guess you didn't see the posting from Brad where he reserved his > piece of the $200,000 / month that Compu$erve may someday get, eh? ^^^^^^^ No, I didn't miss it. Note the emphasis on SOMEDAY. This whole discussion is reminds me of the discussion about whether serious security holes should be posted. If Brad posts what he's actually trying to accomplish with all of this, what is lawyer's strategy will be against the next JEDR attack, and exactly what "copyright rights" if any he thinks he can enforce, he's throwing away most of his protection. Again, ONCE AGAIN, couldn't we just leave Brad alone until he actually DOES something objectionable.
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (02/06/89)
In article <12223@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: : In article <371@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: : >Do y'all know the purpose of that bullshit? It is not to prevent : >anyone from reading the newsgroup, it is to cover his ass in the : >event that some JEDR comes along and tries to sue him or censor the : >newsgroup. : : Huh? Censorship is censorship. Preventing one person or one thousand : is no different. The effect of Brad's policy change is that some sites : ENTIRE COLLECTION OF USER'S won't be able to receive r.h.funny. This : is more like revenge than censorship. Oh yes. Censorship is censorship. And what Brad is doing is not censorship. STOP USING WORKS AS PEJORATIVES WHEN THEY HAVE REAL, IMPORTANT MEANINGS!!!!!! In order that an act be censorship, there are two tests that it must meet: 1) The would be censor must either use or threaten to use force against the would be publisher. 2) The would be censor *can not* be the author or publisher, exercising his legitimate rights. Both of these are necessary so that "censorship" is a useful concept. The first distinguishes censorship from not wanting to publish, deciding not to publish because a friend asked, wishing that something were not published, etc. The second is necessary to distinguish censorship from exercising one's rights to one's work. Brad's actions meet the first test but fail the second. Note that Brad is not attempting to control the distribution of the jokes, but the distribution of the compilation of the jokes. Since he created the compilation, he is not censoring it. Consider that there is nothing at all preventing the authors of those jokes from posting them over on rec.humor, to see just how ludicrous calling Brad's actions censorship is. : >Because of him saying what he does, there are two legal possibilities: : >if the offended party hasn't obtained his permission he gets thrown : >out of court. If he has, then he has agreed to the bullshit, and gets : >thrown out of court. End of problem. : : First, he can publish a notice at the beginning of every article that : the information contained might be offensive. Second, he can rotate : every questionable joke article. Since the reader must take an explicit : action to read the article, he would be considered to have accepted the : risk. To make it slightly more airtight, each rotated article could : have a special decoding string prepended to it that the user must type : in to decode the article. Or ... He already does these kinds of things. But it didn't stop JEDR, and it won't stop future JEDRs. Those types invent reasons to be offended. And then go and try to use the courts to enforce their prudery. THAT IS CENSORSHIP! --- Bill { uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill
dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (02/06/89)
In article <493@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >If you hadn't noticed, the JEDR affair never made it to the courts. It >was 'tried' and argued in the media, at MIT and Waterloo U., and of >course on Usenet. Explicit copyright wouldn't have changed a thing. It's not at all clear to me that the courts aren't or won't be involved as a result of JEDR's actions. JEDR and friends did not just babble to the press, they also contacted: (1) the police, (2) the Canadian Jewish Congress, and (3) the Canadian Human Rights Commission. According to the K-W Record, a spokesman for the police said nothing in the criminal code seemed to apply. A spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress said they were looking into what they could do about the matter, and a spokesman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission came up with a section of the Canadian Human Rights act that they might be able to use as a basis for legal action. I don't know what, if anything, the CJC and the CHRC have decided to do, but just because we haven't been hearing any explosions lately doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a battle going on. I don't know what Brad meant when he said that we are soon going to find out that the battle is escalating, but I don't necessarily interpret it, as somebody else did, as a threat from Brad. JEDR and his friends have attempted to get Brad fired from his job, destroy his reputation through "trial by media", get him into trouble with the human rights authorities, and get him thrown in jail. All for a joke that was, at most, mildly offensive. I'd say that JEDR and his fellow terrorists are real good at escalation, wouldn't you? -- David Canzi Unix system design and maintenance philosophy, in a nutshell: for( ; problem_count > 0 ; problem_count-- ) { feature_count += 1; problem_count += 2; }
lee@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Lee Ward) (02/07/89)
I would like to ask Mr. Templeton two public questions regarding the below post: In article <2718@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >I will admit people seem more worried about this than I expected. Let >me say that in no way am I out looking for legal actions or the removal >of sections of the net from the distribution list. Nobody is going to >become an unwitting copyright violator because they forward groups to >neighbours. Unless this attack forces me off usenet, I have no plans >to interfere in any way with the actions of free usenet sites. > From the article I get that the "this", in the first sentence, is the current discussion or "attack". First, is my interpretation correct in that? Second, in what way do you intend to interfere with free usenet sites should you be forced off the net? --Lee (Ward)
mnarayan@hcr.UUCP (Michael Narayan) (02/09/89)
I'm relatively new to Usenet, so please bear with me.
I can't find anything wrong with Brad's claim to the COMPILATION of articles
in rec.humor.funny. This is because articles are submitted to him for the
purpose of creating a compilation and distributing it. The rights to the
individual articles remain with the author. (Note that he could not use
someone else's material unless he was given permission, or their copyright
was no longer valid.) Brad also has the right to distribute the compilations
as he sees fit.
It appears that the spirit of Usenet is to provide "free" access to the
information on the network, and IMHO, Brad quite rightly (and I applaud him
for doing so) is trying to prevent sites from selling this information.
In the case of CompuServe getting a feed, I think that if they want to provide
their users with Usenet access, then this is fine, PROVIDED that CompuServe
doesn't charge its users anything more for the service than its standard
connection charges, whatever those might be. After all, a wider distribution
benefits everybody. Also, CompuServe users may find out that Usenet is free,
and try to get access to it from public access machines instead of through
CompuServe. (Let market forces decide how much people can be charged for
something they can get for free :-)
Brad appears to be trying to protect himself from people selling
his work, and that of his contributors. I think that if
CompuServe does try to impose a "value-added" charge on its Usenet feed,
then they may be on shaky legal ground to begin with anyways.
With regards to this JEDR that every keeps mentioning (who is (s)he, and
what did they do ?), if someone is upset with something that they read,
well too bad (nyah, nyah, nyah ... :-). They don't have to read the group,
there is something called freedom of speech in most of the countries
where Usenet is available, and most offensive material is rot13. This is
about as silly as opening your television set, disregarding the warning,
getting shocked, and then blaming the manufacturer for allowing high
voltages across the components !
Anyways, I hope I haven't offended anybody too badly. I read r.h.f
regularly and enjoy it, and I stand behind Brad.
Michael J. Narayan
HCR Corp.
uunet!{utcsri,utzoo}!hcr!mnarayan
Clearly, nobody else could have opinions like mine :-)childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (02/11/89)
In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, >considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and >literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. There are a fair number of people whom sypathize. >Believe me, it's not pleasant to be called a racist on the front page of >major newspapers, and to become the enemy of the president of your alma >mater. No. I think it's time you took a break. Surely these people for whom you do what you do aren't going to appreciate your breakdown. >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, >and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in >my authority to control that, too. Bad decision. I'd say you've been thinking about it too much, brooding about it. It's time to back off and re-evaluate your priorities. >That's all for now. But believe me, if attacks on me keep up, it's >not going to be all. Most of you folks have been really tremendous in >sending me messages of support and thanks. I know you're out there and >thank you for your help. (I've just written a program to thank you all, >which I will shortly release freely to the net.) You ought to save all your hate mail, and re-post it, for our edification. Perhaps sharing the ugliness might help ... >But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if >somebody else can make money off of my work. If you're right in saying >that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. Some of us will miss you ... and we hope you return. >(*) A compilation (editor's) copyright, for those that don't know, is >a special copyright on a work or service that is a collection of works >by other people (both PD and copyrighted.) It claims no ownership in >the individual works, but rather on the work to collect, edit, select >and publish them. It means that nobody can redistribute a significant >part (or all) of the collection without the editor's permission, or use >the compilation as a sourcebook for further compilations. The intent is admirable, but the time is not yet right ... >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- richard -- * "Do not look at my outward shape, but take what is in my hand." * * -- Jalaludin Rumi, 1107-1173 * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
news@m2xenix.UUCP ( randy) (02/12/89)
In article <2852@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >| When you post an article to Usenet, you give permission, by that very | >| act, for the administrators of all machines on the net to pass that | >| article along to any other machine on the net. You give permission | >| for everyone on the net to read it. This applies whether you are an | >| ordinary user or a moderator. | I believe I can agree with this with one minor reservation. Please define 'the net' and USENET, specifically in regards to Brad's mention of Compu$erve, and, by implication other commercial (non-USENET) fee-for- service providers. I am quite reluctant to have Compu$erve (or UPI, or BIX) gaining income by redistributing USENET newsgroups. I also have some hesitation about fee- for-service USENET sites such as Portal, but am less sure. It would make a difference to me if they were commercial for-profit enterprises or merely site SAs trying to recoup costs for providing a public service. FYI, I see uunet as a public service. While I am all for the 'free flow of information', I am disinclined to have that free flow make some commercial bozos a bunch of money. Similarly for the net map problem. I fear (but have not decided) that one may indeed have to directly assert and defend copyright over these materials to protect that free flow from being exploited and thereby endangered. I am interested in reading more calm discussion of this problem, but am not really interested in reading flames and ad hominem attacks on Brad. And, to the poster who asked, I hereby volunteer the $100 to support defense of a net-held map or newsgroup copyright against commercial exploitation. I also can recommend rather well-prepared counsel. This is considered an interesting legal issue. >If this principle is eroded in any way, I need to replace my >/usr/lib/news/sys file by a very good AI program to see if I can >legally send the article in question to my downstream sites. I don't think so. Hypothesize an analogy between a book pirate and a site- non-grata. Is a bookstore or library responsible to not sell/give a copy to the pirate who then illegally copies and distributes? I doubt it. I.e. it is not you who needs to make sure you are not passing it to a site- non-grata, but it is the site-non-grata's responsibility to see that it uses the feed responsibly. >Life is not a dress rehearsal. Damn! Now you tell me. -- ..!{mcvax!uunet,tektronix,sun!nosun}!oresoft!m2xenix!news (Randy Bush)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/14/89)
>I am quite reluctant to have Compu$erve (or UPI, or BIX) gaining income by >redistributing USENET newsgroups. I hate to tell you this, but there's been an agreement with Delphi going on for over two years. All of the Mac stuff gets gatewayed back and forth betwen the Mac forums on Delphi and comp.sys.mac.* (and binaries/source as well). It's made the Mac groups stronger by bringing in an audience of knowledgable people, including many developers. There's some USENET stuff going on already in the UNIX forum of CI$. And every so often I see USENET stuff leak over into one of the CI$ groups I monitor. And if that's not good enough for you, USENET stuff is being re-used and reproduced in any number of Mac User Group Newsletters, SF Fanzines and other publications. And, of course, OtherRealms is also posted to OtherRealms (has been for three years) as well as other BBSes, and excerpts go to CI$. So you may think you don't like it -- but it's been going on in some form or another for many, many years, and the results as I've seen it have only been possible. It definitely hasn't hurt USENET. Chuq Von Rospach/Editor,OtherRealms/Member SFWA chuq@apple.com This signature under construction
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/15/89)
In article <25732@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >And, of course, OtherRealms is also posted to OtherRealms (has been for >three years) as well as other BBSes, and excerpts go to CI$. Yet another example of this sort of thing is my Aviation Week space-news summaries in sci.space, which get gatewayed into all kinds of strange places. Some of the gatewayers, including BIX, even asked my permission to do so (granted -- I have no objection to them being gatewayed anywhere). -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (02/15/89)
Hey! Come on gang! You're bashing a man who's substained significant wounding at the hands of certain <expletive deleted> cretins on this net. While I think that Brad's measures are extreme, I'm not the one who has been bashed and villified in his home-town press and subjected to various other abuses on and off of the net (I imagine everyone who's active on the net has been bashed at least once - I know I have been, for STUPID reasons - but Brad's experiences seem bad even by net standards). If there's any hope that Brad might relax his stand, bashing him and telling him that he is non-essential will not do it (Brad I don't think you're non-essential - I have no idea who else would do it, I know that I have zero time to spend doing what you do). After all he's been through, I don't know why he hasn't issued a scr*w-you-and- rmgrp on rec.humor.funny and taken a long vacation. regards, Larry (Hmmm... Maybe I should not have abused the cretins on-net. The Delaware Gazette is a small-town newspaper and "Local Computer Professional Offends Someone in Boston Using Computer Network" (see related story, "Computer Viruses" on page 10) might make the headlines if it was really a slow news day). -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.)
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (02/17/89)
In article <25732@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>I am quite reluctant to have Compu$erve (or UPI, or BIX) gaining income by >>redistributing USENET newsgroups. > >I hate to tell you this, but there's been an agreement with Delphi >going on for over two years. All of the Mac stuff gets gatewayed back >and forth betwen the Mac forums on Delphi and comp.sys.mac.* (and >binaries/source as well). It's made the Mac groups stronger by bringing >in an audience of knowledgable people, including many developers. > >So you may think you don't like it -- but it's been going on in some form or >another for many, many years, and the results as I've seen it have only been >possible. It definitely hasn't hurt USENET. Let me see if I've got this straight. You voluntarily post an article on the USENET, an anarchic, at-best-loosely-defined cooperative, not really knowing where and how many times your article will be copied, stored, read, and retransmitted. But you reserve the right to restrict distribution?? The answer is simple. Don't post to USENET. Or, if you think you are profound enough, *sell* your postings directly to BIX/Compuserve/Delphi/GEnie/The Source/AP/UPI/Knight-Ridder. I'm sure USENET can make up for the loss of your volume... "I send a note onto the Net, and where it goes I know not yet. Its content hold no great import; in byte-count long, in wisdom short. Yet staunchly does the net defend my right not to Abort, but Send. I type it in and press "RETURN"; The Aether it does fairly burn with wit and pith and righteous flames. BIX, Compuserve and other names become the target of my wrath. Remove them from the Newsfeed path! The fact that galls is wry, indeed: They profit by their USENET feed!" Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman. Signature follows. Hit 'n' now. You have been warned! Greg Wageman ARPA: uunet.uu.net!sjsca4!greg (Temporarily) Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author. And the author wouldn't have it any other way.