rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (02/03/89)
In <2712@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
<The contents of rec.humor.funny are compilation copyright 1987, 1988,
<1989 by Brad Templeton. ...
<A licence is granted to the owners of computer systems on what is
<commonly known as USENET to read and/or store this compilation in electronic
<form for up to 2 months, and to forward it to other computers on the
<USENET network. This licence can be revoked at any time, from any
<individual user, site or subnet, whether they are considered to be on
<USENET or not. Some sites, most notably those at the University of
<Waterloo, have already lost some use of the licence granted above, and
<their administrators know who they are. What this means is that if you're
<not sure you're on USENET, and you want to forward the group, just ask me.
<It's very likely I will say yes. I just want to keep track and keep control.
This is a complete and total load of crap.
It should be stopped, now!
/rich $alz
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/04/89)
In article <1449@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >In <2712@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: ><The contents of rec.humor.funny are compilation copyright 1987, 1988, ><1989 by Brad Templeton. ... > ><A licence is granted to the owners of computer systems on what is ><commonly known as USENET to read and/or store this compilation in electronic (misc bs deleted) > >This is a complete and total load of crap. > >It should be stopped, now! > /rich $alz >-- Boy!!!! you can say that again. Brad, we stuck with you thru the net.facists.censors assault, the university.airhead campaign, and the commercial media smear. I don't even have any problem with you compiling a year's worth of jokes and publishing them. But now you are totally out of bounds. This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in the public domain, DON'T POST IT. As for the copyrights and "distribution rights" statements, you can take them and pound sand. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
mark@deltam.UUCP (mark galbraith) (02/04/89)
In article <1449@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >In <2712@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: ><The contents of rec.humor.funny are compilation copyright 1987, 1988, ><1989 by Brad Templeton. ... > ><A licence is granted to the owners of computer systems on what is ><commonly known as USENET to read and/or store this compilation in electronic > . > . ><not sure you're on USENET, and you want to forward the group, just ask me. ><It's very likely I will say yes. I just want to keep track and keep control. Judging from what Brad is saying in his posting, he is claiming to own the jokes he is sent to put on the net. 'Tain't so Brad!! The copyright, if any, belongs to the person who *CREATED* the joke, not the last person to propagate it. I think Brad should read the section of the Usenet installation manual on copyright law. In this article the author, Jordan Breslow (415-932-4828), discusses ownership rights, and other related topics. This should be required reading for all administrators on the net. Brad has overstepped his responsiblity, and will be lucky if there isn't a lawsuit filed over his plagerism. I think the biggest joke here are the words "Copyright by Brad Templeton." The problem is, the joke isn't that funny. ============================================================================ Mark Galbraith Voice: 415-449-6881 Delta Microsystems UUCP: uunet!deltam!tech!mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed herein are my own. "Don't worry... My employer may or may not share my opionions. ...be happy!!"
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (02/05/89)
HOLD ON A SECOND! Brad's latest posting contains new wording about a "compilation copyright" that many people find quite disturbing. Please note that Brad has never claimed ownership of the individual jokes that appear in his newsgroup. My excerpt of his article (along with the comment that it sucks) removed the definition of compilation copyright. Please do not flame Brad for what he is not doing. If you send him a joke he will not pretend that it is his. Brad's caught a lot of crap for this, and some of it is probably my fault. BRAD, if you're reading this I'M SORRY! PLEASE READ Brad's article (<2712@looking.UUCP> if you need the message-id, but who does? There is little enough volume there that you can just read all the articles that appeared in, say, the past week) before flaming on this topic. It would be nice if the people who have incorrectly flamed Brad (i.e., "go pound sand") posted a small, quiet retraction. Finally, Brad, if you're still reading this, GIVE UP THE "OWNERSHIP." /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
mml@magnus.UUCP (Mike Levin) (02/05/89)
In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >As for the copyrights and "distribution rights" statements, you can take them >and pound sand. Oh, come on John. I thought it was pretty funny. It kind of reminds me off the FBI notices at the beginning of video tapes. You know, when you're watching and you just have to say: ### ### ##### ####### ####### ####### ####### # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ##### ####### ####### ####### ####### ### #### #### ## ##### ###### ##### ### # # # # # # # # # # ### #### # # # # # ##### # # # # # ###### ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### #### #### # # # # ###### ##### ### I guess that Brad's just running out of normal humor, so he's resorted to copyright humor. Mike Levin -- +---+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +---+ * * * * * * * * * * | Michael M. Levin, Silent Radio, Los Angeles | I never thought I'd be LOOKING |{aeras|csun|mtune|pacbell|srhqla}!magnus!levin| for something to say! ! ! +----------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/06/89)
Well, folks, if that's the way you want it, it looks like you are going to win. Rec.humor.funny will be removed from conventional usenet. Unless a good compromise solution can be attained. Here are the concerns of mine that must be addressed: 1) If members of a site, in response to getting the group for free, do nothing but attack it and me, particularly in the press with libel and misrepresentation, then I need: A) Legal protection that ensures nobody complains that they were offended without deliberately subscribing and/or decrypting B) The right to say, "if all you're going to do is waste my time complaining about how you don't like what you're getting for free, then you're not getting it any more." 2) If the newsgroup is to be picked up by Compuserve/Source/Genie/Delphi/Bix or similar organizations that sell access to electronic services for either an hourly fee >$3 or a large enough monthly fee to large numbers of readers, then *I'm* the one that arranges the link, and *I'm* the one who is the official moderator on that service. (From the descriptions of Portal I have read, they don't seem to be a problem.) 3) I am legit in making the annual jokebook, and its compilation copyright is OK. Now after examining these needs, I decided that a compilation copyright with an unlimited electronic distribution and storage licence to free usenet sites, with case-by-case permission to the borderline commercial sites was the best answer. If somebody can think of another method to address these needs, that would be fine. But they are real needs, and they can't be ignored by me. *CAN'T*. So if you want to hold a vote on the matter, then either you lose because you don't get 100 more removal votes than keep votes (that was the criterion other people established during the last such debate.) or you lose because rec.humor.funny leaves usenet. Maybe you don't think of that as losing, but if you don't, then it will be just as well -- if people don't think the loss of RHF would be a loss to usenet, then what am I doing here? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/06/89)
Any person who posts anything to the net, with a copyright notice, has the right(s) such copyright law gives them. In fact, with the recent changes made to the copyright law, you need not even put a copyright notice on something to retain the rights of copying it. You must specifically release something into the public domain in order to *not* have a copyright on it. I'm not sure whether posting something on the net is enough to give up that right. This *may* imply that Brad does not have the rights to copy other's postings, but it would be upto the individual user to assert that right. Sticking a clause into a joke that says that it is not allowed in r.h.f should suffice to *restrict* an implied allowance. As for Brad's compilation copyright, that's been pretty firmly established as being a legal entity. Brad is therefore within his rights to claim the right(s) to copy his works as he sees fit. It would be upto the individual enduser sites to determine whether or not they wish to comply with the restrictions. It would be upto Brad to assert his right(s) were they violated. Frankly, I think Bard is doing the right thing: he does spend some time on r.h.f, and it would be a pity if somebody else made money off of it instead of Brad. I would think that the ethical thing to do, were Brad to make some $$$ on r.h.f would be to redistribute that income, in part, to the individual contributors to r.h.f. But, it's pretty silly that, the moment Brad voices the rights he already has, people start hollering for his removal. Brad, just as a guesstimate, how much time do you put into r.h.f?? Ross M. Greenberg UNIX TODAY! Reviews Editor uunet!utoday!greenber [my opinion only, and I'm not a lawyer, although I play one on TV...]
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/06/89)
In article <1467@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >HOLD ON A SECOND! > >Brad's latest posting contains new wording about a "compilation copyright" >that many people find quite disturbing. Please note that Brad has >never claimed ownership of the individual jokes that appear in his >newsgroup. > >My excerpt of his article (along with the comment that it sucks) removed >the definition of compilation copyright. Please do not flame Brad for >what he is not doing. If you send him a joke he will not pretend that >it is his. Brad's caught a lot of crap for this, and some of it is >probably my fault. BRAD, if you're reading this I'M SORRY! > >PLEASE READ Brad's article (<2712@looking.UUCP> if you need the message-id, >but who does? There is little enough volume there that you can just >read all the articles that appeared in, say, the past week) before >flaming on this topic. > >It would be nice if the people who have incorrectly flamed Brad (i.e., >"go pound sand") posted a small, quiet retraction. > >Finally, Brad, if you're still reading this, GIVE UP THE "OWNERSHIP." > /rich $alz Rich and the net: I'm the one who keyed the "pound sand" comments. In light of your retraction, I want to clarify that my comments were directed to Brad's whole article, not just your comments. I find this whole idea of ownership, compilation copyrights, restrictions on redistribution and so on totally repulsive. This is the Usenet, dammit, where benevolent anarchism rules and everything is effectivly public domain. If anyone wants it any other way, then join Compu$erv and become a sysop of a SIG. Then compare the quality between the 2 groups. I vote for Usenet!!! So brad, if you are indeed still fighting the media.nazis and university.prudes, let us know how we can help. the net has supported you in this fight and will continue to do so. It was me, remember, who suggested a legal defense fund for you to use in fighting the facists. BUT!!!! Unless you withdraw that drivel about ownership, copyrights and the rest as pertains to r.h.f, I'll be voting to cancel the group and/or find another moderator. So Brad, it's in your court. John . -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (02/06/89)
In article <166@deltam.UUCP> mark@tech.deltam.UUCP (mark galbraith) writes: <In article <1449@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: <>In <2712@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: <><The contents of rec.humor.funny are compilation copyright 1987, 1988, <><1989 by Brad Templeton. ... <> <><A licence is granted to the owners of computer systems on what is <><commonly known as USENET to read and/or store this compilation in electronic <> . <> . <><not sure you're on USENET, and you want to forward the group, just ask me. <><It's very likely I will say yes. I just want to keep track and keep control. < < <Judging from what Brad is saying in his posting, he is claiming <to own the jokes he is sent to put on the net. 'Tain't so Brad!! <The copyright, if any, belongs to the person who *CREATED* the <joke, not the last person to propagate it. I think Brad should <read the section of the Usenet installation manual on copyright <law. In this article the author, Jordan Breslow (415-932-4828), <discusses ownership rights, and other related topics. This <should be required reading for all administrators on the net. < <Brad has overstepped his responsiblity, and will be lucky if there <isn't a lawsuit filed over his plagerism. < <I think the biggest joke here are the words "Copyright by Brad <Templeton." The problem is, the joke isn't that funny. We went thru this sort of nonsense on Compu$erve a couple of years ago, so I'm familiar with whats going on. By claiming a "compilation copy- right", Brad is not copyrighting the jokes. It has *no* effect on the author's copyright (exception: if the author hasn't copyrighted the item, then this will enable him to claim copyright if the item is grabbed by somebody else). What is being copyrighted isn't the jokes, its the *collection* of jokes. You can distribute the individual jokes all you want, but as soon as you try distributed the *collection* without permission, you can get nailed. (Note that copyright voilations are now good for $250,000 a shot!!) The bit about licensing is just required legalese to keep him from losing *his* copyright to *his* work. Nothing more, nothing less. Brad iis *not* plaigerising anything. And any attempt to sue him over this will only be a waste of time and money. He is within his rights. And his action has no effect on *your* rights unless you wish to distribute the contents of rec.humor.funny in some manner he doesn't approve of. (you can *still* do this, but you'll have to get permission from the author of each and every joke...) -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
" Maynard) (02/06/89)
In article <2724@looking.UUCP>, Brad Templeton lays out, clearly and
succinctly, the problems he has faced as moderator of rec.humor.funny,
and the safeguards he needs to insure that another JEDR doesn't come
along and try to destroy his reputation and livelihood.
Various and sundry people have flamed him for wanting to protect himself
in the manner he sees as necessary.
To those who would destroy rec.humor.funny and Brad Templeton, I
challenge you to come up with an alternate solution that addresses his
problems and yours as well. I suspect that you will have a very
difficult time coming up with an acceptable solution.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
{killer,bellcore}!texbell! | "Sexism is ugly." - Cheryl Stewartrob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) (02/06/89)
In article <488@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Frankly, I think Bard is doing the right thing: he does spend some time >on r.h.f, and it would be a pity if somebody else made money off of it >instead of Brad. I would think that the ethical thing to do, were Brad >to make some $$$ on r.h.f would be to redistribute that income, in part, to >the individual contributors to r.h.f. > >But, it's pretty silly that, the moment Brad voices the rights he already >has, people start hollering for his removal. > >Brad, just as a guesstimate, how much time do you put into r.h.f?? Ross, There are alot of people involved in the running of usenet, all of them do it for free, the people that write the software, the site admins, moderators, map coordinators, and posters. Brad may be putting alot of time into r.h.f, but so are alot of other people. they are going it on a volunteer basis, just as Brad volunteered to be moderator of r.h.f. Usenet is pretty much non-commercial, that's the beauty of it and one of the reasons alot of companies and networks subsidize the transport of it. Were Usent to become a "commercial network", many sites/networks would probably consider dropping it. I suspect that no one would object to a copyright that prohibited making money off of r.h.f (a la GNU) and protected Brad from 'retribution'. What people are objecting to is the possibility that Brad may use a medium (Usenet) that THEY are providing (via connect / disk costs) to make money. Please note that I am responding to Ross's points, not insinuating that Brad is going to try to use r.h.f to make millions. rob william robertson rob@violet.berkeley.edu
PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) (02/06/89)
Wait a minute! Before you start flaming Brad, please understand what he is saying. If you're going to flame him, please do so accurately. Brad is claiming a compilation or collection copyright. This is NOT the same thing as claiming copyright on the jokes themselves. A collection copyright covers the collection as a whole, not the individual items in it. An excellect example would be a legal publisher who published state laws. They obviously do not have copyright on the laws themselves, which are public domain. They do have copyright on the collection as a whole. Another excellent example is short story collections. The publisher of the collection has a copyright on the collection, but not on the stories themselves. They stories may be published freely, but if someone published exactly the same collection, that would infringe the collection copyright. The idea behind this is that the task of selecting the item for the collection and arranging them is original work that should be protected. As I read Brad's posting, he intends to use this to prevent a replay of the recent flap. Any site that objects to the jokes will find themselves off the distribution. I think a direct analogy is that a lot of the software posted in the various net.sources and net.binaries groups says something like Copyright 1988 by J. Random Programmer May be freely distributed for non-commercial use as long as no fee is charged for the distribution. This copyright has never provoked objections. As long as Brad is reasonable about his, I'm inclined to go with it. ++PLS
greg@gryphon.COM (Greg Laskin) (02/06/89)
In article <2724@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Well, folks, if that's the way you want it, it looks like you are going to >win. Rec.humor.funny will be removed from conventional usenet. > >So if you want to hold a vote on the matter, then either you lose because >you don't get 100 more removal votes than keep votes (that was the criterion >other people established during the last such debate.) or you lose because >rec.humor.funny leaves usenet. Maybe you don't think of that as losing, but >if you don't, then it will be just as well -- if people don't think the loss >of RHF would be a loss to usenet, then what am I doing here? We were, this weekend, discussing whether to simply remove Brad as moderator of rec.humor.funny. Although we decided to wait a bit before taking such action, we noted that several qualified and willing moderators were available. Thus it is probably safe to say that regardless of what Brad cares to do with his football, rec.humor.funny will not be leaving usenet, conventional or otherwise. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.COM <routing site>!gryphon!greg gryphon!greg@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (02/06/89)
In article <2969@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >So brad, if you are indeed still fighting the media.nazis and >university.prudes, let us know how we can help. the net has supported >you in this fight and will continue to do so. It was me, remember, who >suggested a legal defense fund for you to use in fighting the facists. You can help by getting off his case. You are NOT supporting him at all. You are trying to take away the only real defense he has. A USENET legal defense fund is just talk. It will never happen. I realize that this is the net where flaming is a way of life, but stop and think. Brad may have figured out somthing that the whole net will need some day. It will be a crime if by the time we find that out we've destroyed rec.humor.funny.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/06/89)
In article <488@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >As for Brad's compilation copyright, that's been pretty firmly established >as being a legal entity. Brad is therefore within his rights to claim >the right(s) to copy his works as he sees fit. It would be upto the >individual enduser sites to determine whether or not they wish to comply >with the restrictions. It would be upto Brad to assert his right(s) were >they violated. Yes, for example on pay-for-play systems like Compuserve they are very explicit about their compilation copyright. They don't claim copyright over the individual articles but don't try and download all of a sig to your bbs. You might just get a call from their lawyers asking you to remove it. It might be interesting for someone who has access to Compuserve to post some of the relevant sections. I'm sure the they wouldn't mind as long as it's only excerpts properly accredited. Brad as the person assemblying and issuing of r.h.f has the compilation copyright by default. Unless and until he renouces it; it's his. Always has been. Can we get back a more interesting subject now? BTW Brad you can add a new chapter to your history: r.h.f moderator claims copyright, pundits predict end of net in sight. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (02/06/89)
In article <839@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <2724@looking.UUCP>, Brad Templeton lays out, clearly and >succinctly, the problems he has faced as moderator of rec.humor.funny, >and the safeguards he needs to insure that another JEDR doesn't come >along and try to destroy his reputation and livelihood. > >Various and sundry people have flamed him for wanting to protect himself >in the manner he sees as necessary. > >To those who would destroy rec.humor.funny and Brad Templeton, I >challenge you to come up with an alternate solution that addresses his >problems and yours as well. I suspect that you will have a very >difficult time coming up with an acceptable solution. But they have come up with a number of solutions: (a) remove Brad as moderator of r.h.f. if he cannot take the heat that comes with the territory; (b) rmgroup r.h.f. if a vote indicates that a majority of outspoken net users disagree with the way the group is run. Whether one agrees with these solutions or not (and I don't), they are proposed solutions. If Brad takes r.h.f. off the main hierarchy, he will have to rename it, and it will cease to be r.h.f; this either means the demise of the group by that name, or its change to an unmoderated (or moderated by someone else) group. It also may mean that Brad would lose his contributors, if they feel as strongly about the issue as those who have flamed him for his ideas. But that's for him to decide and eventually to put up with. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/06/89)
In article <166@deltam.UUCP> mark@tech.deltam.UUCP (mark galbraith) writes, in part:
Judging from what Brad is saying in his posting, he is claiming
to own the jokes he is sent to put on the net.
Obviously this is untrue (as the poster goes on to say), but there is a part
of r.h.f that is completely AND truely owned by Brad -- it's reputation.
I have not seen anyone make that point yet. A moderator doesn't own a
group, but he/she is largely responsible for its quality and hence its
reputation. As we all know [so why am I repeating it :-)?],
reputation is the only currency we have to spend on Usenet. And, of
course, the richest Usenetter is dmr@alice.UUCP. :-) Probably
followed by lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov. Any other candidates for
50 richest Usenetters? :-)
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
"I saved the whales!" - Rebecca L. Nelson, 3.5 years old, on receiving her
Christmas present of a whale "adoption" certificate. Bless her liberal heart.greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/07/89)
William, unless I'm mistaken in reading Brad's copyright notice, nothing in it implies that he'll be making money off of USENET. Simply that if any money is to be made off of rhf, that he gets to claim it as his right. I'm pretty sure that most of the net admins volunteering their effort would think harshly towards anyone making bucks based on their *direct* contributions to the net: I'm not speaking of "running" the net, but, their direct contributions to the net. Unless they're willing to give that right up.
hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com (Daniel Hinojosa) (02/07/89)
In article <11693@gryphon.COM> greg@gryphon.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: >In article <2724@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Well, folks, if that's the way you want it, it looks like you are going to >>win. Rec.humor.funny will be removed from conventional usenet. >>[...] >We were, this weekend, discussing whether to simply remove Brad as moderator >of rec.humor.funny. Although we decided to wait a bit before taking such >action, we noted that several qualified and willing moderators were available. > >Thus it is probably safe to say that regardless of what Brad cares to do >with his football, rec.humor.funny will not be leaving usenet, conventional >or otherwise. Replacing Brad seems to be the best response to his ownership statement. Usenet for the 8 months I have been reading it, including r.h.f, is a wonderful thing for the public in general. However the idea that Brad 'OWNs' r.h.f seems absurd. Replace him and let's get on with humor and lose the controversy. Start the vote and let it roll. =================================================================== email - uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!hinojosa | uunet!hplabs!hp-sdd!hinojosa ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus saves..but Gretzky gets the rebound!, He shoots, HE SCOOORES!!!
karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (02/07/89)
Brad seems to be asserting a copyright for two different reasons. One is to protect himself (?) from attack as the moderator of rec.humor.funny. The other appears to be to stake out a percentage of profits being derived by others through the resale of r.h.f. It won't work, not yet. We're not ready for it. The issues this raises are numerous and will only be hashed out at great length in the usual net.fashion. For example, you seem to imply that you're eventually going to strong-arm Portal and other pay-for-play systems to pay you to carry the group. What about the owners of all the systems who paid money out of their pockets to pass your group to the pay systems? Shouldn't they (we) be compensated, too? This arrangement, like shareware, attempts to establish an end-to-end payment between user and author (or user and "compilation copyright holder"), bypassing the people who spend their money to store and/or forward the material for you. To be fair, shouldn't everyone have to pay end-to-end charges for any mail they send? Perhaps under a less-cooperative (but more "fair") arrangement, you should have to pay some fee for it to be carried all over, and you should get paid any time someone reads it. If not enough people read it to cover your costs, you lose money. This would be more in line with conventional publishing. I have never been comfortable with "compilation copyrights" in the first place. The first time I ever heard of them was in regard to a company selling disks of public domain PC software for a few bucks each. Since it was all public domain, others started selling copies of their disks. As I understood it, they successfully claimed that their ordering of what programs went on what disks was itself copyrighted, such that others could not produce disks of PD software matching theirs. What I don't like about it, and I don't mean any offense in this to Brad, is that there is'nt a lot of value added in producing the compilation. I think Brad is really funny; "Dear Emily Postnews" is a classic. Nonetheless, many others could do nearly as good a job, and there are probably quite a few who'd be willing to try. The reason to moderate a group, as mentioned by the moderator of the telecom digest, is for fun, because there are few other rewards to be had from it, and once it ceases to be fun, one should probably stop doing it. I hope all this doesn't cause Brad to leave the net in anger. I do think he's unilaterally decided something that we, those of us who affect the policies of the operation of the machines of the net, are not ready to sign up to without a good deal more thought, comment and flaming. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl | "We've been following your progress with considerable -- karl@sugar.uu.net | interest, not to say contempt." -- Zaphod Beeblebrox IV -- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/07/89)
In article <839@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >To those who would destroy rec.humor.funny and Brad Templeton, I >challenge you to come up with an alternate solution that addresses his >problems and yours as well. I suspect that you will have a very >difficult time coming up with an acceptable solution. Not so. See my other message this date; probably just before/after this one. Compilation-copyright does protect us all, but it should not be used by any of us (Usenetters) against others of us. Fidonet in its early days formed the "International Fidonet Association" for the purpose primarily of holding the network address matrix in trust, and enforcing network technical standards, etc. I suggest that "Usenet Cooperative Trust, Inc" could serve and protect us all, by holding a copyright on the maps, to prevent scoundrels from abusing them; by holding a copyright on other inter-network routing information, again to prevent those who would dump commercial junk mail on us all; and by holding a compilation-copyright on the collective intellectual works each day. Such a copyright would be renewed daily, just as the newspapers copyright each edition of the paper each day, the sole purpose being to prevent wholesale ripoffs by commercial sites and commercial networks. In other words, compilation-copyright is a great idea if it is a sort of 'meta-copyright' on the whole thing, held by persons accountable to the net and appointed by the net; persons we already trust and respect to do the right thing. -- 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
roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com (02/07/89)
God, you guys are a RIOT! As copyright lawyers, you guys as a group a bunch of pretty good programmers. You know, you'd do us proud at Portal.
news@frksyv.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/07/89)
In article <19979@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes: >In article <488@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >> [ defense of Brad Templeton ] >Ross, > >There are alot of people involved in the running of usenet, all of >them do it for free, the people that write the software, the site >admins, moderators, map coordinators, and posters. Brad may be >putting alot of time into r.h.f, but so are alot of other people. >they are going it on a volunteer basis, just as Brad volunteered to be >moderator of r.h.f. > >Usenet is pretty much non-commercial, that's the beauty of it and one >of the reasons alot of companies and networks subsidize the transport >of it. Were Usent to become a "commercial network", many sites/networks >would probably consider dropping it. > >I suspect that no one would object to a copyright that prohibited >making money off of r.h.f (a la GNU) and protected Brad from >'retribution'. What people are objecting to is the possibility that >Brad may use a medium (Usenet) that THEY are providing (via connect / >disk costs) to make money. There just so happens to be an infinite number of things that are possible in our collective reality. Now, if we worried about all of them, we really wouldn't be able to get any productive work done. It may be fine for some people to object to a possibility, but I object to the actual occurence of the misstatement of facts, and the misinterpretation of Brad's postings that I have seen regarding the whole r.h.f affair. The ONLY thing that Brad has DONE, is to assert a collective copyright on r.h.f. (His saying he *CONTROLS* r.h.f is simply a dirivative of this) Those that disagree should sue him if they feel that stronlgy about it, and stop this silly whining. Attempts to remove Brad are nothing more than obvious acts of revenge for his statement. This should not be tolerated. (Thank you Karl Denninger for the inspiration for this line of argument.) So folks, how about lightening up on this. Frank -- ______________________________________________________________________________ || Frank Korzeniewski, Consulting Suite 137 || || Phone: (415) 799-1819 1564-A Fitzgerald Drive || || UUCP: uunet!frksyv!frk Pinole, CA 94564 ||
cuccia@yak.sybase.com (Nick Cuccia) (02/08/89)
Lest I get accused of In article <2724@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >1) If members of a site, in response to getting the group for free, do nothing >but attack it and me, particularly in the press with libel and >misrepresentation, then I need: > A) Legal protection that ensures nobody complains that they were > offended without deliberately subscribing and/or decrypting > B) The right to say, "if all you're going to do is waste my time > complaining about how you don't like what you're getting for free, > then you're not getting it any more." There is another option here that Brad is not acknowledging: C) The right to step down and let somebody else become the moderator, thus letting them take the heat for what others consider "bad judgment." or was this option never considered? >2) If the newsgroup is to be picked up by Compuserve/Source/Genie/Delphi/Bix >or similar organizations that sell access to electronic services for either >an hourly fee >$3 or a large enough monthly fee to large numbers of readers, >then *I'm* the one that arranges the link, and *I'm* the one who is the official >moderator on that service. (From the descriptions of Portal I have read, >they don't seem to be a problem.) Moderator, yes. Lord High Ruler of All that is Right and Good, no. Owner of r.h.f., no. I see this as an all or nothing situation: either everybody needs to make arrangements with you concerning connections, or nobody does. And the answer to this is obvious: don't distribute r.h.f. as a USENET group. Keep it as a conference on a BBS. Announce the number, state your copyright plainly in the login session, and disallow downloading of files. Suppose I, as the postmaster/newskeeper at my site, decided to feed netnews (including r.h.f.) to Compuserve/BIX/etc. Given that (despite claims to the contrary) that you as moderator of r.h.f. do not (and cannot) own r.h.f., what avenues of recourse do you have? >3) I am legit in making the annual jokebook, and its compilation copyright >is OK. I won't touch this one. Don't know the details, you may be within your rights. But if your goal here is personal profit, then my gut feelings are as bitter as those who sold the comp.mail.maps databases as a mailing list... >Now after examining these needs, I decided that a compilation copyright >with an unlimited electronic distribution and storage licence to free >usenet sites, with case-by-case permission to the borderline commercial >sites was the best answer. >If somebody can think of another method to address these needs, that would >be fine. But they are real needs, and they can't be ignored by me. >*CAN'T*. >So if you want to hold a vote on the matter, then either you lose because >you don't get 100 more removal votes than keep votes (that was the criterion >other people established during the last such debate.) or you lose because >rec.humor.funny leaves usenet. This doesn't follow; in fact, it smacks of "I'm losing, so I'm taking my marbles home." Again, let's say that you pull r.h.f. off of usenet. What's to stop me from (after a suitable voting period) saying "r.h.f. is being created, and that I (or somebody else) is its moderator." What can you do about it? I don't see that there is a lot that you can do about. >Maybe you don't think of that as losing, but >if you don't, then it will be just as well -- if people don't think the loss >of RHF would be a loss to usenet, then what am I doing here? This is only true if you also believe that the statement "RHF == Brad Templeton." I don't, and am not sure how many out there would. Again, you forgot about yet another possibility: if you had your way, then I suspect there will be a lot more people with "Use of this posting for personal profit expressly prohibited without permission of the author" copyright notices in the .signature files. This would have negatives, as far as you were concerned: first, the book would not be possible, without permission of the authors of the jokes contained therein; second, your reposting the articles (in either compilation or in separate articles) would depend exclusively on your ability to get people's permission. In other words, *YOU* lose. >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Some disclaimers are in order here: 1) I am not a lawyer. 2) I don't read rec.humor.funny. I would not be adversely affected if it were to disappear from the face of the USENET today. 'Nuff said, --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 ===============================================================================
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (02/08/89)
In article <3400@sugar.uu.net>, karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > Brad seems to be asserting a copyright for two different reasons. One is > to protect himself (?) from attack as the moderator of rec.humor.funny. > The other appears to be to stake out a percentage of profits being derived > by others through the resale of r.h.f. Stake out a percentage? When did he ever say that? He has made it clear from the beginning that he is after a way to avoid a repeat of the recent spat. Differentiating between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations tallies very well with this: usually your liablity is greater when you get paid than when you do not get paid. Brad's desire for some protection against the type of unfair attack that we have recently seen is quite legitimate. And let us not forget that he is not trying to protect himself (and possibly others in a similar position) against anything from within the net. If everything had stayed within the net, there would have been no problem. The opinion of the net went in great majority against Mr. Richmont, and that should have been the end of it. The problems arose when Mr. Richmont went outside the net, to newspapers, employers etc. So please net.people, do not feel personally attacked. Protective measures are not aimed against you, but against "the outside". The desire for protection against this outside interference is fair, and solutions should be seriously considered. Perhaps Brad has gone a bit far in his proposed solution. If so, this should be reasonably discussed, and the net should come up with viable, constructive counter proposals. I do not think that asking for Brads removal as moderator falls under that catagory. Neither does saying "if you can't stand the heat,...". I will now state my (counter) proposal for protective measures. It does two things with respect to Brad's proposal: 1) Do it without copyright, as that seems to be very controversial, and 2) do it via the sysadmins. There are some newsgroups that every sysadmin is expected to read all the time (news.announce.important, news.sysadmin). To these groups a notice could be posted regularly (monthly?), stating that the responsibility for passing on any newsgroup to their direct end users (and NOT to downstream nodes), rest with the sysadmin of the node. No one else is responsible for anything in a news group, except the _original_ author of a posting (and NOT the moderator, if the article is in a moderated group). This proposal gives moderators some protection against outside attacks. It avoids complications with down stream liablity, as responsibility is located in the local sysadmin and the original author only. The protection is probably less than with Brad's copyright scheme (because the copyright scheme uses concepts from the outside, so you are meeting them on their own terms). But then the price for that larger protection might be too high. I suggest we try something like the scheme I described, and go only to more rigorous methods if the scheme proves not to work.
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (02/08/89)
Are all USAians paranoid, I wonder, or is it just those who post on these
groups? Having met many sane ones, I shall assume the latter.
As someone else has said, stop crying when you haven't been hurt.
It's true that Brad doesn't own rec.humor.funny (or if he does, it's the
way someone 'owns' a cat), but he created it in the first place and has
put far more into it than most of his detractors have put into the whole
d**n net. You can take it away from him if you want, but if you do, you
will be destroying a valuable work - the group would not be the same without
Brad. Why do you think it's one of the most popular groups on the net?
In the (unlikely) event that the net votes against Brad as moderator, or in
the (more likely) event that he decides putting all his time into it isn't
fun anymore, I think you'll find a lot of us would stop reading - or even
stop taking - a non-Bradian rec.humor.funny. And - far more important -
a net in which one of the most hard working and long suffering moderators
had been hounded out *BY THE NET* would be a sad and bitter place. Who
would want to be associated with such a thing?
By all means disagree with Brad if he makes a mistake, but this bitter
paranoid flaming is not the way to disagree.
--
Regards, "Just 'cos you CAN send messages everywhere, doesn't mean you HAVE to"
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWWnews@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) (02/09/89)
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Fidonet in its early days formed the "International Fidonet Association" >for the purpose primarily of holding the network address matrix in trust, >and enforcing network technical standards, etc. Well ... It was not really the early days, but the middle, which may have been half the problem. Regardless, IFNA was actually formed to keep Ken Kaplan from taking it in the 1040 (that's personal income taxes to you furriners on the net:-) when FidoNet started to receive donations. Holding of the Fido trademark, NodeList copyright, and development of technical standards were all add-ons, some of which came considerably later. It should also be noted that IFNA is essentially failing. Among the various attributions of cause, I suspect a natural disinclination on the part of net.denizens to a central controlling organization, which was how IFNA was (mis-)conceived (rightly or wrongly). Compilation copyright of the FidoNet NodeList (the term 'matrix' was a carefully designed attempt to avoid acknowledging the originators of Fido and FidoNet, and, as such, is considered a slur) was suggested a year later (by the author of FSC-0001, the basic FidoNet protocol standards document), when it was noticed that FidoNet's main single asset was utterly unprotected from ripoff, and, in fact, someone had already ripped it off once. I observe that similar discussion of the uucp and domain maps is occurring. >I suggest that "Usenet Cooperative Trust, Inc" could serve and protect us While my philosophical/legal side agrees with you completely, my social instincts and FidoNet experiences make me wary that this only provides a focus for flames. Junk mail and map ripoff may be the lesser evils. randy -- {mcvax!uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun}!oresoft!news (Randy Bush)
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (02/09/89)
OK, I'll help get this discussion going. In my opinion, Brad is asking to be removed as moderator of rec.humor.funny. He may not even know this himself. All of his most recent actions indicate to me that he is tired of the heat he's taking, and the hassles he's getting, but can't bring himself to resign as moderator (and I can't say I fault him for that). So let's all help Brad by voting to have him removed as moderator of rec.humor.funny. Do it for his own good, as a favor. Don't think of it as punishment, or revenge, or censorship. After all, it's *your* newsgroup, no matter what the current moderator says. Or, perhaps, in spite of it. And, Brad, lest you think this is some kind of personal attack, let me just say that some of my best friends are Canadians. I'm just poking fun at moderators, anyone can see that. And, even if you can't, my position is protected by free speech. Have a nice day. 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.
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/10/89)
In article <611@oresoft.uu.net> news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) writes: >patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >>I suggest that "Usenet Cooperative Trust, Inc" could serve and protect us > >While my philosophical/legal side agrees with you completely, my social >instincts and FidoNet experiences make me wary that this only provides a >focus for flames. Junk mail and map ripoff may be the lesser evils. Your discussion of the origins of the International Fidonet Association is generally correct. As for this place being a 'focus for flames', what else is old? Flames come, and flames go around here. What difference would one or two more make? If anything, maybe we could learn from history (of Fidonet) for a change, and in establishing a legal entity here learn from the mistakes of Fidonet. IFNA did make a lot of rules that people resented; and they still seem to have a needless bureaucracy in many of their activities. I would keep it a lot more simple. I'd ask each site for the princely sum of $5 per year which would surely cover all expenses, and permit users to donate if they wished to do so with no obligation of any kind. Assuming around 10,000 sites, the $50,000 collected annually would be used to compensate the trustees for out of pocket expenses in meeting with each other and sysadmins/moderators as required. It would pay their phone bills for Usenet business; whatever fees would be required for corporate filing costs, and goddess forbid, an occasional attorney consultation. Some of it could be used to pay a single full time person to physically manage the maps and software, diddling each as required from time to time; send out the monthly corrections to the 'permanent postings for new users'; actually submit the required copyright forms; resolve technical problems between sites to the best of their ability; maintain the list of moderators, etc. Sort of a 'Postmaster General' to keep things smooth and report problems to the trustees if neccessary. To comply with corporate laws, I think there would have to be an annual meeting of the members of the corporation, and the minutes posted, plus an announcement of the annual meeting. But I would keep it all short and sweet. No endless meetings; no committees formed to bicker among themselves; no layer after layer of bureaucracy. Usenet is not Fidonet after all. The main reason for the existence of the Trust would be to keep our collective asses covered and prevent abusive behavior when possible without moderators, sysadmins, etc having to become *personally* liable/obligated for anything. -- 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