canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) (12/24/89)
Well, the GEnie-Usenet link is down. So much for all the doom- and-gloom-sayers in news.misc who figured that Usenet is too disorganized to accomplish anything. I'd say we were pretty successful (this time). Some of you might be interested in the events that led me to post about Dave Small's idea in such a strongly-worded way. Also, it is my only chance to ``talk'' to Dave directly since he's not answering his mail (or is it just my mail :-) No surprise there. I had known about the Usenet-GEnie link for several days before it was actually announced. When I was first told it existed (not many details were given) and I thought the link was a great idea. It presented another place to send news. After all, isn't the purpose of Usenet to be a free-flow of information, spreading as much information, around to as many sites, as possible? What I didn't know then was that the Usenet news being placed on GEnie was being covered by their copyright (or at least the GEnie people figured the news was now copyrighted). I discovered this fact the day of Dave's ``the link is up'' posting. In a discussion about a friend trying to obtain several of my Usenet postings from the Usenet-uplink area of GEnie, GEnie customer service people threatened to ``sue'' any site found posting news that GEnie had received from Usenet *after* GEnie had received it ('cause the Usenet news now ``belonged'' to GEnie). Before all you amateur copyright lawyers send follow-up flames, let me assure you that I realize the ridiculousness and unenforceabililty of this situation. GEnie *can't* copyright something that's already in the public domain. (And I probably got stuck talking to a tired, over-zealous GEnie representative, rather than an ``informed'' person.) But, the confusion surrounding this situation on GEnie's part was enough to get me worried. Next I received some reliable information that Dave was on the verge of licensing the ``link technology'' to GEnie. If we didn't act very fast to convince Dave to rethink the link, it wouldn't matter if *his* atari newsgroup-GEnie link were shut down, 'cause GEnie would be busy draining (and copyrighting) the rest of Usenet. (And Dave, Mark Booth did NOT give me this information, so you can start talking to him again.) Next, Dave's ``the link is up'' posting carried the tone of `the link is carved in stone, the only thing that I'll change is whether individual's postings are removed'. After careful consideration of all the events, I was convinced me that I had to spurred me to strike in the quickest, hardest manner I could. I believed I didn't have much time to waste with gentle, ``let's think about this guys'' letters. Sorry my strongly worded posting irritated Dave, but it had the desired effect very quickly: mobilize as many people as possible to convince Dave to re-think the link. While I knew that many of you would post loud, angry responses, I knew that many more would write quiet, well-reasoned responses (showing *both* sides of the argument) in answer to my posting. I believe my ``inciteful'' posting put many, many more reasoned responses in Dave's mailbox than if I had written an easily-ignored, calmly-worded appeal to the net. I wanted to spur as many people to respond as possible, and I think I was successful. That's not to say I was just in this ``battle'' to raise the cry and then leave. No sir. I was prepared for the long haul. Dave actually surprised me when he withdrew the link so suddenly after only a few days of protest. His first posting led me to believe that the link would be here for a long time no matter what. So now I don't have to write to the management of GEnie, and I don't have to organize petitions, and I don't have to appeal to sites feeding GEnie to stop. There was even a movement to change news sending software so that it attached ``copylefts'' to *whole batches* of news, thus preventing GEnie from using many, many postings. Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation must be commended for coming up with, and organizing the execution of, that last idea. I'd also like to thank Richard for placing the FSF's lawyers at my disposal. I'm very happy I didn't need to use them. I'd like to thank Dave for giving the net the best Christmas present we could ever have wanted: peace for the present and hope for the future. I'd like to go on record as saying I'm NOT against sites that make a profit from Usenet, nor do I have many problems with read- only sites. I do, however, have serious problems with any site that tries to copyright my (or anyone's) postings and prevent the dissemination of information. I'd like to work with Dave to make the GEnie-Usenet link viable and useful (for both sides). If Dave declines my offer (and I expect he will :-) then I hope he at least posts his link ideas for the net for discussion *before* implementation. It would be even better if he accepted the help and support of the many, many knowledgeable people who volunteered it this week. Well, that's all I have to say on the topic. The rest of you can continue this discussion (as I know you will). Don't let it degenerate into too much name-calling. :-) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone (even you, Dave :-) -- Diane Barlow Close {nosc, ucsd}!crash!canada canada@crash.cts.com Free Canada -- Trade Mulroney
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/24/89)
Please folks, let's not all flame about a lot of heresay. I know the people who run GEnie, and I feel fairly sure that they would not try to claim any particular copyright on material fed to USENET from GEnie, unless some effort were done to filter that feed. As far as I know, GEnie would probably be glad to act as a USENET feed for material uploaded to USENET, passing it on to other sites, for $6/hour, once they get such software up. So please, no flame wars over something that somebody thinks they heard from somebody not in a position to say anything. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (12/27/89)
[Let me start by saying that while this reads like a flame of Diane, that it isn't. It is a flame against a much larger group, not just one person. Diane's note was just a convienent starting point. --- dlm] in article <966@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) says: > Next I received some reliable information that Dave was on the > verge of licensing the ``link technology'' to GEnie. If we > didn't act very fast to convince Dave to rethink the link, it > wouldn't matter if *his* atari newsgroup-GEnie link were shut > down, 'cause GEnie would be busy draining (and copyrighting) the > rest of Usenet. (And Dave, Mark Booth did NOT give me this > information, so you can start talking to him again.) Very interesting. I talk to Dave far more than most people and I NEVER heard anything about his "licensing the ``link technology''. I suspect that your "source" wasn't as well informed as he/she thought. > That's not to say I was just in this ``battle'' to raise the cry > and then leave. No sir. I was prepared for the long haul. Dave > actually surprised me when he withdrew the link so suddenly after > only a few days of protest. His first posting led me to believe > that the link would be here for a long time no matter what. Dave withdrew the link since he was SURPRISED that so many people were against it. Especially since he had said he was working on it in the past and no one complained. So he went ahead and set up a simple pass though to GEnie, announces it and suddenly was the target of lots of attacks. Given that why shouldn't he take the easy way out and shutdown? Remember he thought he was doing something people would approve of. And where in the first posting did he say the link was going to stay up no matter what? (I believe you are reading what you want to into his note.) I happen to think that a Usenet to GEnie link, either one or two way is a bad idea. Mainly because of the high S/N ratio on the commercial nets like GEnie (at one time or another I've used all of them). But if such a link goes up I'm not going to worry about it. I'm already on several of the commercial nets, having what I say here also posted there doesn't change things very much. I am very surprised at how many people treated this. People are now using this as a way of bragging that they were ready to fight the battle till the bitter end. And how if it hadn't been for them that Usenet would have been ruined. Almost sounds like they (and there are lots of people in that "they") need the PR in order to join the "net gods". This all could've been handled, politely, with a few email messages to Dave telling him why he was wrong to setup a one way link to GEnie. He does read and answer his mail. (It does take awhile, his mail/news feed adds at least 1 day, and often 2 days, each directtion.) Instead there was a wild attack with no attempt to try milder measures. Oh well, maybe it was just time for a good flame war and Dave was just the easiest target. Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druwy.ATT.COM
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/27/89)
In article <4578@druwy.ATT.COM> dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: | I happen to think that a Usenet to GEnie link, either one or | two way is a bad idea. Mainly because of the high S/N ratio on the | commercial nets like GEnie (at one time or another I've used all of | them). But if such a link goes up I'm not going to worry about it. | I'm already on several of the commercial nets, having what I say here | also posted there doesn't change things very much. I don't much like the idea of a one way link, for reasons previously stated. I would be in favor of a two way link, because it would allow feedback from the GEnie side, which possibly would contain useful info. I believe that I can write a copyright notice which allows redistribution of my articles to any forum which allows a response, should I feel that was needed. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon