canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) (12/21/89)
This message was posted by Dave Small to the atari newsgroup, and I have
many objections and some questions I'd like to pose to the net (so as not
to waste net $$ please direct all followups to news.misc or alt.flame):
-> Date: 19 Dec 89 06:00:28 GMT
-> >From: dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small)
-> Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
-> Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working
-> Message-ID: <15097@well.UUCP>
->
-> It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink
-> from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted
-> by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie.[...]
->
-> The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information
-> bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed freely.
-> [...] I just want to get the maximum freedom of information
-> exchange possible between these networks; [...]
I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the
*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way
transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder
(*for profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the
latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale
plunder of Usenet is not.
-> I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy.
-> [...] If someone has a real need not to have their notes forwarded to
-> GEnie, I will be happy to put a "filter" on to prevent it by request; [...]
I think this should be changed to ``only take articles from Usenet if a
person sends Dave his *approval*''. Why should I have to trust Dave to remove
my articles? What if he misses one? What if my mail can't get through?...
I also object most strenously to Dave limiting MY access to information by
scaring away Usenet posters who don't want the kind of publicity GEnie
offers. Usenet is supported FREELY by a conglomeration of machines (each
company covering a bit of the expenses) and I object very, very much to
GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity.
-> It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially
-> if/when 2-waymail gets going.
A benefit for *everyone*? It is only a benefit for *everyone on GEnie*.
Usenet people don't benefit *at all* from this one-way ``exchange'' of
information.
-> [...] other areas on GEnie are
-> expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks,
-> USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're
-> doing post notes.
Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on
GEnie? I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand!
-> Why do it? Because a long time ago, on the CERL site on PLATO, a
-> person named Sherwin Gooch, ex-PLATO, ex-Atari, and now with Apple,
-> introduced me to the hacker ethic and freedom of information exchange as
-> its primary goal. (No, not illegal exchange, you know what I mean). [...]
I don't call a one-way exchange ``freedom of information''. I also don't
call *free information* being uploaded to a *pay service* ``freedom''.
The hacker ethic is AGAINST the *sale* of information (as GEnie represents).
If you want a TRUE example of the hacker ethic, then read a bit about
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. *They* represent the
hacker ethic!
-> If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and
-> if convinced, drop the link. [...]
Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and
Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was
formerly free)!
-> Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users
-> getting good information on time, for instance.
It's obvious from this sentence who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of
information -- GEnie and no one else.
The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in
political power becoming ``concerned''. Perhaps concerned enough to pass
legislation like that currenly up for review in New York: a sysop must
validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also
guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear
on any other service.
Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general,
are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger
by uploading Usenet articles wholesale?
--
Diane Barlow Close
{nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada
canada@crash.cts.com
Free Canada -- Trade Mulroneymsmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark S. Miller) (12/21/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: > > [...] > >Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general, >are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger >by uploading Usenet articles wholesale? I'm not sure of the legalities involved, but the site from which GEnie will tap UseNET certainly "owns" the data in their own spool area. Heaven help them if their transfer procedure messed up and GEnie got hold of some company-interal newgroups and broadcast such information to their subscribers. I can't see them uploading things blindly in vast quantities. Take it from someone who has spent some significant time on GEnie - they "filter" (*cough*) things quite a bit. Someone there will be checking the UseNET articles for content and language. Alt.flame will never have to worry about being uplinked - GEnie still fancies itself as a "family" network when it comes to BBs. The idea of them getting something from us (and the companies which pay for UseNET with disk space and phone charges) for free, and then charging for it sure doesn't seem proper. On the other hand, I can think of a whole range of subversive things which UseNET folks could do which could make the whole venture real inconvenient for GEnie. -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM "In a nation ruled by swine, ################## GEnie: MSMILLER all pigs are upward mobile." ###################################################### - Hunter S. Thompson
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/21/89)
We could always rename comp.sys.atari.st to comp.sys.genie.sucks... -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch? Next April?" \\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) (12/21/89)
canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the >*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way >transfer of Usenet information. Dave also mentions 2-way Email! I would call that an *exchange*. I think the idea has merit -- this from a person who sometimes asks questions. If I have a problem that I would like solved, or a question that I need answered, I would prefer as many people see it as possible (preferably those that might be able to help). I see this as a means towards that end. >I also object most strenously to Dave limiting MY access to information by >scaring away Usenet posters who don't want the kind of publicity GEnie >offers. Usenet is supported FREELY by a conglomeration of machines (each >company covering a bit of the expenses) and I object very, very much to >GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity. I don't quite understand this. My view is that Dave is trying to help the folks that have GEnie accounts, but no access to Usenet. This is as an aid to *those users*. Yes, GEnie profits from the situation, but the users who could use the information profit more in my opinion. And what "kind of publicity" does GEnie offer that the Usenet doesn't? I honestly don't understand this statement. If you post to Usenet the message travels around the globe to who-knows-where; is GEnie any different in this regard??? I can't see this scaring away anyone myself. Could you explain? >-> [...] other areas on GEnie are >-> expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks, >-> USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're >-> doing post notes. >Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on >GEnie? I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand! I doubt it ... Dave is probably referring to the comp.sys newsgroups here. >I don't call a one-way exchange ``freedom of information''. I also don't >call *free information* being uploaded to a *pay service* ``freedom''. >The hacker ethic is AGAINST the *sale* of information (as GEnie represents). I disagree; GEnie represents an economical medium for the transfer of information. They don't charge you based on the information you get (other than for special services), only for your connect time. >If you want a TRUE example of the hacker ethic, then read a bit about >Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. *They* represent the >hacker ethic! But they charge you for the tape when you want a new copy of Emacs, do they not? So what's the real difference? GEnie charges you for your time on their modem, FSF charges you for their tape. In both cases they are charging you for the medium and the support costs, not the information (unless you consider the other costs indirectly charging for the info, in which case FSF, uunet, stargate and all the rest are doing the same thing). >Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and >Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was >formerly free)! A lot of people already pay through the nose! How does your site get the news feed now? You must pay some kind of transport costs (phone calls, modem charges, internet fees, disk space costs, whatever). USENET IS NOT FREE! >-> Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users >-> getting good information on time, for instance. >It's obvious from this sentence who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of >information -- GEnie and no one else. You obviously are not a GEnie user, and have no feeling for them whatsoever. They could benefit greatly from such feeds. >The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in >political power becoming ``concerned''. Perhaps concerned enough to pass >legislation like that currenly up for review in New York: a sysop must >validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also >guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear >on any other service. Hmmmm ... I would think this would be more a concern for GEnie than for the Usenet community. >Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general, >are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger >by uploading Usenet articles wholesale? Wasn't a lot of these same issues covered a couple of years ago when StarGate was starting up? As I recall, not much could be done about it, and nothing really was. >-- >Diane Barlow Close I have no vested interest in GE or GEnie other than as a very satisfied customer. Same goes for Dave and Gadgets by Small. -- Tim -- Tim Northrup +------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ GEnie: T.Northrup | UUCP: uunet!crdgw1!brspyr1!tim | Air Warrior: "Duke" | ARPA: tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com +------------------------------------------+
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (12/21/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the >*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way >transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder >(*for profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the >latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale >plunder of Usenet is not. Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in the public domain. You cannot thereafter attempt to pick and choose for whose eyes only it is destined. Further, since you recieve no remuneration in any case, I can scarcely see how you can claim that harm is being done to you or to anyone else. All I see is that a few more people get to read your gems of wisdom. Since there is no moral requirement for anyone else on usenet to "post" some minimal amount of information, your demand for "two way" transfer is patently arbitrary. >I object very, very much to GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity. Unless you can demonstrate some smidgen of harm (and a harm that specifically is unique to GEnie access) there is no moral significance to your outrage. I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! Yet I seriously doubt whether you would find it in your moral code of ethics to condem them. If so, then your condemnation of ANYONE (even beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory and arbitrary on its face. >Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on >GEnie? I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand! In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! >Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? There may be something legal -- but it could never be moral -- since you are the aggressor and the GEnie user is the victim! -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, Phn 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 -
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) >writes: >Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a >consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in >the public domain. You cannot thereafter attempt to pick and choose >for whose eyes only it is destined. Further, since you recieve no >remuneration in any case, I can scarcely see how you can claim that harm >is being done to you or to anyone else. You're missing a few things. First of all, although there may not be any reason why GEnie cannot legally put news on their system, that is not the objection; the objection is that they are selling something that someone else put work into creating, without giving anything in return. I think it is quite justifiable to be "morally outraged" by that. Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect of, "This article is copyright 1989 by <your name here>. You may redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." The point is that we DO have the legal ability to stop GEnie from gatewaying our posts, if they are selling them, and if we find that offensive. Several people on the net that I have seen already use copyright notices of this sort on their messages, although I don't do it myself. >All I see is that a few more people get to read your gems of wisdom. Since >there is no moral requirement for anyone else on usenet to "post" some >minimal amount of information, your demand for "two way" transfer is >patently arbitrary. No, it is not. The demand is for something in return for what GEnie is getting for nothing. I see nothing arbitrary about that. Let's assume that the Atari ST newsgroup is filled with posts from various Atari ST experts (I say "assume" not because I don't think it's true, but because I don't read the newsgroup and therefore don't know whether or not it's true.). In that case, those experts are voluntarily contributing information to the net, and GEnie is taking that information and selling it. I have a real problem with that, as do other people on the net. >I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line >companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all >make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! Yet I seriously doubt whether >you would find it in your moral code of ethics to condem them. If so, then >your condemnation of ANYONE (even beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory >and arbitrary on its face. This analogy is about a tenth of a gilly, I'd say; in other words, it's pretty bogus. I think it would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that Usenet sites which use the phone lines, or which purchase modems, or which purchase computers, or which purchase computer software, all GET SOMETHING IN RETURN for their purchases. When you use the phone, or buy a modem, or buy a computer, or buy a program, you USE it. Furthermore, you voluntarily enter into an agreement with them when you make the purhase, or use the phone. How can you condemn someone when you have purchased something from them voluntarily and received (and taken advantage of) what you have purchased? However, GEnie's gatewaying of news postings is NOT voluntarily on the part of Usenet posters, and they have NOT received anything in return. The ONLY people profiting from the exchange are the GEnie people reading the postings and the GEnie adminstrators raking in the cash from the time they spend reading the postings. >In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, >your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential >GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! This is ridiculous. It is not "aggresive" to not want other people to make money off of work you have done without giving you anything in return. That's just common sense, and a sense of justice. Oh, and I hope you don't tell me, "Well, if you don't want GEnie to make money off of your postings, then don't post!" because that ruins the whole purpose of the Unsenet. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/21/89)
In article <6576@brspyr1.BRS.Com> tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) writes: >I disagree; GEnie represents an economical medium for the transfer of >information. They don't charge you based on the information you get >(other than for special services), only for your connect time. It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, then GEnie is making money off of them, and GEnie got them for free (except for transportation costs; by "free" I mean they didn't pay the people who wrote them), and GEnie is not in any way giving the people who wrote the original messages part of the profit they are making. >But they [FSF] charge you for the tape when you want a new copy of Emacs, do >they not? So what's the real difference? GEnie charges you for your >time on their modem, FSF charges you for their tape. In both cases they >are charging you for the medium and the support costs, not the information >(unless you consider the other costs indirectly charging for the info, >in which case FSF, uunet, stargate and all the rest are doing the same >thing). FSF charges to cover the cost of the tape and the cost of copying it. They do not charge to make a profit; that would be completely against what they stand for. GEnie charges to make a profit. Therefore, you just can't compare GEnie to FSF. >A lot of people already pay through the nose! How does your site get >the news feed now? You must pay some kind of transport costs (phone >calls, modem charges, internet fees, disk space costs, whatever). > >USENET IS NOT FREE! Yes, but as I have said in a previous posting, when you pay for the phone, or the modem, or the Intenet, or the disks, you GET SOMETHING BACK. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) (12/21/89)
The keywords say it all. For the record I am against this. Let GEnie open the gate two ways and maybe I'll change my mind. -- Mark A. Storin Lake Systems, Milw., WI mark@lakesys.lakesys.COM
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.024040.25157@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >In article <6576@brspyr1.BRS.Com> tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) writes: > It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is >that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, >then GEnie is making money off of them, and GEnie got them for free >(except for transportation costs; by "free" I mean they didn't pay the >people who wrote them), and GEnie is not in any way giving the people >who wrote the original messages part of the profit they are making. In case you haven't heard, there are already quite a number of sites on the net that charge for connect time (some of which is spent reading news). For example, many university sites charge for connect time. Nor is it all non-profit; there are a number of for-profit public-access systems on the net. Personally, so long as they don't pollute Usenet in some hideous way, I couldn't care less if they charge money for what is available elsewhere for free. And speaking as one of Usenet's heaviest contributors, I know for certain that some of my stuff is already gatewayed into paying nets, and I don't care. Nobody in his right mind is going to promise to pay royalties to every Usenet poster. The alternative to free gatewaying is not paid gatewaying but no gatewaying. While I would prefer paid gatewaying to free gatewaying, I prefer free gatewaying to no gatewaying. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/21/89)
We had this out a while ago. While a two-way link is best(*), there is a problem with it, namely the lack of any solid E-mail link. I don't think we want a large group of people posting to USENET without an E-mail link. E-mail is what keeps USENET civil. Ok, not civil, but more civil than it could be. It is with e-mail that people are reminded of inappropriate postings, and e-mail that answers most questions, thank god. Without it, you would get people regularly posting answers because they could not e-mail the person they want. Now I keep hearing rumours of a solid E-mail link, and I am pushing for one, but it does not exist yet. I have my own, but it's all through my account, nobody else can use it. I put some postings from GEnie out to rec.humor.funny, although there have only been about 5 so far that I have taken. (All you people worried about how rich I have become from GEnie sysoping will be thrilled to know that, while I can't reveal the exact numbers, my cheques from GEnie have only two digits in them. 4 if you count the pennies.) (*) Some people still complain about two-way links, but oddly enough they haven't tried to force Portal, Well and the varous NIXPUB fee based BBS sites off the net! But if you accept a two way link, you have to admit that before E-mail, a one way link is best. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
barmar@Think.COM (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.024040.25157@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is >that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, >then GEnie is making money off of them, and GEnie got them for free >(except for transportation costs; by "free" I mean they didn't pay the >people who wrote them), and GEnie is not in any way giving the people >who wrote the original messages part of the profit they are making. So you're saying that no computer system that charges users should have access to netnews? Many university computer centers charge for usage. Many corporate computer centers also do. You aren't paid when you write a letter to a newspaper, yet the newspaper charges people to let them read it. What's the difference? GEnie is providing a service to its users by linking them to an information source. What's wrong with them charging for that service? And it costs them money to provide it; they have to pay for the disk space and the telecommunications costs. Most computer centers that provide Usenet are making a profit from it in one way or another; why else would they do it? The technical information we receive in netnews has value. The "rec" groups improve the morale or the employees, which is reflected in productivity and the attractiveness of the company as a place to work. Profit is just very indirect sometimes. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post >one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect >of, "This article is copyright 1989 by <your name here>. You may >redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the >people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access >Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves >redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change >the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the >people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." Actually, no. The first clause would bar UUNET, and if you think about it, also bars AT&T, which feeds some sites via its BTL arm, but charges them for it through its long distance arm. And people could pick the info up from GEnie and re-feed it if they want, GEnie can't stop them, unless Dave does additional editing, and even then, they can't stop YOUR message from being distributed, so the 2nd clause means nothing. And all these clauses mean nothing because once an automated link is in place, you can't put stupid copyright messages on things that you know will be violated by the link. I have a feed to UUNET. I put a copyright message on my posting saying, "UUNET may not copy." I then command my computer, and UUNET's computer (because they allow me to, and I know that) to copy it. You think a judge wouldn't laugh at you? If there are copyright messages in place before a link goes in, and somebody puts in a link, *then* you have a case. But if the link is already in place, then *you* are the one commanding the remote computer to copy your article, and you can't really violate your own copyright. GEnie is yet another pay site to get USENET material. Not the first, not the last. This was all gone over a year ago. Most people like the idea. Can we pass this one over? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) (12/21/89)
In article <6576@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) writes: > canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: > >>If you want a TRUE example of the hacker ethic, then read a bit about >>Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. *They* represent the >>hacker ethic! > > But they charge you for the tape when you want a new copy of Emacs, do > they not? So what's the real difference? GEnie charges you for your > time on their modem, FSF charges you for their tape. In both cases they > are charging you for the medium and the support costs, not the information > (unless you consider the other costs indirectly charging for the info, > in which case FSF, uunet, stargate and all the rest are doing the same > thing). > >>Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and >>Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was >>formerly free)! > > A lot of people already pay through the nose! How does your site get > the news feed now? You must pay some kind of transport costs (phone > calls, modem charges, internet fees, disk space costs, whatever). > > USENET IS NOT FREE! > This is an interesting concept. If I were to start a service that allowed user to login and post information (gee, a bbs) and then also provided a feed from USENET (one way) to these users for them to read, *you* wouldn't have a problem. And if I charged them money for this service (and made a profit), you still wouldn't have a problem. Well that is a problem for me. USENET is based upon the free trensfer of information. *No one* is "profiting" from the resale of that information. Yes there are costs associated to it, but those are the costs of doing business, and no one person profits from those charges (telcos do, modem manufactures do, but on single entity does). What is being proposed is a profit making corporation wants to take what we freely exchange and use that to make a profit. That is morally wrong and not in line with the purpose of this network! While there is no way to stop them from doing this to all postings, a method that has been seggested that would limit thier ability to do this by the inclusion of a specific copywrite notice as part of a posting. A possible line to be added to each posting would be: (c) Copyright 1989 (all rights reserved) by [your name here] This information can be distributed only if there is no financial gain made by the parties distributing this information from such distribution. >>-> Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users >>-> getting good information on time, for instance. >>It's obvious from this sentence who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of >>information -- GEnie and no one else. > > You obviously are not a GEnie user, and have no feeling for them whatsoever. > They could benefit greatly from such feeds. > So does the profit making GEnie. It is not that I do not care about the users of the service, it is blatently unfair for one to profit (and I must assume that GEnies goal is to make a profit) from what was intended to be shared freely.
news@iti.org (Usenet ID) (12/21/89)
canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >This message was posted by Dave Small to the atari newsgroup, and I have >many objections and some questions I'd like to pose to the net (so as not >to waste net $$ please direct all followups to news.misc or alt.flame): I could care less if Genie cross-posts. They're like uunet -- they provide a convenience service. Some folks will decide the pay service is worth more than the 'cost' (in hassle) of getting it free. More power to 'em.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/21/89)
Remember - when gateways are outlawed, only outlaws will have gateways! -- "DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!" /)\ Tom Neff "Roger....hatch blown!" \(/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
hwt@.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (12/21/89)
I don't have a problem with this. USENET is a free anarchy, after all. If someone (anyone) wants to archive the stuff we babble out and make it available someplace, even for money, who cares ? Think of it as a compliment to the signal/noise ratio. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bmerh490 or HWT@BNR.CA
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/21/89)
> When you post something on usenet, it is in the public domain.
Yeh, we know it isn't illegal. But it sure is impolite. I believe the
technical term is "evil and RUDE".
--
`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>.
"It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier
and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.comtim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) (12/21/89)
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: |In another article logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: |>All I see is that a few more people get to read your gems of wisdom. Since |>there is no moral requirement for anyone else on usenet to "post" some |>minimal amount of information, your demand for "two way" transfer is |>patently arbitrary. | | No, it is not. The demand is for something in return for what GEnie |is getting for nothing. I see nothing arbitrary about that. | | Let's assume that the Atari ST newsgroup is filled with posts from |various Atari ST experts (I say "assume" not because I don't think |it's true, but because I don't read the newsgroup and therefore don't |know whether or not it's true.). In that case, those experts are |voluntarily contributing information to the net, and GEnie is taking |that information and selling it. I have a real problem with that, as |do other people on the net. Using the Atari folks is probably a bad example. They have a very active roundtable on GEnie, and answer questions every week at a regular Round Table Conference. Since all the "experts" already appear on GEnie and voice their views there, and can't see how they object to comments posted to Usenet being dumped into GEnie as well. I still say that this link *can* represent a convenient way to diseminate a large volume of information to people who don't have access to Usenet. If you have a problem with GEnie doing it, then you could probably use the same argument against UUNet. Do you? SOMEBODY is making money over there (they do have employees that get paid), so whats the difference? > I think it would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that (can we stick to the issues, not the size of peoples organs please!) > However, GEnie's gatewaying of news postings is NOT voluntarily on >the part of Usenet posters, and they have NOT received anything in >return. The ONLY people profiting from the exchange are the GEnie >people reading the postings and the GEnie adminstrators raking in the >cash from the time they spend reading the postings. I think it is voluntary -- I don't believe there is any charter which states that "once you post to Usenet that message will stay exclusively on Usenet". The messages go wherever they go, and whoever recieves them is going to do whatever he wants with them. That is the nature of this beast. >Jonathan Kamens USnail: >MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace >jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Just another two cents worth from ... -- Tim Northrup +------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ GEnie: T.Northrup | UUCP: uunet!crdgw1!brspyr1!tim | Air Warrior: "Duke" | ARPA: tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com +------------------------------------------+
hwt@.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.024040.25157@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is >that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, >then GEnie is making money off of them, and GEnie got them for free >(except for transportation costs; by "free" I mean they didn't pay the >people who wrote them), and GEnie is not in any way giving the people >who wrote the original messages part of the profit they are making. I presume then that those sites in the 'nuxpub' list, Public Access Unix, that charge for Usenet access meet with your disapproval ? Come on, folks, this is silly. Go flame in alt.flame - which doesn't reach this site. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bmerh490 or HWT@BNR.CA
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (12/21/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes: It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink from USENET to GEnie... The link is one way... It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially if/when 2-way mail gets going. A benefit for *everyone*? It is only a benefit for *everyone on GEnie*. Usenet people don't benefit *at all* from this one-way ``exchange'' of information... It's obvious... who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of information -- GEnie and no one else. It sounds like the project isn't considered done yet, and there is still work in progress. The first stage works (Usenet->GEnie) so David was politely telling the affected people about it. Now they're working on the second stage (GEnie->Usenet). When the flow passes both directions, they'll be just another big leaf node. I won't object until it becomes apparent that GEnie doesn't plan to implement or allow the outbound flow. I'm slightly worried by David's choice of "if/when" in describing the state of the 2-way project (you meant news, not just mail, right?), but I'm willing to wait for further explanation before shouting. "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by implementation delay." "Connectivity is good."
blu@millipore.uucp (Brian Utterback) (12/22/89)
Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet Summary: Expires: References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1288@east.East.Sun.COM> Sender: Reply-To: blu@millipore.UUCP (Brian Utterback) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Millipore Corporation Keywords: The wholesale capturing of Usenet by GEnie Well, friends, it seems to me that there really isn't a problem here. I have no objection to GEnie charging for access to their machines which happen to carry USENET postings. Do they charge a premium for accessing different databases? Is this kind of thing even new? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Well carry usenet postings and charge for connect time? And I don't believe that these two cases are isolated. I bet a lot of the machines with usenet access have some kind of charge for usage. Granted these cases are with two-way exchange; is this really the key factor? If these services did not allow posting, would you object to them as well? Or do you object to them but just hadn't thought about it? As far as making a profit on these postings, it seems that that is their right. I am not a Lawyer (I don`t even play one on tv. I did PAY one with a TV once, but that is a differnet story 8-) but it seems to me that usenet postings are in the public domain unless otherwise specified (i.e. copyrighted). While it may bother you, any thing in the public domain is available for sale as well as free distribution. Those people who post source code and say something like "this is in the public domain, just leave my name on it" are screwed. I can take their name off, put my name on, sell it, and even copyright it. The new version is now copyrighted, but of course you can still copy the original public domain version freely. So, GEnie has a perfect right to upload without doing anything in return. The above argument suggests a possible way to fight back. All you would have to do is copyright your articles, as a number of people already do. Then in beginning of your article just explicitly forbid copying to GEnie. I don't know the ramifications of this. If you excluded only them that might be restraint of trade. If you exclude all pay services the turmoil may not be worth it. Me, I think I'll just go one as I have. -- Brian Utterback, Millipore Corporation, 75G Wiggins Ave., Bedford Ma. 01730 UUCP:: uunet!merk!millipore!blu Work:617-275-9200x8245, Home:603-891-2536
mshappe@HEIGHTS.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (Mike Shappe) (12/22/89)
I'm sorry, but I think I'm misunderstanding something here. It was always my impression that the concept of networks like USENET was the wholesale, unadulterated spreading of information as far as the telephone-and-Internet links will carry it; to shrink the world by expanding access to information and ideas, and to share ideas between various people of extremely diverse backgrounds. So, tell me, how does gatewaying to GENie or any other charging system violate the purpose of USENET? 'Nuff said -- Mike Shappe (Uncle Mikey) Cornell Information Technologies Workstation Resources mshappe@heights.cit.cornell.edu mshappe@vax1.cit.cornell.edu ut6y@cornella.bitnet
wagner@utoday.UUCP (wagner) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >>I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the >>*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way >>transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder >>(*for profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the >>latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale >>plunder of Usenet is not. > >Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a >consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in >the public domain. You cannot thereafter attempt to pick and choose >for whose eyes only it is destined. Further, since you recieve no >remuneration in any case, I can scarcely see how you can claim that harm >is being done to you or to anyone else. > > >Unless you can demonstrate some smidgen of harm (and a harm that specifically >is unique to GEnie access) there is no moral significance to your outrage. > > >In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, >your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential >GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! > >>Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? > >There may be something legal -- but it could never be moral -- >since you are the aggressor and the GEnie user is the victim! No, I don't like the idea of anybody charging for access to Usenet, either. I'll tell you why: I am a professional writer. I get paid for what I write. I write mainly for a trade journal. Sometimes, I send out freelance articles to other publications. When I post to usenet (and usually I post to the soc. or alt. newsgroups), I am voluntarily choosing to give away my wares. I don't like the idea of someone taking what I've given away, and selling it, and -- though this is just a secondary point -- not giving me a dime. If I wanted people to have to pay for what I wrote, I would recast it in some publishable form, and send it out to an editor, who would then (if he liked it), charge people to read it and give me a cut of the money. Similar arguments could be made for other netters, I'm sure. The people who post to comp groups, for instance, are largely people who are paid for their computer knowledge. When they post to the net, they are choosing to give their wares away. If Joe Smith posts to newsgroups saying, "I am having such-and-such a problem with my CompuBelch 800, can anybody help," and Jane Jones, consultant, reads it and knows the answer, she has two options if she wants to help: (a) She can sit down and write a letter saying, "Hi, I'm Jane Jones, consultant, and I know how to solve your problem, and if you send me $100 I'll tell you what the answer is." Nothing wrong with that. That's how Jane earns her living---by solving other people's computer problems for them. Or, (b) she can just sit down and bang out a response, and post it or e-mail it, with no thought of monetary compensation. Now, let's say Mr. Smith missed Jane's posting and some third guy comes along and says, "I'll solve your problem for you Mr. Smith," and takes Jane's posting and charges Mr. Smith $100 to read it. How's Jane going to feel? Ripped off. She's going to think, "If I wanted Smith to have to pay for this, I'd'a charged him for it myself." Another analogy: Let's say you give someone a cheap bureau for his bedroom. Happens all the time, right, kid goes out and gets his first apartment, the relatives look 'round at what junky furniture is sitting in the basement, and pass it along. I've got a perfectly nice coffee table and nightstand that way. Now, let's say that the recipient of the cheap bureau looks at it and sees that it is, in fact, a valuable antique. So, the day after you give it to him, he turns around and sells it for $10,000, and doesn't give you a dime. How you gonna feel? Ripped off, right. Now, I know there are some who would say that the recipient of that bureau legally and morally owned it as soon as the gift changed hands, and I suppose they may be right on a theoretical level, but I'm sure that ANYONE would feel ripped off if they were in the situation of the giver of the bureau. Enough analogizing. The point I'm trying to make is this: Many of the people who post to the net, and the corporations which own the computers which carry net messages, are choosing to give away that which they could, in other circumstances, be selling. I'm sure that few or none of these people like the idea of having their gifts abused. Mitch wagner@utoday.UUCP
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/22/89)
In article <32387@news.Think.COM> barmar@Think.COM writes: >So you're saying that no computer system that charges users should have >access to netnews? Many university computer centers charge for usage. >Many corporate computer centers also do. No, I'm saying that no computer system that makes a profit off of netnews without giving netnews anything in return should have access to netnews. If GEnie were gatewaying in the other direction, or if GEnie charged only to cover the costs of transporting the news to the user's computer, I would have no objection. As it is, they are not gatewaying or in any way giving back to USEnet for what they are getting from it, and they are making a nice profit off of the time people spend reading the postings they've ported to GEnie. >You aren't paid when you write a letter to a newspaper, yet the newspaper >charges people to let them read it. What's the difference? Here's a milli-gilly of an analogy. The difference, which I would think would be quite obvious, is that when you write a letter to a newspaper, you KNOW that they might print it, and you KNOW that they are going to charge people to read it. You write the letter voluntarily. If I post a message to the artari.st newsgroup, and it gets gatewayed to GEnie without my knowledge or consent, and they make money off of it, and I don't get anything in return, that's just plain wrong. >GEnie is providing a service to its users by linking them to an information >source. What's wrong with them charging for that service? And it costs >them money to provide it; they have to pay for the disk space and the >telecommunications costs. There's nothing wrong with GEnie charging for the services they provide. My objection is to their providing USEnet access without giving USEnet anything in return. >Most computer centers that provide Usenet are making a profit from it in >one way or another; why else would they do it? The technical information >we receive in netnews has value. The "rec" groups improve the morale or >the employees, which is reflected in productivity and the attractiveness of >the company as a place to work. Profit is just very indirect sometimes. First of all, the computer centers that provide Usenet also (in most cases) allow their users to post messages back to Usenet. Therefore, both sides are "profiting". Second, your I consider your attempt to convince me that "profit" and "benefit" are equivalent and can be discussed without making any distinctions between them to be ridiculous. Yes, Project Athena "profits" from having news here (and no, we don't charge for it), and yes, we do allow anyone who can read news to post it as well. Yes, Portal does charge their users money to read News. However, they also allow their users to post in the other direction. There are some people who find even this level of charging for Usenet access objectionably (although I am not one of them), and therefore include copyrights with there articles to attempt to stop Portal from redistributing. That's another issue entirely. GEnie profits from News and doesn't give ANYTHING back to the people who wrote the Nws from which they are profiting. It is this to which I, and other people, object. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.045834.6375@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In case you haven't heard, there are already quite a number of sites >on the net that charge for connect time (some of which is spent reading >news). For example, many university sites charge for connect time. >Nor is it all non-profit; there are a number of for-profit public-access >systems on the net. Do me a favor, Henry, and don't patronize me. I've been around the net long enough to know that there are pay sites on it. The original posting about this whole issue objected to the fact that there is no reverse gatewaying from GEnie to Usenet, and therefore GEnie is gething something from the Usenet without giving anything back. Every posting of mine since then has stressed that as the main reason for my ojection to what GEnie is doing. I therefore fail to understand why people can be so blind as to ignore that aspect of my arguments, and repeatedly tell me how wrong I must be since there are already sites that charge for news. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710 P.S. Even if there are already sites that charge for people to read news and don't allow them to post news, that doesn't make it right. That just makes it the status quo.
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.045834.6375@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: |In case you haven't heard, there are already quite a number of sites |on the net that charge for connect time (some of which is spent reading |news). For example, many university sites charge for connect time. |Nor is it all non-profit; there are a number of for-profit public-access |systems on the net. However, as far as I know, all of the sites that charge for connect time or are public access sites allow a two way flow of news. Subscribers read news collected from Usenet, and can also contribute news back to Usenet. This doesn't appear to be the case with the GEnie gateway. |Nobody in his right mind is going to promise to pay |royalties to every Usenet poster. But you do get paid royalties - not in dollars (or yen or pounds or whatever), but in followup articles, followup email, and new articles from the people who read your articles. This won't be available from GEnie, and that's why I object to the unidirectional gateway. Make it bidirectional and I have no problems with it. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
pleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) (12/22/89)
In general, I don't believe in sending `me too' messages but I think this case
is important enough that `me toos' may actually matter.
To this end, I have to say that I support Karl's stand on the matter.
Essentially, I don't care that GEnie might make a buck or two off of usenet
postings. What I detest is that the link is not bidirectional. We on the
Usenet are not able to receive the same benefits from the link that the folks
on GEnie are able to receive from us. Statements in Tim Northrup's own posting
<6577@brspyr1.BRS.Com> suggest this, to wit:
"Since all the `experts' already appear on GEnie and voice their views
there, and [sic] can't see how they object to comments posted to Usenet
being dumped into GEnie as well."
and:
"I still say that this link *can* represent a convenient way to diseminate
a large volume of information to people who don't have access to Usenet."
In both cases, information flowing into GEnie may be of great benefit to that
audience. It would be great, particularly considering the first statement, if
information would flow in the other direction as well.
So again, this is not a complaint about the possible profit that GEnie may make
from Usenet postings. It's a call for a bidirectional link which will benefit
us all on both sides of the fence. And in the general case, its a plea for
holding out on any new links until those representing the other end of the link
recognize the benefits of a bidirectional news/mail link and are willing to
co-operate to bring such a link to fruition.
--
Mel Pleasant
{backbone}!rutgers!pleasant pleasant@rutgers.edu mpleasant@zodiac.bitnetoplinger@jupiter.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) (12/22/89)
I must say I don't agree. As a 'typical' :) member of the Atari community, I did not have access to Usenet until I took my current job six months ago. However, I did have access to Genie and Compuserve, all I needed was a modem and a desire to watch my bank account dwindle :). I would have loved to have useful and intellegent articles but often there weren't any. Yes it is a way for Genie to make a profit, but so what? Unless someone is willing to post a summary to Genie, I'd rather provide those less fortunate ;) than us, who don't have Usenet access, all of the postings instead of none of the posting.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/22/89)
oplinger@jupiter.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) writes: > I did not have access to Usenet until I took my >current job six months ago. However, I did have access to Genie >and Compuserve >I would have loved to have useful and >intellegent articles but often there weren't any. What makes you think adding USENET postings will change that? -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/22/89)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >What makes you think adding USENET postings will change that? Oh, before people start mailing me and telling my I forgot to add the smiley faces to remind people I was joking, let me point out that I know I forgot to add them. The only question (left as an exercise to the reader) is why. Happy Holidays, although it seems to be against USENET policy to wish someone well instead of ill these days... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/22/89)
All I can say is that it's mind-boggling to me that someone from a
university is griping about people selling information. Astounding!
Has MIT stopped charging tuition? Are they giving free usenet access
to anyone who asks? Have they started doing their research for free?
This has to be humor.
I can see a gripe with genie's specific policies, but what about The
World (us), The Well, Portal, UUNET, etc. Are you arguing that they
should all cease to exist immediately? Are they selling *information*
or are they selling access to their equipment? What's your real gripe?
That they're not spending good, honest DOD research money and tuition
dollars on their usenet access like MIT does?
The hypocrisy inherent in some of your statements is truly awesome.
You should meditate a little on what your gripes really are, I don't
think it's some inherent immorality of taking money from someone so
they can have the means of access to information. It might be their
editorial policies etc, which might be justifiable.
But someone at a university complaining that someone else is selling
information? What's the problem? Trying to kill the competition?
I think when you or I put something out on the net we do it because it
might benefit someone (educational, informative, entertaining,
whatever) no matter how they manage to get access to it. Just like
when we publish an article in more conventional media, it's out there,
it's gone. Who cares really? Why?
Have you thought about all this even for one minute? I doubt it, it
sure doesn't show.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzsbzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/22/89)
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) > It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is >that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, >then GEnie is making money off of them, and GEnie got them for free >(except for transportation costs; by "free" I mean they didn't pay the >people who wrote them), and GEnie is not in any way giving the people >who wrote the original messages part of the profit they are making. I strongly suggest MIT close their libraries immediately. I'd bet at least a few things I've written are in there and I've never seen one nickel of the tuition or research money they've been charging for access to my stuff, or anyone else's for that matter. In fact, they won't even let me read *my own stuff* in their libraries unless I pay them money! Amazing, right? Wrong. In fact, I can't read *this* message on their machines because I am not paying tuition there or doing work for them to earn access! Face it, your position is utterly bankrupt. Give it up. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/22/89)
And furthermore... From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) > FSF charges to cover the cost of the tape and the cost of copying >it. They do not charge to make a profit; that would be completely >against what they stand for. > > GEnie charges to make a profit. Therefore, you just can't compare >GEnie to FSF. I'm sorry, but is this a tax law argument? What do you mean by "profit"? When does a dollar taken in suddenly become "profit"? For example, MIT averages about $400M/year in DOD research funds alone. But not one nickel of that is considered "profit". Why? Because the federal tax codes say so, and they couldn't be wrong. Genie could be losing money like a sieve loses water, but they're "for-profit". Why? Because the federal tax codes say so. The IRS defines "profit" to be that amount of your revenue which is left over after expenses are paid and (after taxes) redistributed to your investors. Now, I can sell something very cheaply and be a for-profit corp while someone else can sell something very expensively and be a not-for-profit corp. For example, K-mart usually sells appliances at a minimal markup, but they're for-profit. MIT charges among the highest tuitions in the world, but they're not-for-profit. Got it? It all has to do with how you distribute your (potentially) excess cash. A for-profit returns it to the investors. A not-for-profit doesn't. There are some other differences (such as the maximum amount of cash you can have on hand), but they're not germaine and trivial to get around by the not-for-profits. A not-for-profit might, oh, pay their provosts and VP's $200+K/year, buy up real-estate in Cambridge and displace working people or purchase a $10M super-computer or even invest in a, oh, what the heck, lisp machine company (I have no one in particular in mind, just an example I made up.) But it's not !PROFIT!, ask any tax lawyer. They don't have shareholders. I realize it's subtle, you have to understand the tax laws jik is alluding to. > Yes, but as I have said in a previous posting, when you pay for the >phone, or the modem, or the Intenet, or the disks, you GET SOMETHING >BACK. Oh, I get it, you mean you PROFIT from it. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
" Maynard) (12/22/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes a tirade about someone uploading comp.sys.atari en masse to GEnie. I have no real opinion on that subject, other than to hope that GEnie is gatewayed bidirectionally, but I must take issue with the following statement: >If you want a TRUE example of the hacker ethic, then read a bit about >Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. *They* represent the >hacker ethic! Uhm, not exactly. There's been a debate raging in alt.religion.computers about this very subject. The GNU Public License, or, more properly, GNU Public Virus, is anti-hacker: it attempts to coerce everyone else into RMS's idea of paradise. Some of us don't subscribe to that idea. Instead, I feel that Geoff Collyer and Henry Spencer are much closer to the hacker ethic in the license for C news: here it is, use it freely; just don't try to blame us for your screwed-up version of it. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/22/89)
In article <6577@brspyr1.BRS.Com> tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) writes: >I still say that this link *can* represent a convenient way to diseminate >a large volume of information to people who don't have access to Usenet. >If you have a problem with GEnie doing it, then you could probably use >the same argument against UUNet. Do you? SOMEBODY is making money >over there (they do have employees that get paid), so whats the >difference? Have you ignored everything I've said. UUnet allows people to whom they sell news to post news back through them. There is a TWO-WAY exchange of information. The Usenet benefits from what UUnet does, because UUnet's clients have the ability to post news. I DO NOT OBJECT to GEnie's charging for Usenet access. I object to their doing so without giving the Usenet anything in return, because the Gateway is one way. A two-way gateway means that the system supplying the gateway is supplying a *service*. A one-way gateway means that the system supplying the gateway is *selling a product*. I do not object to the former, I object to the latter. >> I think it would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that > >(can we stick to the issues, not the size of peoples organs please!) Yes, you're right. Sorry. >I think it is voluntary -- I don't believe there is any charter which >states that "once you post to Usenet that message will stay exclusively >on Usenet". The messages go wherever they go, and whoever recieves >them is going to do whatever he wants with them. That is the nature >of this beast. As I have pointed out in a previous posting, "status quo" does not equal "the right thing." There is no "Usenet charter", or at least not one I have seen. However, I simply do not believe that the purpose of Usenet is to give GEnie something to sell to its users. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM (Darrin A. Hyrup) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >[...] > You're missing a few things. I think you are as well, as I will point out below. > First of all, although there may not be any reason why GEnie cannot >legally put news on their system, that is not the objection; the >objection is that they are selling something that someone else put >work into creating, without giving anything in return. I think it is >quite justifiable to be "morally outraged" by that. What does Usenet give you for your postings? What do folks who have to pay UUNET or pay a local news site get for posting to the net? This is a "global network" in that anyone anywhere can join in and carry on intelligent discussions relating to various topics, irregardless of where they live, or work, or what they do. Much like GEnie. Of course GEnie doesn't currently have a real feed to Usenet, if they were to get one, the fact that GEnie charges $5 or $6 per hour for a person to access the network and engage in this exchange (yes *exchange* it does go both ways) of information is of no consequence. There are thousands of Usenet sites out there, and of those who do allow public access (most are private), many charge for access to the same information that GEnie would be offering for a fee as well. The person using the network either from a pay-to-use system, a pay-to-use BBS with a gateway to usenet, or a commercial service with usenet access doesn't get any more or any less information, nor do they get any less in return for their money in any of those cases. If you have free access to a Usenet site, then fine, but there are many, many people out there who do not. Unless you are willing to offer a 1-800 number access for worldwide, free, and unlimited access to usenet, then there is no reason to be morally outraged by any of this. There is no real reason why a site should not collect a little money from people who are getting a service from them. There is a great deal of outlay on equipment, as well as bills and upkeep costs. If the site chooses to foot the whole bill, then that is fine, but there are those who feel that they are offering a service to a community that has a demand, and if keeping up the system and the making it available was free, then free access would be much better justified. Alas, nothing in this world is free so do not condemn those who at least offer the availability of the service rather than keep it private (as most do). Say you were to write a "Letter to the Editor" for your local newspaper, and it was published, would you feel morally outraged at it? The newspaper has no intention of paying you for that submission, and it does plan to make a profit on the sales of that issue of the newspaper, and they must also think that their subscribers would pay to read your article. They are doing exactly the same thing as you condemn in your statements above, yet are they so evil? > Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post >one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect >of, "This article is copyright 1989 by <your name here>. You may >redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the >people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access >Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves >redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change >the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the >people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." That would exclude 90% (or more) of the usenet community from ever seeing your messages. For example, if you are a student at a University that has a usenet feed, that University would be in violation of your statement by giving you access to the message. The University charges you a fee by your tuition which is a clear violation. In addition, look at the big backbone sites like UUNET. They charge those who subscribe to their system for news and mail feeds. There are plenty of the pay-for-feeds type of groups out there like UUNET which would also be clear violations as well. Of course, there are also "public-access" (which is a fairly misleading term) sites out there which charge their users for access to their system, and its information, which usually means usenet and mail. That doesn't include the various fido and BBS sites out there with usenet gateways, and such. Do you wish to exclude all these groups and various members of the usenet community from access to the net? > The point is that we DO have the legal ability to stop GEnie from >gatewaying our posts, if they are selling them, and if we find that >offensive. Several people on the net that I have seen already use >copyright notices of this sort on their messages, although I don't do >it myself. Technically no. The copyright laws clearly state that if you release your copyrighted material into the public domain, it is no longer copyrighted and can be transferred in any way the recievers see fit. Btw, under the Berne Convention (of which the USA is now a member), you do not have to put a "Copyright (c) 1989", in your original works to have a copyright, but you give up any such rights by putting your works into the public domain. Since the very nature of Usenet dictates that any works that are entered into the net are in the public domain, you would have a hell of a time trying to prove misuse of your information in any court if you tried to sue for violation of your copyright. In any case, if you didn't attempt to sue all infractors, you could loose any chances of winning any settlement, and that would be a very costly endeavor! (Especially against something with the raw legal power of General Electric behind it!) >>All I see is that a few more people get to read your gems of wisdom. Since >>there is no moral requirement for anyone else on usenet to "post" some >>minimal amount of information, your demand for "two way" transfer is >>patently arbitrary. > > No, it is not. The demand is for something in return for what GEnie >is getting for nothing. I see nothing arbitrary about that. That statement doesn't hold up under fire. GEnie does indeed pay for what it offers to its users. That aside, what if GEnie were to get a feed from UUNET? Then it would be paying specifically for its usenet information, in addition to paying for hardware costs, media costs, communications and network costs, phone costs, ad nauseum. Would that make you happy? As I mentioned before, many sites out there charge users for information that they recieve for free. Look at the pay-to-play BBS's out there, as well as the public-access UNIX sites I mentioned above that charge for access. That doesn't even touch on the Universities. The subject is not quite so cut and dried as you seem to think. > Let's assume that the Atari ST newsgroup is filled with posts from >various Atari ST experts (I say "assume" not because I don't think >it's true, but because I don't read the newsgroup and therefore don't >know whether or not it's true.). In that case, those experts are >voluntarily contributing information to the net, and GEnie is taking >that information and selling it. I have a real problem with that, as >do other people on the net. They do the same thing right now. What about the experts that may be on GEnie but have no access to usenet? Do you feel that you have the power to deprive people in the usenet community from information that the "expert" may have to offer them? The axe cuts both ways! There is no way to justify your statements on the "selling" of information. I know I don't need to mention again how many of the people out there DO indeed pay to use the net. >>I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line >>companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all >>make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! Yet I seriously doubt whether >>you would find it in your moral code of ethics to condem them. If so, then >>your condemnation of ANYONE (even beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory >>and arbitrary on its face. > > This analogy is about a tenth of a gilly, I'd say; in other words, >it's pretty bogus. I agree, thats not what you were talking about and it was a poor stand against your argument, but of course, you cannot condemn any site (say GEnie, if it was to be one), for offering usenet on a charge basis without condemning all the sites, and excluding the majority of the usenet community! > I think it would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that >Usenet sites which use the phone lines, or which purchase modems, or >which purchase computers, or which purchase computer software, all GET >SOMETHING IN RETURN for their purchases. I agree here. But this is a moot point, this tangent gives very little actual substance to the arguments at hand. > However, GEnie's gatewaying of news postings is NOT voluntarily on >the part of Usenet posters, and they have NOT received anything in >return. The ONLY people profiting from the exchange are the GEnie >people reading the postings and the GEnie adminstrators raking in the >cash from the time they spend reading the postings. Again, GEnie would not be alone in this regard. >>In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, >>your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential >>GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! > > This is ridiculous. It is not "aggresive" to not want other people >to make money off of work you have done without giving you anything in >return. That's just common sense, and a sense of justice. You are off base on this one. Unless you choose to believe that GEnie is the only company in the world that makes money off people accessing the net; which is completely out of the question, as I have proven above. I can't see how you can stand by that argument. > Oh, and I hope you don't tell me, "Well, if you don't want GEnie to >make money off of your postings, then don't post!" because that ruins >the whole purpose of the Unsenet. It could be stated, "Well, if you don't want [insert favorite university, corporation, public access (pay) unix site, or pay bbs site, etc] to make money off of your postings, then don't post!" That seems to be what you are looking for. Your argument shares the misapplication of the original (and I hope current) purpose of usenet. This is a public network. It should be available to anyone, or any organization. There never was any requirement that a usenet site not charge or make a profit off of the people it allows to access the net, or that any site must be responsible to make payments to authors who post to the net if they are a pay service! If that were the case, usenet never would have come into being, nor would it have the huge base of "subscribers" it now commands. It sounds to me that your own personal opinion of what usenet is all about, and your own view of morality are the basis of your argument, and they are not in line with the real guidelines of this net. >Jonathan Kamens USnail: Again, the comments in this article are my personal opinion, and I certainly don't expect to get flamed on (all flames will of course be sent to /dev/null), nor do I expect to be paid for posting this, and that shouldn't need to be said. My stand of this would be the same no matter if the subject was CIS, Plink, Prodigy, GEnie, or any of the other user networks, private and public organizations, or Universities that [would/do] sponsor usenet access. There is no reason to point fingers and there is nothing that says that all sites must be free. I've been participating in this forum off and on for many years now, and I always thought this information was common knowledge. I certainly hope this helps to clear up some of the misconceptions Jonathan and anyone else has about this network. (At least as far as I was made to believe in the time I have been participating here). Darrin Hyrup, SysAdmin sorinc.PacBell.COM -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (12/22/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane B. Close) writes: [GEnie <- USENET gateway] DC> I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the DC> *exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way DC> transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder (*for DC> profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the DC> latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This DC> wholesale plunder of Usenet is not. >>>>> On 21 Dec 89 00:00:41 GMT, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) said: JL> Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a JL> consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in JL> the public domain. This has never been tested in a court of law, to my knowledge. I suspect that copyright is retained, but I am not a legal expert. JL> I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line JL> companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all JL> make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! I seem to recall a similar discussion going on right now in alt.activism; y'see, it turns out that in a capitalistic society, when you exchange things, both parties generally win. At least I find that the modem I paid $X for has given me *what I feel to be* >$X "worth" of usefulness. GEnie is giving *nothing* back. JL> Yet I seriously doubt whether you would find it in your moral code of JL> ethics to condem them. If so, then your condemnation of ANYONE (even JL> beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory and arbitrary on its face. Different case. JL> In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, JL> your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential JL> GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! I reserve the right to control my intellectual property and the ways in which it may be redistributed. DC> Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? JL> There may be something legal -- but it could never be moral -- JL> since you are the aggressor and the GEnie user is the victim! This article, excluding quoted text, is Copyright 1989 Chris Davis. Redistribution for profit is prohibited. This copyright statement shall not be construed to limit non-profit distribution, including but not limited to UUNET's news forwarding services. This article may not be gatewayed to GEnie without a license fee paid to the author. [I don't see that as aggressive. I do see it as a hassle to type into every article, but if I've gotta expand my .signature to control my postings, so be it.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Many verbal attacks are part of someone's aim to establish their rank in a dominance hierarchy, the same sort of behavior common among nesting fowl." --Daniel Mocsny <dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU>
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (12/22/89)
Lets see if we can take this slow, for the slow minds out there. No one yet has posted that they object to GEnie getting groups gatewayed per se. At least, if they have, it hasn't reached this site. People HAVE complained that it looks like all the benefit is one-way. Some people can't tell the difference between a one-way gate and a system with commercial access. GEnie is supposedly going to try to put some sort of copyright on what they port from Usenet, just because they did the 'hard work' of porting it. Is that right so far? Did I miss a point? I don't think so. All the whining and bitching about Well and Portal being just the same can be ignored - it's just a matter of people who are too lazy to READ what the posts are [Those people aren't too stupid to understand it, several of them have shown intelligence before]. Is there some legal problem? If so, there's nothing that is going to go to court, so that's not really an issue. Forget it folks. Is there a moral issue? Better question. PART of Usenet is based on the idea of disseminating information. This would do that part. Another part is based on the idea that you, one way or another, contribute back for some of the benefit you recieve - which is why a lot of sites, this one included, transport a lot of stuff we don't use directly. We get benefit, we help others get benefit. GEnie is going to get benefit. Right now, they're going to keep their info and import ours as well. You can't stop it, you know. MAYBE, just maybe, there's someone involved in it that wants to work on a basis of fair play, but what you're talking about is a $-making company that has absolutely no reason to. That's the way of the world. You're seeing what Usenet would be if it were all commercial, folks. Scream and holler if it makes you feel better. Doesn't get the foul taste out of my mouth, but that's the way it is. NO ONE, at least that doesn't need a keeper, is going to really think that the spirit of sharing found in the Usenet community is gonna continue without some sharks ripping it off. Looks at the maps mailing lists, simply for one example. If you don't like it, cancel or quit using your GEnie access. Quit posting to group(s) they put on a one-way gateway. Or just accept that one of the prices of a whole lot of people trying to share without any contract other than a 'fair play' expectation means that those who don't give a damn can always take advantage of those that do. Dewey -- | ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I | | ...uunet!execu!dewey | will try to hear what you are saying" | | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. |
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/22/89)
Frankly, given the quality of messages that *have* been gatewayed into Usenet from Fidonet and other BBS-type operations. I'm glad they're being impolite and unneighborly and not responding in kind. I'm afraid they'd be like that unwanted houseguest that never leaves. (not that ALL the fido folks are bad, it's just that the fido s/n ratio is even lower than Usenet) -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM (Darrin A. Hyrup) (12/22/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >[... Dave Small's message goes here ...] > >I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the >*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way >transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder >(*for profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the >latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale >plunder of Usenet is not. I think he meant that he could not put general messages from his roundtable on GEnie into the Usenet network. Technically he could put replies from the messages entered into that roundtable into usenet, but not the other, non-usenet-oriented messages. >I also object most strenously to Dave limiting MY access to information by >scaring away Usenet posters who don't want the kind of publicity GEnie >offers. Usenet is supported FREELY by a conglomeration of machines (each >company covering a bit of the expenses) and I object very, very much to >GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity. Dave Small does NOT work for GEnie. Dave is an information provider to GEnie by offering his services for support through his roundtable there. They may not even be aware of this, and if they are, chances are they don't expect to make much (if anything) off of this in particular. The storage costs alone probably balance out the readership profits there. >-> It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially >-> if/when 2-waymail gets going. > >A benefit for *everyone*? It is only a benefit for *everyone on GEnie*. >Usenet people don't benefit *at all* from this one-way ``exchange'' of >information. Again you misunderstand. He was talking only about that one roundtable, not all of GEnie. And as for mail exchange, that will be available sometime in the not too distant future. The mail exchange would of course be both ways (if technically possible). >-> [...] other areas on GEnie are >-> expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks, >-> USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're >-> doing post notes. > >Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on >GEnie? I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand! Eventually there may be a "Usenet roundtable" on GEnie. At least I imagine this would be the case. And if so, that would basically be identical to a unix site running news software and with a news feed. Posted messages would be introduced into usenet, and replies would become available at that area. It would be much more like a real usenet site than Dave's hack. >-> Why do it? Because a long time ago, on the CERL site on PLATO, a >-> person named Sherwin Gooch, ex-PLATO, ex-Atari, and now with Apple, >-> introduced me to the hacker ethic and freedom of information exchange as >-> its primary goal. (No, not illegal exchange, you know what I mean). [...] > >I don't call a one-way exchange ``freedom of information''. I also don't >call *free information* being uploaded to a *pay service* ``freedom''. >The hacker ethic is AGAINST the *sale* of information (as GEnie represents). >If you want a TRUE example of the hacker ethic, then read a bit about >Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. *They* represent the >hacker ethic! Whoa hold on. Most available public-access usenet access sites ARE PAY SERVICES! Even those that are not public-access fall into the catagory. For example, look at any University, it charges tuition to its students, they "pay" to use the university computer and so pay to access usenet. In addition, many sites and BBS's with usenet gateways also charge users to access usenet or net mail. Don't tell me that UUNET (and any of the other sites that charge users for usenet/mail feeds) isn't a *pay service*! If this does catch on, it will eventually be 2-way, but since this is obviously a hack operation, it is probably not coming about any time soon. The restrictions in its current form are too limiting and the GEnie lawyers would undoubtedly have much good to say about it. But if it was to have its own area on GEnie, dedicated solely to usenet, it would most definately be both ways (or so I would think). It is free exchange of information, and GEnie is not the bad guy. It could be any other business out there which charges its users to access the net, or any pay-BBS for that matter (which GEnie could be considered to be), with a gateway to Usenet. The fact that this is one-way (for now) is less an injustice to us, than it is to the GEnie subscribers who may want to participate in the discussions on a 2-way basis! >-> If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and >-> if convinced, drop the link. [...] > >Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and >Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was >formerly free)! Read above. Usenet is no more free than is GEnie. The fact that many lucky people (myself included) have free access to it (besides obvious system costs, etc) does not mean it is free. Just that we aren't personally stuck paying fees to access the net. I know many people who do pay for it, and there is no reason why you should think any different. >-> Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users >-> getting good information on time, for instance. > >It's obvious from this sentence who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of >information -- GEnie and no one else. He didn't say GEnie, he said "GEnie users"! Those people who are paying to use the GEnie "BBS" and want a usenet gateway. It will eventually be there, and I am sure that CIS and Prodigy and the others will follow suite, as the information age is upon us, and the interconnecting of networks in inevitible. >The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in >political power becoming ``concerned''. Perhaps concerned enough to pass >legislation like that currenly up for review in New York: a sysop must >validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also >guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear >on any other service. Thats completely outrageous (both the legislation and the statement). Usenet is already very well known, and it shouldn't matter what GEnie or any other network says (and especially one who is not even a GEnie employee!) or does. Usenet will get bigger, and more publicized, and will attract more notice regardless, as that is the way of things. There is no reason to point fingers! >Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general, >are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger >by uploading Usenet articles wholesale? Not really, but I think I will address this in the next reply. As for net rules, there is no rule that says anything about usenet information providers (sites) having to allow free access to everyone, nor does it say that all information must be two-ways. Look at usenet email servers! Information posted to a group is fed to various people through various gateways and email agents around the world. And this is usually one-way-only. Yet, you don't see everyone putting up a big fuss about that! And the same rules apply there as do here! There are also plenty of BBS sites out there that allow one-way usenet messages (they get usenet, but wont post it to the net). Are they also in the wrong? Some of those BBS's charge their users for access as well! Does that make them as guilty and money-hungry as GEnie is supposed to be? All in all I think you are over-reacting. >Diane Barlow Close Thats my opinion anyway, I hope it doesn't offend anyone. (No flames please). Darrin -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.162642.812@millipore.uucp> blu@millipore.UUCP (Brian Utterback) writes: >Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't >the Well carry usenet postings and charge for connect time? And I don't >believe that these two cases are isolated. It does indeed. However, Well users are also able to post messages to the net. It's not a one-way street, as is the case with the Genie service. (sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us -- also known as slf@well.sf.ca.us)
SML108@PSUVM.BITNET (12/22/89)
On the Subject of GENIE uploads... It's certainly not fair, but what CAN we do about it? This is public info,so how are we to prevent others from making profits from it? Ultimately, this will cause trouble on Usenet if anyone catches wind of all the morons who create useless sub-groups and post pyramid schemes, but what can we do? Big Brother eventually moves in on ANYTHING.... Scott Le Grand aka sml108@psuvm.psu.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/22/89)
I'm a GEnie sysop, and let me tell you folks, that while there are some fine folks on GEnie, you people begging for a two way link better not beg too hard or you will get what you ask for. GEnie works differently. It comes from the BBS world, not the USENET world. E-mail is foreign to most users. I send users E-mail rather than reply on the round table, and they complain to me! Other SYSOPS and GEnie staff get ticked when I send them mail in response to their BB postings, rather than posting to the BB. A common posting to a Genie BB might look like this, mapped to USENET: (This is a real one I justed pulled) From: DELETED@genie.com Newsgroups: genie.sysop.info Subject: The Black Hole Mailbox... Message-ID: <1:1:109:sysop@l> Date: 6 Dec 89 22:30:00 GMT Lines: 2 Genie: 1 1 109 Not in the form you want, Juan. The PHONES page is by state. Drop an EMail to (user) and cc: (user2) People constantly post personal messages, one line comments without referents, etc. It's ok if you're reading in with their software, where each topic is in a single file, and you usually just saw the referent. This is what you're begging to have gatewayed? I do a 2-way gateway to GEnie, but it's moderated. If I see a good posting in the unmoderated part of the TeleJoke Round Table (RHF) then it goes to the RHF queue, for posting both to USENET and GEnie. For now, particularly since you can't send E-mail back, be careful what you stomp up and down for. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/22/89)
Aside from the pragmatic reasons (no E-mail yet, GEnie mentality of not using E-mail even when it's there) I have another question. Has it become illegal to be a leaf node all of a sudden? To dare to read a group without posting to it? Is this immoral? GEnie provides a service, which their customers like enough to pay for. That service includes setting up a computer system (something that costs money, hard as that is to believe) and giving people a way to get at all sorts of freely distributable data -- USENET postings, PD software, shareware etc. This is immoral? Their compilation copyright doesn't change the USENET material one whit. A compilation copyright doesn't affect the things that make it up and what may be done with them. My compilation copyright doesn't affect at all what you can do with the individual PD jokes in rec.humor.funny, and GEnie's does not affect the distributability of the USENET material on it. So why is it such a crime to read and not post. We got too many posters as it is. Let's here it for more people who read and don't post! (Snide comment ahead-- is there some problem with people named Jonathan from project Athena, or is it just me? :-) :-) :-) ) [ No offense to Athena, it's a fine project with great people. ] -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (12/22/89)
In article <344@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >However, as far as I know, all of the sites that charge for connect time >or are public access sites allow a two way flow of news. Subscribers >read news collected from Usenet, and can also contribute news back to >Usenet. This doesn't appear to be the case with the GEnie gateway. I don't think there is much argument that Genie's not passing news/mail back into Usenet is a Bad Thing. However, this "rape of Usenet" stuff is being way overblown. To me, Genie's offering reading but not posting will be a phenominal tease to its users. It doesn't take much reading to see that Usenet is a highly interactive medium. Reading Usenet and choosing not to reply or followup is one thing. Not being able to, will be very frustrating to many Genie users. Certainly people reading Usenet on Genie will want to participate, to contribute. Those users on Genie who really want to participate will either pressure Genie to allow them to post/reply, or they will seek out sites which can give them full Usenet privileges. To me, the value of just watching Usenet like a ticker-tape is limited. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416)452-0504 "That's the last time I buy aftershave at a gas station" - Sam Malone
PMW1@PSUVM.BITNET (Peter Weiss) (12/22/89)
<wink on> Salesman sells snow to Eskimo, News at 11. <wink off>
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (12/22/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Frankly, given the quality of messages that *have* been gatewayed into Usenet >from Fidonet and other BBS-type operations, >I'm glad they're being impolite and unneighborly and not responding in kind. >I'm afraid they'd be like that unwanted houseguest that never leaves. >(not that ALL the fido folks are bad, it's just that the fido s/n ratio is > even lower than Usenet) Good point. Agreed. -- Doug Eastick UUCP: uunet!utai!me!eastick Mechanical Engineering eastick@me.utoronto.ca
johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) (12/22/89)
This article is Copyright 1989 by John Munsch, All Rights Reserved. Note the above, it is a copyright. It is the answer for all of you who wish to end of GEnie's abuse of the net (an abuse which if left unanswered would surely spread to other pay networks as well). If you are bothered by having your articles distributed so that someone else can line their pockets at $6.00 or $12.50 (or more) an hour then all you need to do is add the above line to each and every posting along with a sentence outlining the restrictions that you place on distribution. These restrictions can prevent distribution for profit if you wish and have full legal recognition. If enough people choose to start placing a line or two of this sort into their postings then GEnie's lawyers will undoubtedly advise the termination of the connection. There are others on the net who have expressed that they have no objection to for profit distribution of their articles. This is fine for them, but unfortunately this is one situation where every single posting member of Usenet is affected and unless the agreement is UNANIMOUS it cannot continue. A few people cannot be allowed to say "screw you" to those who do have objections and continue the connection when those people protest being used. What I have suggested is a simple solution to the problem which will, if not immediately, soon produce the desired outcome. John Munsch
johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) (12/22/89)
In article <65046@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >> Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post >>one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect >>of, "This article is copyright 1989 by <your name here>. You may >>redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the >>people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access >>Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves >>redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change >>the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the >>people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." > >Actually, no. The first clause would bar UUNET, and if you think >about it, also bars AT&T, which feeds some sites via its BTL arm, but >charges them for it through its long distance arm. So. >And all these clauses mean nothing because once an automated link is >in place, you can't put stupid copyright messages on things that you >know will be violated by the link. I have a feed to UUNET. I put a >copyright message on my posting saying, "UUNET may not copy." I then >command my computer, and UUNET's computer (because they allow me to, and >I know that) to copy it. You think a judge wouldn't laugh at you? *I* did not establish this link, nor do I talk to any sites which have for profit access (much less ONE WAY for profit access). If we take your "excellent" example and apply it to me rather than you we find things are a little different. If I have already told you that you are going to receive something from me that you cannot give to someone else, you can choose to not take it from me in the first place or take it but not pass it on. However, if you take it and then give it to the person you understood was not to receive it there aren't going to be many laughing judges then. Will there... This GEnie thing will either have to go or become two way, I personally am not in favor of the two way transfer option but I will bend to the will of others on this issue. I am in favor of whole sites, not just individuals, declaring that their material is copyrighted and is not for transfer to sites that do not transfer material both ways (esp. when done for profit). Then those sites that choose to ignore the restrictions when accepting the material can bear the legal responsibility of having done so with full knowledge of their wrongdoing. >GEnie is yet another pay site to get USENET material. Not the first, >not the last. This was all gone over a year ago. Most people like the >idea. Can we pass this one over? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No. "WE" cannot. As I said in another posting, a few people (like yourself) cannot be allowed to run over everyone else and dictate how Usenet will run. "Well the link is there now, whether you like it or not." seems to sum up your attitude. I count myself very fortunate that I do not have to work with you given that attitude. >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Munsch
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/23/89)
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com writes:
USENET is based upon the free
trensfer of information. *No one* is "profiting" from the resale of
that information...
What is being proposed is a profit making corporation
wants to take what we freely exchange and use that to make a
profit. That is morally wrong and not in line with the purpose of
this network!
Oh, please...
Spare the entire network the emotional tirade, and work harder at
maintaining a connection to reality. (I'm not saying that to be
insulting; I'm saying that because you are factually incorrect.)
Portal exists and makes a profit. The WELL exists and makes a profit.
UUNET exists and at least exchanges large numbers of dollars for its
services; whether it makes a profit in a formal sense depends on its
non-profit status and so forth.
The difference between the GEnie link and these others is not the
existence of a profit (motive), but the imbalance of the info flow.
It is not morally wrong to charge someone for use of a system which
has Usenet accessible to it. As for the "purpose of this network,"
this network was originally set up 10 years ago so that some grad
students could exchange information about UNIX. Consider that in
juxtaposition against what actually happens on the Usenet today.
Now please re-think your position.
In any event, re-stating what should by now be obvious, the link is
down until such time as Dave Small can get GEnie to redo it correctly.
--Karlpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/23/89)
Well, y'all can pipe down now. It's 2-way. Take a look in comp.lang.forth. If you can stomach it. /^From: *GEnie/h:j -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
pbh@pandora.cs.wayne.edu (Patrick B. Haggood) (12/23/89)
> (remarks fromd small re: uplink to Genie)
No. No. That is wrong. Nowhere on Usenet is there a message about
all out messages becoming the property of , well, public property as
it would be on Usenet. In fact, the copywright las laws now sa
state that what we write is our unless we SAY it is public domain. Therefore,
you could get in alot of trouble uploading to Genie, which has on its
screens a message about things posted here belonging to them.
Take it down (the uplink) Dave, you're in for alot of headaches....coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (12/23/89)
In article <1989Dec21.174239.19794@athena.mit.edu>, jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > GEnie profits from News and doesn't give ANYTHING back to the people > who wrote the Nws from which they are profiting. It is this to which > I, and other people, object. Considering the average noise ratio of the most popular groups maybe GEnie is doing usenet a great favor by making the connection one-way. In general the usenet population tends to be well educated professionals. Even so, the ranting often dominates. (witness this posting :-) If GEnie wants usenet postings they will have to spend a considerable amount of time editing. Why not let them get paid for their time? The people who subscribe to GEnie will soon enough learn about usenet and public access unix sites. Then it will be their choice, do they want to pay for an edited, read-only version or take the plunge and become a full fledged member of the information age's (mostly) unacknowleged child, usenet. > Jonathan Kamens USnail: > MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace > jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 > Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710 Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy Pynchon's back, let's get paranoid!
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (12/23/89)
In article <1107@utoday.UUCP>, wagner@utoday.UUCP (wagner) writes: > Similar arguments could be made for other netters, I'm sure. The people who > post to comp groups, for instance, are largely people who are paid for their > computer knowledge. When they post to the net, they are choosing to give their > wares away. If Joe Smith posts to newsgroups saying, "I am having such-and-such > a problem with my CompuBelch 800, can anybody help," and Jane Jones, consultant, > reads it and knows the answer, she has two options if she wants to help: > (a) She can sit down and write a letter saying, "Hi, I'm Jane Jones, consultant, > and I know how to solve your problem, and if you send me $100 I'll tell you > what the answer is." Nothing wrong with that. That's how Jane earns her > living---by solving other people's computer problems for them. Or, (b) she > can just sit down and bang out a response, and post it or e-mail it, with > no thought of monetary compensation. > > Now, let's say Mr. Smith missed Jane's posting and some third guy comes along > and says, "I'll solve your problem for you Mr. Smith," and takes Jane's > posting and charges Mr. Smith $100 to read it. How's Jane going to feel? > Ripped off. She's going to think, "If I wanted Smith to have to pay for this, > I'd'a charged him for it myself." Mr. Smith knows where to look for the answer, ie the followups to his query. But he doesn't bother. Joe 3rd Guy takes the time to sift through the net's usual cruft to find and extract Jane's gem of wisdom which she has given to the world. Mr. Smith think $100 is a fair price to solve his problem. He pays, his problem is solved, he's happy. Joe is compensated for his work, he's happy. Jane thinks, "Mr. Smith would rather pay than sort through the net. I guess his time must be worth more to him." She's amused. I see GEnie as sifting through the net for the gems and charging people for this service. The information is still free and with the usenet postings will come information on public access unix sites and the means to get that information for free. Along with all the other "information" that fills the net. GEnie is charging for a service much like a consulting agency will charge for the service of sorting through a talent pool to find the individual that will fill the needs of their client. > Mitch > wagner@utoday.UUCP Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
kevin@mips.COM (Kevin Kuhn) (12/23/89)
I think this whole situation is a lot like sattelite technology. Any
business owner is free to purchase a sattelite dish and show pay
channels in their bar or restaurant, as long as the sattelite owner
doesn't use a descrambling device to decode information. USENET is
like the sat broadcaster sending out signal into the public domain.
GEnie is the bar owner who buys the equipment to receive these signals.
As the bar owner everyone who patronizes my business can see the sat programs.
I make profits selling liquor and food. However I'm not allowed to charge
an admission or a fee to see the programs, or as you here at the end of every
sports cast "is intended solely for the non commercial use...."
If GEnie is using the information in a way that they do not charge a premium
over their current connect rate (the normal cost for their service) then
they are doing nothing wrong.
If they charge a premium for access to USENET data, or or use USENET in a
commercial way to enhance their product (the same way a bar can't advertise
the fact they will be showing a boxing event off their sat dish to attract
customers to their business) then their is probably someway to stop them,
but it would probably take a lot of time and money.
--
=<standard.disclaimer>==========================================================
Kevin Kuhn kevin@mips.com
MIPS Computer Systems {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!kevingilmore@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Neil Gilmore) (12/23/89)
(all points I don't discuss deleted) In article <946@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes... >This message was posted by Dave Small to the atari newsgroup, and I have >many objections and some questions I'd like to pose to the net (so as not >to waste net $$ please direct all followups to news.misc or alt.flame): (I'd like to, but our reader is brain-damaged) (if someone else can, please put this in the appropriate place, thanks) >-> Date: 19 Dec 89 06:00:28 GMT >-> >From: dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) >-> Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st >-> Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working >-> Message-ID: <15097@well.UUCP> >-> It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink >-> from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted >-> by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie.[...] >-> The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information >-> bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed freely. >-> [...] I just want to get the maximum freedom of information >-> exchange possible between these networks; [...] In this case, the maximum is not enough to allow the minimum. >I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information. Dave talks about the >*exchange* of information. This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way >transfer of Usenet information. I object to the rape and plunder >(*for profit*) of Usenet! A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the >latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale >plunder of Usenet is not. I must second this opinion. Unless the 'article' link is both ways, forget it. >-> I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy. >-> [...] If someone has a real need not to have their notes forwarded to >-> GEnie, I will be happy to put a "filter" on to prevent it by request; [...] Thanks Dave. It would have been genuinely dishonest to make this link and not tell anyone... but I would have preferred discussion before the event, not after. Oh, well, at least we get to discuss it now. >I think this should be changed to ``only take articles from Usenet if a >person sends Dave his *approval*''. Why should I have to trust Dave to remove >my articles? What if he misses one? What if my mail can't get through?... If the link doesn't go away as I want it to, I think this is an acceptable alternative. Post only what has specific permission to post. (If you read this Dave, This is the ONLY one of my postings which I wish to go to GEnie. NO OTHERS may. Attempted mail to follow.) >I also object most strenously to Dave limiting MY access to information by >scaring away Usenet posters who don't want the kind of publicity GEnie >offers. Usenet is supported FREELY by a conglomeration of machines (each >company covering a bit of the expenses) and I object very, very much to >GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity. I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Publicity? >-> It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially >-> if/when 2-waymail gets going. No objections, only encouragement for a mail link (both ways, of course). Dave, there is a mail link to CompuServe, but I don't have any details. Mail is fundamentally different than posting. It is an exchange between 2 people, not 2 organizations. >-> [...] other areas on GEnie are >-> expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks, >-> USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're >-> doing post notes. But have any USENET groups expressed interest in having their group uplinked to GEnie? Have any USENET groups even expressed interest in a 2 way link to GEnie. If USENET is preceived as the place for those who know their stuff, why did those others get GEnie accounts instead of accounts on public USENET machines? I know of only 3 (portal, madnix, and macc), but there must be many other machines out there on which anyone can get an account. >Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on >GEnie? I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand! Agreed. Stop this now. >-> Why do it? Because a long time ago, on the CERL site on PLATO, a >-> person named Sherwin Gooch, ex-PLATO, ex-Atari, and now with Apple, >-> introduced me to the hacker ethic and freedom of information exchange as >-> its primary goal. (No, not illegal exchange, you know what I mean). [...] Sounds like a defferent hacker ethic than what I was raised on... I don't follow any of that crap they fed me when I was younger. >-> If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and >-> if convinced, drop the link. [...] I think you're getting an earful of what we think. >Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and >Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was >formerly free)! Sorry. Emotional argument of this type doesn't cut it. I don't believe that USENET will cease to exist because of this link, but it won't help it any either. >-> Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users >-> getting good information on time, for instance. Dave, you are known to us as a doer of good things. Your reputation is impeccable, at least in your business dealings. I believe that you intended to do good by this, but I believe more strongly that, ultimately, this will do no good for those who are generating the information that you wish to pass along, instead doing good for persons having no real connection with the originator. >The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in >political power becoming ``concerned''. Perhaps concerned enough to pass >legislation like that currenly up for review in New York: a sysop must >validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also >guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear >on any other service. Bad news to me. Blast this and other similar legislation, except for privacy of private email. Also unenforcable, as no sysop can guarantee that no person ever will download a message and upload it somewhare else. Make the originator responsible for their postings, not the sysops. >Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general, >are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger >by uploading Usenet articles wholesale? I hope that Dave will understand our sentiments and close down the link until such time as the Net Gods can pass judgement. I would think that any postings which specifically say that their information may not be distributed for profit would be incorrect for uplinking, as GEnie would be profitting from their posting to USENET. This pretty well leaves out any of the binaries and sources groups, as well as most of the code fragments in postings. As Dave does not profit, he should be in no trouble. Who will monitor every message to be certain which may be distributed and which may not be? That is what it would take to ensure copyright compliance. >Diane Barlow Close > {nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada > canada@crash.cts.com > Free Canada -- Trade Mulroney +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kitakaze Tatsu Raito Neil Gilmore internet:gilmore@macc.wisc.edu | | Jararvellir, MACC, UW-Madison bitnet: gilmore@wiscmac3 | | Middle Kingdom Madison, Wi | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/23/89)
I agree with Mel and Karl (and possibly JIK tho he sinks his case so
deep in other political agendas it's hard to tell) on that point: That
the links should be two-way and it would be interesting to know why
they're not. Can the local Genie users, for example, flame someone
locally and only other Genie users see their response? That would seem
unhealthy.
As to what to do about it, I would think the first thing would be to
simply express this to someone at Genie. I realize it's emotionally
satisfying to all play Red Queen and shout "off with their heads" (ie.
cut off their link, the meter is even right) as a first reaction but
given the probably tiny harm it seems that more civil approaches
should be tried first. If there is no satisfactory response (which
doesn't mean they have to succumb instantly to all demands) then it
could be discussed further among ourselves.
This just seems to be a bit of a tempest in a teapot, perhaps everyone
should calm down and figure out what exactly is needed.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzspleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) (12/23/89)
In article <33939@mips.mips.COM> kevin@mips.COM (Kevin Kuhn) writes: > I think this whole situation is a lot like sattelite technology. Any > business owner is free to purchase a sattelite dish and show pay > channels in their bar or restaurant, as long as the sattelite owner > doesn't use a descrambling device to decode information. USENET is > like the sat broadcaster sending out signal into the public domain. Given that the GEnie link has already been severed some might wonder why I am bothering to respond to this message. Since I've seen this type of argument before, I'm hoping to shoot it in the foot :-). The premise above is false. What's the difference between satellite technology and USENET?!? Satellite technology broadcasts its signal from a source and immediately loses control of it unless it is encrypted or the source has made prior arrangements to keep the material private through contract. Secondly, receiving nodes tend to be end nodes. With USENET, each node is a receiving node from its upstream site(s) and a source node for its downstream site(s). Each node controls who it will and will not feed based upon local policy and general agreement, if so willing, with other existing nodes. ERGO, USENET IS *NOT* A BROADCAST MEDIUM!! USENET *only* simulates broadcasts through many point-to-point links. With coming software technology, this may not always be the case but in the vast majority of situations right now, it certainly is the case. The minimal price, or shall I say cost, that a downstream site must pay for a connection into USENET is permission-for-connection from its upstream site. Without it, the downstream site is dead in the water. If downstream sites choose to become upstream sites for new downstream sites, and as upstream sites they choose to follow prinicples which `appear' to exist within USENET, then those principles exist by definition and will spread as long as the process continues to repeat itself. The effect of all of this is that no one site can come onto the network and do exactly as it pleases. To continue to co-exist within USENET one must maintain the permission of at least one upstream neighbor. In this case, GEnie's feed was convinced that the one-way outgoing link was a bad idea because it curtailed the *exchange* of information. Given that the feed site recognized and acted upon the argument, and given that we've seen this argument made many times before and effectively upheld in many cases, the `exchange of information' concept with other networks has become a principle of USENET. And by consequence, GEnie is not able to `do as it pleases.' Now, I am not making the claim that GEnie intended to resist sharing or exchanging information with USENET. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the concept was simply overlooked. I am using this episode to illustrate that USENET does have principles (if only from time to time) and is not a true broadcast medium as put forth above. -- Mel Pleasant {backbone}!rutgers!pleasant pleasant@rutgers.edu mpleasant@zodiac.bitnet
paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) (12/24/89)
In article <946@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: + As witten by: dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) > -> I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy. > -> [...] If someone has a real need not to have their notes forwarded to > -> GEnie, I will be happy to put a "filter" on to prevent it by request; [...] > > I think this should be changed to ``only take articles from Usenet if a > person sends Dave his *approval*''. Why should I have to trust Dave to remove > Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link? In general, > are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing? Is GEnie in any danger > by uploading Usenet articles wholesale? I would suggest that you compose a "letter of objection" much as you have posted above. Spell out explicitly, suscinctly, and politely what your objections are and why you don't want your material posted on GEnie. In addition, explain why you feel that explicit approval is more appropriate than the system Mr. Small proposes. Try to get a consensus on it in the affected group, and ask anyone who feels the same way that you do to submit a copy of the letter or a reference to the same. At the same time collect names and ID's of people who agree with you, sorted by those in the group and net.people in general. Be extreamly scrupulous in forming this list. Then submit the letter and list to the management of GEnie. If you can get a sufficient number of people to cooperate, the GEnie feed will become of marginal value. Only fractions of conversations would be transmitted iff Mr. Small abides by his word. If you have the people who post the best information with you as well, the content of the transmitted data will be marginal. Likewise, if a large number of people object to the practice, GEnie's management might form a policy (perhaps a two way exchange) that would address your objections. (By the way, don't make threats. Be amicable and seek a solution to the problem. They may surprise you.) Paul J. Mech oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul { CAUTION: some reply generated paths end on oucsace and are lost. }
karl@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/24/89)
johnm@spudge.uucp writes:
There are others on the net who have expressed that they have no objection
to for profit distribution of their articles. This is fine for them, but
unfortunately this is one situation where every single posting member of
Usenet is affected and unless the agreement is UNANIMOUS it cannot continue.
[hee-hee]
There's three-quarters of a million people reading and posting to the
Usenet, and here I see you mention unanimous agreement as though it
were eminently within our grasp.
[cough]
This not only ignores the self-evident fact that no unanimous
agreement is possible on _anything_ amidst such a horde, but also
ignores the existing cases of Portal, the WELL, and UUNET, all of whom
turn a profit (or, as Rick informed me yesterday, are permitted an
"excess of revenues over expenses" by the IRS). If you already, and
always, include redistribution restriction signatures, then perhaps
(and only perhaps) you have a case to make, and it is true that this
particular article had a copyright notice; but the very next article I
saw from you, on the very same subject, lacked such a notice. How
seriously do you expect your position to be taken?
--Karlcosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/24/89)
johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) writes: >This article is Copyright 1989 by John Munsch, All Rights Reserved. >Note the above, it is a copyright. It is the answer for all of you who wish >to end of GEnie's abuse of the net (an abuse which if left unanswered would >surely spread to other pay networks as well). Note the above --- legal advice from someone who clearly has at best a weak grasp of the law. In the US, the "copyright" notice has not been necessary for some time now [although it might help if you actually go to court, but it is difficult to imagine any posting-infringement case being worth a lawyer's time]. Second, lots of luck showing some kind of damages if a posting of yours has its copyright 'infringed'. Third, if you are REALLY reserving all of your rights, then your posting is not going to get very far, since you have just precluded its being propagated. [Either my site has the 'right' to send your posting on to the next site or it does not, right? Did you reserve that right or not?] Altogether, this matter is fairly complicated, has never been tested in court with or without a copyright notice [far as I've ever heard], and anyone who is worried about this idiotic problem (and I confess that I cannot understand what it is that gets you folks so worked up) who thinks that there is a "simple" legal solution is deluding themself [and only betraying how little of the legal situation they really understand]. Give it a rest, for crissake.... if you think your postings are worth money, go try to sell them; if you're posting for the hell of it, let your posting go where it may and forget about it. Geez... /Bernie\
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/24/89)
It is my opinion that only human beings can violate a copyright. Computers can't. So if a link is created (by humans) but afterwards maintained by machine, then if that link violates a copyright, the violation is by the human who commanded the transfer. If copyrighted information is already flowing, and I tap into it without permission, then I, in creating the link, am guilty. If a link exists, and people start feeding copyrighted information down that link, even though this would be a violation of the copyright, then the people doing the feeding are guilty. What this means to my mind is -- any copyright that forbids material from going down a link to a system you don't like *is* valid if you declare it before the link is in place. But it is not valid if you declare it after the link is in place, and you yourself use that link. What the courts will actually decide someday I can't predict. But the above seems just. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/24/89)
Jonathon, the original intent is to bring GEnie into the Net as a 2-way link, not as an "information sink". The present(well, past, now) kludge was just a demo to show GEnie that it would be mutually beneficial to do so. We're suffering here from bad initial information; see my reply to the "GEnie link is down.." note for more information. -- thanks, Dave Small / Gadgets
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/24/89)
The basenote refers to USENET notes on GEnie enticing GEnie users.'' That's exactly why they're there. I want GEnie users (and more importantly, sysops) asking GEnie mgmt. to make this connection, and to concede the things that aren't negotiable -- no copyright, 2-way, etc. People don't appreciate USENET until they *see* it -- hence the temporary uplink. My error was in not explaining all of what I was doing, and in having someone react fairly hysterically to it, without checking facts or motives. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets
jim@esfenn.UUCP (Jim Klessig) (12/25/89)
I think Rape is a very accurate term here, I would suggest that any posting to groups that this will happen to simply include copyiight notices in each posting explicitly allowing nonprofit reproduction, and forbidding any reproductionn for sale or profit. THis would put GEnie in a very unhappy situation if any of the posts were not removed, of being responsible for copyright violations. Bein A for profit service like that has a lot to loose, and not that much to gain.
njs@scifi.UUCP (Nicholas J. Simicich) (12/26/89)
In article <8912220034.AA09899@sorinc.PacBell.COM> magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM (Darrin A. Hyrup) writes: >Technically no. The copyright laws clearly state that if you release >your copyrighted material into the public domain, it is no longer >copyrighted and can be transferred in any way the recievers see fit. >Btw, under the Berne Convention (of which the USA is now a member), >you do not have to put a "Copyright (c) 1989", in your original works >to have a copyright, but you give up any such rights by putting your >works into the public domain. Since the very nature of Usenet >dictates that any works that are entered into the net are in the >public domain, you would have a hell of a time trying to prove misuse >of your information in any court if you tried to sue for violation of >your copyright. Um, er, excuse me, but do you suppose that someone loses copyright by publishing a book? I've heard this interesting assertion about stuff posted to Usenet being automatically placed into the public domain before. It is certain that by posting, you are consenting to having your article widely published, on Usenet. In fact, you are self publishing, through the act of posting. I don't think you've done anything to void your personal copyright. Were someone to publish a book titled, "The Collected Wisdom of Darrin Hyrup", by excerpting all of your Usenet posts, well, that action is clearly not what you were consenting to by posting, in my opinion. You might be able to sue and get a cut. I personally, don't object to GEnie making a profit on connect time. I object to their compilation copyright. Normally, when you become a user of one of these services, you sign an agreement that you will not publish what you download, and you also agree to their copyright on what you post. For example, if someone copied the Atari stuff wholesale from GEnie and posted it to BIX or Compuserve, GEnie would probably cut them off and might attempt to recover damages if they thought they were damaged (but Brad has convinced me that the only damage to GEnie would be in letting potential users know how bad it is :-) ). By posting to Usenet, I'm not consenting to having my postings copied to a commercial service and placed under compilation copyright. I don't think that anyone can construe what I'm doing as posting as such permission. But, frankly, I don't think I'd be damaged enough to worry about it. -- Nick Simicich --- uunet!bywater!scifi!njs --- njs@ibm.com (Internet)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/27/89)
In article <1034@scifi.UUCP> njs@scifi.UUCP (Nicholas J. Simicich) writes: >I personally, don't object to GEnie making a profit on connect time. >I object to their compilation copyright. Normally, when you become a >user of one of these services, you sign an agreement that you will not >publish what you download, and you also agree to their copyright on >what you post. For example, if someone copied the Atari stuff >wholesale from GEnie and posted it to BIX or Compuserve, GEnie would >probably cut them off and might attempt to recover damages if they >thought they were damaged People misunderstand compilation copyright. It doesn't stop you from doing anything with the original postings, or original sub-collections, that you could do before. Posting a PD or Shareware program on GEnie doesn't change one whit your right o put it on USENET, compuserve or (if you're the owner or it's PD) doing whatever you want with it. With USENET postings on GEnie or CIS, the compilation copyright would have no bearing on the collection known as USENET. It could not interfere in any way with the feeding of USENET via other machines. There is a technical, but rather silly and unlikely way it could be used to stop people getting a USENET feed *from* GEnie, but I can't imagine it taking place. Compilation copyright protects one thing and one thing only -- the unique effort of compiling and editing the collection. CIS's compilation copyright stops you from taking CIS's IBM-PC library, downloading a sizeable portion of it, and setting up your own online service, BBS or library with the same library. And individual program you get from any other source that happens to be on CIS you can do with as you please (within the limits of the real copyright holder's rules.) If you build an Online service and/or a library of shareware/PD material, and a lot of effort is spent in making it, you deserve protection for that effort. It should not be legal for somebody to start up a competitor, and just blatently copy the library you have developed in years of operation. That's all it means. >(but Brad has convinced me that the only >damage to GEnie would be in letting potential users know how bad it is >:-) ). That's not what I said at all, by the way. GEnie has lots of great areas. But the way discussion works there is not strictly compatible with USENET, because E-mail is discouraged and private messages on the BB section are not uncommon. This would not mesh well with USENET without a bit of work. >By posting to Usenet, I'm not consenting to having my postings copied >to a commercial service and placed under compilation copyright. I >don't think that anyone can construe what I'm doing as posting as such >permission. This is a more gray area, but in my opinion, this is incorrect. (This has never been decided by case-law, however.) You post to USENET, and you are consenting to both of the following: a) What is generally expected for a USENET posting, namely very wide electronic distribution to many thousands of sites at companies, schools, and BBoards, including what is often called USENET, BITNET, Internet, DEC E-NET and related nets b) Any automated electronic distribution, commercial or otherwise, that was set in place prior to your posting. If the law does *not* rule B to be the case, then it has to deal with problems like messages that contain things like: "This message is copyright 1852 by Foo Enterprises. Permission is granted to copy this message by all sites with a site name beginning with a vowel. Any site whose name begins with a consonant may not copy this message in any form for profit or otherwise." If an automatic link's in place, then YOU the poster are the one using it to copy your message, *not* the owners of the link. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (12/27/89)
I can see it now. Everyone will start putting in larger and larger copyright notices attempting ( but failing ) to limit distribution of their articles. Eventually, the news software will have to be hacked to limit these just like it was with signature files and include text. Geez. Tim Smith This article Copyright 1989 by Tim Smith. All Rights Reserved. No one is granted permission to read this article. If you already did, you may be able to convince me not to sue you by sending me $1...
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/28/89)
First: David Small has behaved like a true net gentlebeing throughout this episode, and he deserves public congratulations. If only more of us exhibited such concern for what the rest of the net thinks! Second: Gatewaying certain special interest mailing lists and/or newsgroups with the corresponding GEnie roundtables sounds like a winner, providing it's two way, but also providing the GEnie moderater staff are carefully apprised of their responsibilities as 'news admins'. Where there are useful sources of answers out there, Usenet ought to have access. However clogging core newsgroups with trivial noise traffic is undesirable. (In fairness, GEnie seems less prone to this than, say, CompuServe, due perhaps to attendance and the nature of the conference/topic structure vs. flat-thread-rotating CIS Forums.) Third: A straight, personal Email gateway is overdue and should be created a la 'saqqara' by GEnie management. Has nothing to do with the rest of this discussion. All commercial vendors should get on the stick in this dept. Fourth: These clear-the-air contributions from Small and Pleasant are welcome, but the "... so let's stop discussing it" coda is misplaced. Commercial gateway issues need to be discussed, now rather than later, and this is a good excuse. Nobody has the right to squelch a topic. When it stops being interesting, it will die down of its own accord. Fifth: The danger of establishing pussycat precedents with ONE commercial vendor just because they seem like "nice people" is that the NEXT vendor may be scum, but now the precedents are set. Leave us not kid ourselves -- unorthodox and unorganized though it may be, Usenet is a fantastic asset to be able to advertise as 'available' on your commercial service. Can you just imagine the day potatohead Pournelle gets his "Arpanet account" back via McGraw-Hill's weird BIX service? BYTE readers will never hear the end of it, and neither will we. An anarchist would say we should remain as "shifty" and hard to stay connected-to as possible to discourage corporate co-optation; but even a plain pragmatist would say we should husband our virtue. Sixth: Would our jailhouse lawyers please not revive Ye Aulde Copyright Argument. Go test something in court, for crissake. In the meantime if you want a medium susceptible to the diligent defense of authorship rights, pick something besides Usenet. -- War is like love; it always \%\%\% Tom Neff finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht %\%\%\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/28/89)
In article <25415@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: >This article Copyright 1989 by Tim Smith. All Rights Reserved. >No one is granted permission to read this article. If you already >did, you may be able to convince me not to sue you by sending >me $1... I believe that this is an attempt to extort money from me. That is a crime. Since you used the telephone system and crossed state lines, it is probably a federal crime. Your threat of legal action has put me under great emotional stress. I think that I will sue, unless.... /craig P.S. only kidding.
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (12/28/89)
In the referenced article, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > It is my opinion that only human beings can violate a copyright. > Computers can't. > > So if a link is created (by humans) but afterwards maintained by > machine, then if that link violates a copyright, the violation is > by the human who commanded the transfer. I'm not sure I completely agree. It really depends on how you define "commanded the transfer". One could argue that the original poster "commanded the transfer" by posting the article with real or constructive knowledge as to the workings of the news transport software; alternately one could argue that the person(s) who control the machine "commanded the transfer" by installing and activating software that mechnically performs various acts of copying and dissemination. It has a lot to do with whether you adopt a "publisher", "common carrier", or "bookstore" paradigm for Usenet, and that remains a totally open question. > If copyrighted information is already flowing, and I tap into it without > permission, then I, in creating the link, am guilty. > > If a link exists, and people start feeding copyrighted information down > that link, even though this would be a violation of the copyright, then > the people doing the feeding are guilty. > > What this means to my mind is -- any copyright that forbids material from > going down a link to a system you don't like *is* valid if you declare it > before the link is in place. But it is not valid if you declare it after > the link is in place, and you yourself use that link. I understand the underlying point, but if I were representing an infringement plaintiff, one of the points I might touch on would be the fact that any news administrator could, at his option, install a filter that would eliminate dissemination of any article with notice of copyright, or a special type of notice, or whatever. (I'm not talking about AI here, just a regular expression type thingie). This would be overinclusive, but would effectively eliminate the possibility of infringement. A defense to this is the fact that no such filter exists in the widely-used news transport software (it may come to that, someday, though the performance penalty for those who choose to compile it in would be severe indeed); however, such a filter would be a quick hack for anyone who understands the news software. In which case, the argument, "Yes, Your Honour, but the defendant didn't even spend a hour or two on a technical solution that would have effectively and automatically prevented the infringement" might be a persuasive one. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/30/89)
Genie's been informed of what I think are the reasonable needs of USENET if thereis going to be some link. But look, they're all on holiday. Can we table this until someone from Genie who can respond is back? Personally, I'm hoping they'll go for it. They aren't nearly as money-only minded as somehave made them out to be; they regularly try new and experimental RT's, for instance, that have little chance of making much money. The people I talk to there seem sane. By "reasonable needs" I mean 2-way, email, no copyright hassles. I'll let you know what happens, okay? And man, am I sorry for stirring up this fuss. I get the impression this has happened before, though ...:-) -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets
jpoplaws@telesci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) (01/10/90)
In article <66654@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >What this means to my mind is -- any copyright that forbids material from >going down a link to a system you don't like *is* valid if you declare it >before the link is in place. But it is not valid if you declare it after >the link is in place, and you yourself use that link. I think that the above statement is really bogus. How can anyone forbid their material from going down a link to a system before the link is in place? Is every user supposed to have ESP and know when new links which may be objectionable are going to be created? I don't think so. I think that if a link is created that is objectionable, and there are people who do not want their material transmitted to that site, that it would be the objectionable site, and it's feed that should make sure that the material doesn't get there. Just some thoughts... -Jo
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/26/90)
In article <1989Dec21.024040.25157@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > It is irrelevant what the specific charges are for. The fact is >that if people are reading the postings that are gatewayed to GEnie, >then GEnie is making money off of them [...] No, it is *not* irrelevant what the charges are for. You pay for connect time, not the data. This is no different than the money being made by the phone company. Do you expect the LD carriers to share the profits with the authors? > FSF charges to cover the cost of the tape and the cost of copying >it. They do not charge to make a profit; that would be completely >against what they stand for. No, the FSF charges for the *service* not the content of the tape. They have never been against anyone charging for their services. > Yes, but as I have said in a previous posting, when you pay for the >phone, or the modem, or the Intenet, or the disks, you GET SOMETHING >BACK. Yes, you obtain the (free) data that you would not otherwise have by paying for the services that deliver it to you. In what way would that be different when you use GENIE instead of some other service? Keep in mind that "free" services are never actually free - someone has to pay the bills. The difference with services like GENIE is that users are willing to pay their own way. Obviously, no one is going to be forced to use their services. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) (02/12/90)
canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in >political power becoming ``concerned''. Perhaps concerned enough to pass >legislation like that currenly up for review in New York: a sysop must >validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also >guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear >on any other service. I certainly agree with you on this latter. Although I have objected to the commercialization of the Usenet (without result) in the past, I continue to agree that the Usenet should not become entangled with commercial enterprises. (That is one of the reasons why I have resisted substantial pressure to sign up with UUNET.) Subscribers to the PRODIGY service are well familiar with the extent to which the operators of a commercial service can go in asserting their legal right to censorship, as evidenced by the recent eradication, without prior discussion, of the entire "health" topic area on PRODIGY after one of the users complained that he didn't want his children reading discussion (other than his) about AIDS there. (He had previously posted statistics on the subject which some of the other participants maintained were invalid.) One can imagine that subscribers to a commercial service might similarly object to the Usenet's diverse topic areas, and, on a similar moral crusade, set out to force elimination of Usenet topic areas. Of course, this is not that likely here, though possible. But it does seem that the Usenet's support of a free exchange of ideas, originating in the academic and research community (which has regrettably already withdrawn somewhat from the Usenet), is something that is not often found on the commercial boards. It seems unwise to allow people to profit from the Usenet's particular mix of participants unless the majority feel that they are willing for it to do so. But this is just my personal opinion; yours may differ. -- Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) "Some countries maintain `fast time' throughout the year, in which case it becomes `standard time'." -- DMA World Map 1150 (USGS)