steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (12/21/89)
(In regard to the availability of Usenet postings on GEnie) ... In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes ... >Hmmm, I don't think this is very fair to the Usenet community, and I, for >one, object to Usenet being used in such a commercial way. I have no >objection to two-way *mail* links, but I seriously object to all my >postings appearing on GEnie or other commercial networks. I think, >perhaps, the Usenet ``etiquette'' gods may have something to say about all >this as well. An argument could be mounted that Usenet has no gods, only a handful of people who occasionally lapse into delusions of godhood. :-) The best description of Usenet that I have heard is "barely controlled chaos." What is wrong with GEnie making the data available? Is it that GEnie makes a profit? By far the majority of Usenet sites are for-profit companies. Or at least they *try* to make a profit. Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? That standard would equally condemn WELL, Portal and even Crash Timesharing (pnet01 charges for access, according to the nixpub listing). And the universities certainly tend to charge a pretty stiff tuition these days. So scratch them, too. Is it that GEnie somehow prevents free access to the data? Consider that most corporate Usenet sites don't allow *any* public access. GE makes it available to more people, not less. >What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. Plunder is a pretty strong word. Usenet, as in "the community of users who have agreed to freely share data," is not diminished. On the contrary, it is GEnie that is at risk. As more people become aware of Usenet, they may choose to patronize one of the many public-access Unix systems rather than the controlled, centralized, regimented -- and commercial -- services. -- Steve Yelvington at the (frozen enough to skate!) lake in Minnesota UUCP: ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve
koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (12/22/89)
In article <1120891450065830@thelake.UUCP> thelake!steve@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu writes: >Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? That standard would >equally condemn WELL, Portal and even Crash Timesharing... No, it's that GEnie doesn't let its users contribute back to the net. GEnie does NOT have that in common with WELL and Portal. The net is as successful as it is because it's a two-way street. Of course, once GEnie gets mail access to the outside world, the problem will go away, as its users will be able to post to the net using a backbone site. And as someone else mentioned, they'll be able to get digestified versions of comp.sys.atari.st, as many BITNET users do now, so the whole issue will be moot. I don't see why folks think GEnie is so concerned about its messages slipping into the outside world. I mean, Portal gives full access to the net and still manages to turn a tidy profit. Certainly, I'm not suggesting that all the GEnie discussions should be broadcast to the world, but I don't see a problem with letting its users specify the equivalent of USENET's "Distribution:" line to control how far the messages go. (I suppose they could be worried about people not subscribing to GEnie if they can get the discussions for free. Frankly, I think most of GEnie's for-pay discussions pale in comparison to the net's free ones, so any such problem should already exist. And as for software, I'll take the sources/ binaries groups any day...) --- " !" - Marcel Marceau Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st koreth@ebay.sun.com ...!sun!ebay!koreth
patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) (12/22/89)
In article <330@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >In article <935@crash.cts.com>, canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >> What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will >> stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature). I don't like Usenet being >> ``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets. If GEnie is that ``tapped >> out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then >> perhaps GEnie should be disbanded. [ ] >Now, anyone who is on GEnie and reads this can decide they would rather >pay a different provider of service. For example, in Seattle there are at >least three companies that will provide Usenet access for a price. Isn't only a matter of time before the NIXPUB listings are posted to any/all of the GEnie conferences? They already appear on Compu$erve and many uses on our local public access site here in New York actually got information about the site from commercial services as well as from publications they had to pay for. Isn't it true that once a user spends a few hours downloading files fromm a service he/she has to pay $5/hr to use and then discovers that the same files can be downloaded form a public access site for a mere $5/month, the thought would occur to that user that said files could be more easily and quickly obtained using less $$? I formerly worked with a lawyer whose personal reputation as well as that of his law firm was being bandied about in "American Lawyer" (also known as the "Inquirer" of the legal profession) and, surprisingly, he was not, in the least bit, dismayed when he read the articles and, in fact, he said "as long as they spell my name and the firm's name correctly, it doesn't bother me at all - any publicity is good publicity!" Now, the question, who, if anyone or, what, if any corporation, could ever control the information flowing through UseNET? They could filter it, and edit it but as long as users can dial in to public access sites they can't stop it or control it. -- Patt Haring patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu -=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/22/89)
steve@thelake.uucp writes:
What is wrong with GEnie making the data available?
Is it that GEnie makes a profit? ...
Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? ...
Is it that GEnie somehow prevents free access to the data? ...
None of these are the problem. Well, perhaps the 3rd, in a way.
Portal, the WELL, and a few dozen fee-based, NIXPUB-advertised sites
all charge somehow, usually by the hour or month. So does UUNET,
though I believe that UUNET is still formally a non-profit entity. (I
could be wrong, though; I haven't thought about it much for quite a
while.) So charging per se is not the problem, nor is the profit they
gain via charging.
The problem is that they are not sharing back with the rest of us. As
Steve Bellovin said in a note to me last March, one should "hold out
for symmetry -- arrangements where they get the Usenet feed, but don't
feed back, aren't cricket." (For those [few, I hope] who might be
unaware, Steve is one of those responsible for the original
shell-script-based implementation of what we now call Usenet, back in
1979.) UUNET exists for the express purpose of getting people to
share; people on Portal and the WELL can always post. Not so with GEnie.
_That_ is the problem - that they do not, cannot, share. All other
things about them would make them a more-or-less ordinary net.citizen,
but the lack of even the _potential_ for reciprocation is what makes
the link undesirable. From what we've been told about the link, GEnie
has absorbed Usenet postings into its "anthology copyright" (thereby, of
course, making their copyright highly suspect as to its validity).
Also, as Brad mentioned, the lack of an email link is a really serious
problem. Individuals on the other side of the gateway can't be
reached at this point. Only by broadcasting to the Known Universe (of
comp.sys.atari.st) can any single person be found on the opposite side
of the gateway, no matter which side any given user is on. This is
not a good idea on the Usenet. Standing in a crowded room and trying
to have a private conversation with someone 30 yards away by shouting
at one another is, shall we say, suboptimal. You wouldn't want to do
it at the office, you wouldn't want to do it at a party, and you
shouldn't do it on electronic networks. It would have been far
preferable to build an email gateway first, and only then implement a
news gateway.
If the link must stay (and I wish it would either go away or convert
to 2-way), it is imperative that an email gateway be built
immediately, without weird, hackish addressing schemes using extra
fake headers and so forth. This can be done, and it's not even
difficult, at least from this Internet side. (The amount of support
from the GEnie side that would be required, I can't even guess.)
--Karl