jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (06/08/89)
Was the announcement about IN MODERATION legit? It seemed
to have a satirical tone in parts; the spokesperson's name seemed
phoney, and the name of the company made me wonder, too.
Jeff
--
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those
who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality."
-- Dantesuzy@tank.uchicago.edu (suzy marie mercer) (06/09/89)
In article <4450@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >Was the announcement about IN MODERATION legit? It seemed >to have a satirical tone in parts; the spokesperson's name seemed >phoney, and the name of the company made me wonder, too. > >Jeff I found myself chuckling all the way through the In Moderation announcement. Then I was shocked to see the responses to it from people who believed it was real. I hope you are right. I would hate to think that such a fine parody is wasted. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ suzy marie mercer Life is like Thai food. Internet: suzy@tank.uchicago.edu UUCP: ..!uunet!mimsy!oddjob!tank!suzy ------------------------------------------------------------------------
amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (06/09/89)
In article <4450@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > Was the announcement about IN MODERATION legit? It seemed > to have a satirical tone in parts; the spokesperson's name seemed > phoney, and the name of the company made me wonder, too. Well, I've met Geoff Goodfellow in person, and I assure you he's legit. A little cynical about Usenet, maybe, but I can't say as I blame him... -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.UUCP> -- "Some of the worst mistakes in history have resulted from trying to apply methods that work fine in one field to another where they don't." -James Hogan
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (06/09/89)
In article <4450@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Was the announcement about IN MODERATION legit? It seemed >to have a satirical tone in parts; the spokesperson's name seemed >phoney, and the name of the company made me wonder, too. No, Geoff Goodfellow, his MIPS machine and his company are all real, and I suspect that the service is too. The tone was amusing, and I especially liked the enumeration of advisory board members; a parody of modern high-tech press puffery striving to achieve some cachet. Still, if larger firms can do it with a straight face, why not? -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/29/89)
According to davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat): >It's not as if they're doing anything which will affect the net. All the >IM folks are proposing is sending a subset of messages from the net to other >sites. But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the articles they forward. Further, this redistribution for which they're being paid is batches of >copyrighted< articles. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly haven't gotten a call from IMN asking if they can make money from my articles. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
kdb@InterCon.uu.net (Kurt Baumann) (06/30/89)
In article <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat): > >It's not as if they're doing anything which will affect the net. All the > >IM folks are proposing is sending a subset of messages from the net to other > >sites. > > But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the > articles they forward. Further, this redistribution for which they're > being paid is batches of >copyrighted< articles. I don't know about anyone > else, but I certainly haven't gotten a call from IMN asking if they can > make money from my articles. > -- > You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. > Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> > A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! As much as I hate to get involved in this... They are not making money from your or anyone elses articles. They are making money from sorting through the articles and then sending those that they found to have some content on to their subscribers. Strickly speaking they do not make money off of your articles, but rather from the screening service. -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 46950 Community Plaza Suite 101-132 Sterling, VA 22170 Phone: 703.450.7117
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (07/01/89)
In article <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat): > >It's not as if they're doing anything which will affect the net. All the > >IM folks are proposing is sending a subset of messages from the net to other > >sites. > But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the > articles they forward. Further, this redistribution for which they're > being paid is batches of >copyrighted< articles. I don't know about anyone > else, but I certainly haven't gotten a call from IMN asking if they can > make money from my articles. A fascinating thought. What if they simply sent their subscribers (copyrighted) lists of article ID's which the subscribers would then bundle into sendme control articles that are then shipped to their local full-feed site? I suppose InM would have to restrict this to leaf nodes, though perhaps a full-feed site itself could benefit from receiving the list of article ID's which would be used by newsreader programs to allow the readers to read the "good" articles while still allowing the machine to perform the "useful public service" of forwarding entire USENET feeds. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em? Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/01/89)
In article <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the >articles they forward. Not as I understand it. Anybody is free to distribute almost all of the individual articles they forward, individually or in small groups, or as a subset of a larger feed. You just can't redistribute the exact same set or something just like it. In the same way, while I am free to do anything I like with all of the words in the unix spelling checker dictionary, I am not at all free to copy the complete list to anybody. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (07/02/89)
In article <3579@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the >>articles they forward. > >Not as I understand it. Anybody is free to distribute almost all of the >individual articles they forward, individually or in small groups, or >as a subset of a larger feed. > >You just can't redistribute the exact same set or something just like it. > >In the same way, while I am free to do anything I like with all of the words >in the unix spelling checker dictionary, I am not at all free to copy the >complete list to anybody. And that is the problem I have with In Moderation or any other such service which would use TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom. I specifically want it to be available for anyone to use, word for word, just as the readers have written it and just as I have compiled it. I do not want changes in it and I do not want so much as a single word removed from it or restricted. I do not want a fee of any sort to be levied for reading it, nor any restrictions applied for passing it along except one: that when it is passed along, it must be intact, word for word, article for article, with no changes of any sort. No one is to charge anything for reading it, except that I will send it direct from my mailing list -- not via some other service -- to anyone on a pay system who indicates to me it is more convenient for them to receive it there even though they have to pay for it. Thus, I send copies direct via email to portal, chinet, MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and other places. But TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom is NOT available to anyone else who wishes to resell it or edit it in any way. I do all editing, period. Any transmission which involves money goes from me to the end subscriber when the subscriber has told me to send it through the pay service. Pay services in and of themselves are NOT entitled to take the work of myself and my readers/subscribers and use it in any way. Would drawing a picture help? Maybe someone can translate this message into sixteen different languages also. TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom is to be distributed freely, and completely intact -- or not distributed at all. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/03/89)
According to kdb@InterCon.uu.net (Kurt Baumann): >As much as I hate to get involved in this... They are not making money from >your or anyone elses articles. They are making money from sorting through >the articles and then sending those that they found to have some content >on to their subscribers. Strickly speaking they do not make money off of >your articles, but rather from the screening service. Well, before the theoretical customer receives his theoretical daily IMN feed, he doesn't have my theoretical high-quality article. As a part of his feed, he receives my article. IMN wants money, or else their customer doesn't get his feed. As far as I'm concerned, IMN is making a profit from forwarding my article, and is then attempting to limit redistribution of my article by their customers. The profit isn't so bad (compare uunet and portal), but the redistribution restrictions are a basic alteration of the character of Usenet. The act of posting on Usenet grants redistribution rights to recipients. But it does not grant permission to include in anthologies or other collective works, especially if they are sold without giving due compensation to the author! Of course, IMN could send cancel messages to kill "noise." That would get around the copyright issue. But that would leave them in an even weaker position as to limiting redistribution than the partial feed method would. All their customers could easily claim that since they already had my article, IMN can't restrict them from redistributing it; thus IMN loses subscribers and eventually disappears. (I hope.) -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/04/89)
In article <8831@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes [about comp.dcom.telecom]: > I do all editing, period. Well, in the simplest possible terms, why? I read comp.dcom.telecom, and I certainly appreciate the work you put into it. I don't come close to reading every article, though. Is this a problem? If I use a kill file, or more to the point, something that functions in the opposite way (a highlight file?) to help me select items of interest, is that a problem? I occasionally point out interesting articles to my coworkers who do not read the group. Is that a problem? If my boss considered it a part of my job to look for useful stuff on Usenet (including comp.dcom.telecom), and thus paid for the time I spent doing so, would that be a problem? If so, why, and if not, how is this qualitatively different from what Geoff is offering? To take the particular example of comp.dcom.telecom, I would greatly enjoy only reading articles about data communications. I couldn't care less about COCOTS, or NPA codes, or any number of the things that are of evidently of great interest to a lot of your other readers. Should I have to wade through all of this in order to find occasional articles on things like switched 56K service, fractional T1, and the like? If not, what does it matter if I do my filtering by means of a program or an external service like Geoff's? How is it different from, say, a newspaper clipping service? If I want to read everything, I can. No one is stopping me. If I don't, how am I violating your prerogatives? I'm sorry if I sound a little testy, but I'm quite serious. So far most of the arguments I've seen against Geoff so far seem to amount to "But these are MY words! Nobody else can touch them if I don't want them to!" If that's how you feel, you shouldn't be putting them on Usenet. Publish a magazine column. Do radio spots for NPR. Whatever. Some of the strengths of freely accesible media are also "problems." Lack of central control is one of these. Life's full of tradeoffs. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation -- amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/04/89)
In article <24AF7C38.8967@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > All their customers could easily claim that since they already had my > article, IMN can't restrict them from redistributing it; thus IMN loses > subscribers and eventually disappears. (I hope.) Of course, they could just restrict redistribution of their cancel messages (via copyright :-)?)... This is getting (?) silly, folks... -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.uu.net> InterCon Systems Corporation
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (07/04/89)
In article <1147@intercon.UUCP> amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <8831@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us >(Patrick A. Townson) writes [about comp.dcom.telecom]: >> I do all editing, period. > >Well, in the simplest possible terms, why? Because I want a decent looking publication. I attempt to provide consistency in the way the headers are prepared; in the grouping of articles relating to a given topic on any day; and correct spelling errors and major grammatical flaws because correct spelling and grammar lend a professional appearance to the Digest. I avoid most grammatical changes since the author's own words are important. I try to correct, or ferret out the proper return address for the author and adjust the 'From' lines accordingly, so that the correspondents can write to each other with ease. I take the Digest quite seriously. I decline messages which contain advice and helpful hints for phreaks, since these could cause serious legal repercussions for the owners of the machines which distribute the Digest (virtually all sites). >I read comp.dcom.telecom, and I certainly appreciate the work you put into >it. I don't come close to reading every article, though. Is this a problem? Not at all. It is your personal copy of the Digest to read as you see fit. >If I use a kill file, or more to the point, something that functions in the >opposite way (a highlight file?) to help me select items of interest, is >that a problem? Again, this is no problem at all. You are working with your personal copy, to be used in *almost* any way you desire. You should use your own tools, as you are doing, to make the Digest convenient and useful for yourself. >I occasionally point out interesting articles to my coworkers who do not >read the group. Is that a problem? If my boss considered it a part of >my job to look for useful stuff on Usenet (including comp.dcom.telecom), >and thus paid for the time I spent doing so, would that be a problem? This is no problem, because you are not engaging in a commercial activity with the collective output of TELECOM Digest correspondents and myself. For example, the Digest is distributed not only to individual names on my master list, but to several dozen 'expansion lists' or 'exploder addresses'. Many of these special addresses take the Digest and perform 'undigesting' on it; that is, putting it into single message-by-message format, since the readers on that list have indicated they prefer this style of reading. The demarcation point -- where we would differ in our interpretation regards the ethical use of the Digest -- is when the receiver of a copy re-arranges it *and/or charges for re-distribution of it.* If your sole employment duties were to take Usenet material, select from it, re-arrange it and re-distribute it, then I believe there would be a violation of the 'spirit of Usenet', if not an actual violation of copyright law. But if in the course of your employment, you occassionally 'clip' items of interest from your electronic newspaper/magazines and pass them along to your co-workers and employers, then I think it would be very uncharitable of me, or anyone on Usenet to say you were violating a copyright. The answer to your last two questions would be that your activities would have be to examined in the context of your employment. Is your employment exclusively for this purpose? Is it being done specifically to make a profit for yourself? >If so, why, and if not, how is this qualitatively different from what >Geoff is offering? See the above paragraphs. Geoff G. has one purpose in extracting Usenet material for re-distribution: To repackage and resell it as a commercial activity for his company. His company was formed for the express purpose of extracting from Usenet and reselling the output. I assume your employer has other things going on, and your use of occassional articles from the Digest is incidental to whether you work there or not. Am I mistaken? If the Digest, or all of Usenet shut down operations tomorrow, would there still be a purpose in your employment? >To take the particular example of comp.dcom.telecom, I would greatly enjoy >only reading articles about data communications. I couldn't care less >about COCOTS, or NPA codes, or any number of the things that are of >evidently of great interest to a lot of your other readers. Should I have >to wade through all of this in order to find occasional articles on things >like switched 56K service, fractional T1, and the like? If not, what >does it matter if I do my filtering by means of a program or an external >service like Geoff's? How is it different from, say, a newspaper clipping >service? It does not matter what kind of editing you do. It can be external or internal, but the point is, *you* make the choices of what you want to see and read -- not someone else. If it is convenient for you to use a commercial 'electronic press clipping' service for this, that is fine. You made the choice. A better example might be to compare Geoff's product with the [Reader's Digest] versus a press clipping service. In Geoff's proposed electronic reader's digest, he will select what he wants you to read. My understanding from reading his own messages are that he considers the net to be a lot of noise, with just a fraction of the transmissions being useful. He will select the things he considers useful, using his judgment and criteria, and market this new product, ala [Reader's Digest]. On the other hand, when you sign up for a press clipping service, *you tell them* what you want to get: "Give me all the items you find on the price of tea in China"; "Give me all the articles you find with the phrase 'long distance phone call' therein", etc. And the press clipping service finds these *frequently by the hundreds* and sends them off to you -- making no judgment of their own as to what you ought to be seeing or reading. Press clipping services do not pay royalties on the articles they cut out of the various papers and pass along. Conversely, [Reader's Digest] must *ask permission and pay royalties if requested* prior to publishing an article in their magazine. The difference is, they claim to be selling a whole new product. Some of us who have had running arguments with the [Reader's Digest] over the past sixty years or so contend that the late Dewitt Wallace and his wife, the late Lila Acheson Wallace (co-publishers/founders) of the [Reader's Digest] were a couple of liars from the word go. They could excerpt an article to make it say whatever they wanted, and they frequently did so. The crew running things at Pleasantville NY these days are *slightly* more honest in their approach; perhaps because now they seem to originate more of their own material instead of excerpting (and taking wildly out of context) the work of other people. >If I want to read everything, I can. No one is stopping me. If I don't, >how am I violating your prerogatives? You are not violating anything of mine. You are using your personal copy of the Digest in a way convenient to you. I don't even care if you buy the [Reader's Digest] every month and only read selected articles. >I'm sorry if I sound a little testy, but I'm quite serious. So far most >of the arguments I've seen against Geoff so far seem to amount to "But >these are MY words! Nobody else can touch them if I don't want them to!" I'm serious also. In non-commercial, personal usage, you are free to do what you want with Usenet stuff. In a commercial application such as Geoff G. or [Reader's Digest], you are not free to make alterations. >If that's how you feel, you shouldn't be putting them on Usenet. Publish >a magazine column. Do radio spots for NPR. Whatever. Some of the strengths >of freely accesible media are also "problems." Lack of central control is >one of these. Life's full of tradeoffs. You have it backwards. If Geoff feels that he wants to make money by taking a wide variety of articles and excerpting/reselling them, then *he* is the one who does not belong on Usenet. Usenet stuff is given freely by its authors with the understanding it will be used *freely* by the readers. It is not put here with the idea that I will either get a check back in the mail from a site which agreed to 'publish me' or a pink rejection slip if they decide against publication. I put the information here so that you or anyone can use it and perhaps benefit from the knowledge gained. The 'tradeoff' you mention is that I in turn benefit from your knowledge. But Geoff seems to feel the tradeoff should be that if I am witty and clever enough, and my ideas seem to be in synch with what he thinks should be distributed, then he will take my ideas and sell them, at a profit to himself. And the benefit to me? Still wider distribution, I guess -- provided I am witty and clever enough, of course. Geoff is not attempting to start an electronic press clip service. If he were, I would praise his efforts. He is attempting to start a Usenet version of [Reader's Digest], where ideas and concepts which meet his approval will receive circulation, and he will receive payment for same. All well and good -- but not on Usenet. Let him sign contracts and make arrangements with his own Information Providers. A service now operating comparable to his is [Newsnet], which takes a couple hundred electronic publications and regularly puts them on line, both in full and in excerpted versions, per their *written contract* with the individual newsletter writers and publishers. Let Geoff try it that way if he wishes. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) (07/05/89)
In article <8853@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >You should use your own tools, >as you are doing, to make the Digest convenient and useful for yourself. I consider the In Moderation Network to be nothing more than a tool to make reading news more convenient. Your objection to distribution of the TELECOM Digest through IMN denies me the use of that tool. I am astounded that you can blithely apply your own judgement in deciding how to present the TELECOM Digest, yet refuse to allow me to use my own judgement in deciding how to read the Digest. What business is it of yours whether I delegate article selection to a human or a machine? :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Disclaimer: Logicon doesn't even know we're running news. Internet: Makey@LOGICON.ARPA UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.arpa!Makey
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (07/05/89)
In article <485@logicon.arpa> Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) writes: >In article <8853@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >>You should use your own tools, >>as you are doing, to make the Digest convenient and useful for yourself. >I consider the In Moderation Network to be nothing more than a tool to >make reading news more convenient. Your objection to distribution of >the TELECOM Digest through IMN denies me the use of that tool. I am >astounded that you can blithely apply your own judgement in deciding >how to present the TELECOM Digest, yet refuse to allow me to use my >own judgement in deciding how to read the Digest. What business is it >of yours whether I delegate article selection to a human or a machine? Apparently you somehow did not read the earlier message on this. The 'tool' known as In Moderation will not function like a press clipping service where everything from the net is available and you advise them what you want and don't want. I think that would be a fine idea, if it existed. If you subscribe to In Moderation, you will only get what *they* want you to see. Imagine having an editor installed in your computer, but you are not allowed to personally operate it. I come in, read all the news and edit it for you. *I* decide what you should read or not read from the net. Now that is a bad idea. You say that In Moderation is nothing more or less than an editing tool, but the catch is Geoff G. will do the editing and selecting. I suppose his judgment is as good as anyone else's on things, but the point is, it is not you, taking your personal copy of the Digest and editing it for your convenience. It is someone else doing the editing, of work that does not belong to them. Then they claim it to be a whole new package as a result, and sell it to you making a profit for themselves. Quite a difference, and the fallacy involved in saying that In Moderation -- like the [Reader's Digest] is 'nothing more than an editing tool.' This just isn't so. Now, if you would like me to put you on the mailing list, and send you a copy of the Digest, I will do so. Then if you wish to take *your copy, after it is in your possession* and forward it to Geoff with a request that he select some things for your to read, that is fine also. But I won't send it to him first, to make your reading choices for you. What I am sending out to the net is *my idea* of what you should read. My intellectual efforts. My work. I won't let someone else take my work and repackage it as their work and then sell it for a profit. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/06/89)
In article <8853@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > I assume your employer > has other things going on, and your use of occassional articles from the > Digest is incidental to whether you work there or not. Am I mistaken? > If the Digest, or all of Usenet shut down operations tomorrow, would there > still be a purpose in your employment? Grin. I certainly hope so... This was a hypothetical situation, I assure you :-). > Geoff is not attempting to start an electronic press clip service. If he > were, I would praise his efforts. He is attempting to start a Usenet > version of [Reader's Digest], where ideas and concepts which meet his > approval will receive circulation, and he will receive payment for same. Hmm. Here's where we disagree, I think. By the way, I'd like to commend you on elaborating your position more clearly than is usual on Usenet... I still disagree with you, but I think I see your position a lot better. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.uu.net> InterCon Systems Corporation
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/06/89)
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us writes:
Usenet stuff is given freely by its
authors with the understanding it will be used *freely* by the readers.
A thoroughly unsupportable supposition. The concept of "an
understanding on the Usenet" borders on being an oxymoron.
--Karlmjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen) (07/06/89)
Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed -- a list of articles that they deem worth reading -- and provide each subscriber with a special news reader program that processes both the usual news feed and the comment list and only shows the user the selected articles. That way their subscribers could continue to use (and re-distribute freely) the standard news feed, and would merely be restricted from re-distributing the article list (and other comments provided by IMN) which are of course protected by copyright. Another advantage to this scheme would be that subscribers would still have access to the full news feed, so that if they came across a reference to another article that IMN might not have deemed worthy, they could still get to it. Anyone object to this? -- Michael McClennen
Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) (07/06/89)
In article <8863@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >If you subscribe to In Moderation, you will only get what *they* want >you to see. So? TELECOM Digest subscribers only get what *you* want them to see. An important difference is that any IMN subscriber can always get an unfiltered news feed if they wish. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way for Digest subscribers to read the raw stream of submitted articles. >Imagine having an editor installed in your computer, but you >are not allowed to personally operate it. I come in, read all the news >and edit it for you. *I* decide what you should read or not read from >the net. Now that is a bad idea. You said it, so you're probably right. Letting *you* do the editing would be a bad idea. What I fail to understand is why you think you know what is good or bad for *me*. If I want to let someone else select news articles for me, and even pay them to do it, it's none of your business. >the point is, it is not you, taking your personal copy of the Digest >and editing it for your convenience. The point is, I don't *want* to do the editing myself. If I wanted to read an unedited TELECOM Digest I would simply subscribe to it (or comp.dcom.telecom) directly. >It is someone else doing the editing, of work that does not belong to them. Once again, so what? You edit TELECOM Digest submissions that do not belong to you. >What I am sending >out to the net is *my idea* of what you should read. My intellectual >efforts. My work. I won't let someone else take my work and repackage it >as their work and then sell it for a profit. I don't want to read *your* idea of what I should read. I want to read *my* idea of what I should read. It is my decision -- not yours -- whether or not IMN satisfies my needs. Have you ever eaten a bowl of corn flakes? It's little more than processed corn, repackaged and sold at a profit. Here you are telling me that I should buy raw corn every morning and do whatever-it-is-you-do-to-make-corn-flakes just so I can eat breakfast. Frankly, I'd much rather *pay* the Kellog company to give it to me in a box, but no. You, the farmer, have put weeks of hard work into growing that corn, and you'll be damned if you'll let anyone eat it unless they husk the ears themselves. Say whatever you want, but if you truly valued the intellectual effort you put into the TELECOM Digest then *you* would be charging for it. Your actions belie your words. :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Disclaimer: Logicon doesn't even know we're running news. Internet: Makey@LOGICON.ARPA UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.arpa!Makey
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/06/89)
In article <14219@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen) writes: > Another advantage to this scheme would be that subscribers would still have > access to the full news feed, IMN subscribers *do* have access to the full news feed. IMN isn't going to replace the existing hierarchy, they will be creating a new set of "newsgroups" called imn.* or something (at least as Geoff's described it so far). As long as your news software can look things up by message-id, you should be able to follow references to your hearts content. In fact, I can quite easily imagine sites getting both IMN groups and the "raw" equivalents, for this exact reason. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (07/07/89)
In article <487@logicon.arpa> Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) writes: >So? TELECOM Digest subscribers only get what *you* want them to see. Completely false! TELECOM Digest subscribers get every letter I get unless the person writing says it is not for publication. Exceptions are those items which promote theft of phone service (known as phreaking) and give bogus ID billing codes to use, etc. I won't subject all the sites which carry the group to possible legal problems because of that kind of crap. Another exception: something really not suited for telecom at all and better placed in comp.dcom.modems, etc. But your premise is totally wrong. Readers get it all. If you dispute that, ask them! Plenty of stuff flaming *me, as moderator* has appeared there. I don't play favorites. >An important difference is that any IMN subscriber can always get an >unfiltered news feed if they wish. To the best of my knowledge, there >is no way for Digest subscribers to read the raw stream of submitted >articles. I just told you they get everything that has anything to do with telecom, including news on phreaks, but with technical specifics of phreaking omitted. >You said it, so you're probably right. Letting *you* do the editing >would be a bad idea. What I fail to understand is why you think you >know what is good or bad for *me*. If I want to let someone else >select news articles for me, and even pay them to do it, it's none of >your business. No it isn't. And if *you tell me* to deliver your copy of the Digest each day in care of some third person, I will gladly do so. As long as you write and ask for a subscription, and ask that *your copy* be given to someone, I see no problem. But I won't deliver it to a third person for his commercial use without some actual subscriber requesting it. For example: I send a few copies to people on MCI Mail. They ask me to send them there, knowing that they have to pay to read it. It is their choice. But if MCI Mail said "give us a copy of the Digest to distribute to anyone who wants to pay us for having it in his mailbox here" then I would say no. >>the point is, it is not you, taking your personal copy of the Digest >>and editing it for your convenience. > >The point is, I don't *want* to do the editing myself. If I wanted to >read an unedited TELECOM Digest I would simply subscribe to it (or >comp.dcom.telecom) directly. > >>It is someone else doing the editing, of work that does not belong to them. > Again, see above. You tell me you want a copy; I will give you a copy. Give it to whoever you want to edit it as you like it. I deliver personal copies of the digest for free. I don't deliver it to re-sellers. >Once again, so what? You edit TELECOM Digest submissions that do not >belong to you. Of course I do! What do you think a moderator is supposed to do? But again, see above. It all gets printed. I coordinate what comes in, correct some technical errors, see to it that duplicate copies of messages do not get printed, etc. And the people send me things with their full knowledge and consent to have it edited for the digest. >I don't want to read *your* idea of what I should read. I want to >read *my* idea of what I should read. It is my decision -- not yours >-- whether or not IMN satisfies my needs. Then you should participate in unmoderated groups.I don't care whether you read the Digest or not. And yes, to repeat myself, it is your decision on using IMN. So, if you do decide to condescend to me some day and subscribe to the Digest, I will send you a copy. You forward it to IMN and ask him to sort it all out before you look at it, if that is what you want. Send your personal copy of the Digest to anyone you like, to do *almost anything* they like with it. It is your property when it leaves me, except I strongly urge you or the persons of your choice not to resell it in whole or in part. >Have you ever eaten a bowl of corn flakes? It's little more than >processed corn, repackaged and sold at a profit. Here you are telling >me that I should buy raw corn every morning and do >whatever-it-is-you-do-to-make-corn-flakes just so I can eat breakfast. >Frankly, I'd much rather *pay* the Kellog company to give it to me in >a box, but no. You, the farmer, have put weeks of hard work into >growing that corn, and you'll be damned if you'll let anyone eat it >unless they husk the ears themselves. You have the wrong analogy here. The understanding between the farmer and the Kellog people is that he will sell them his raw corn and they will do the necessary work. I have no such understanding with Geoff Goodfellow, in which I deliver raw material to him for packaging and resale. The farmer is paid for his product and has no furher claim as to what happens to it unless that claim is stated in some contract with the cereal people. I have no such contract with anyone. >Say whatever you want, but if you truly valued the intellectual effort >you put into the TELECOM Digest then *you* would be charging for it. >Your actions belie your words. But in the proper media, maybe I do charge for it. It is not the value of my intellectual efforts, or what I think of them. It is the context in which the transaction is occuring. I have been paid for my articles which have appeared in various magazines and newspapers. I am paid for talking on the radio for half an hour twice a week on subjects of my choice relating to Chicago history. But I am not paid for things I write on Usenet. Why not? Is it because as you say, I don't value my intellectual efforts? Or is it because Usenet is not the place to charge for things? Let me know whenever you want a subscription to the Digest. I will send your copy daily, and you may pass it along to Mr. Goodfellow or any other person of your choice for editing. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) (07/07/89)
In article <14219@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen) writes: > Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever > mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed -- a list of > articles that they deem worth reading -- and provide each subscriber with a > special news reader program that processes both the usual news feed and the > comment list and only shows the user the selected articles. That way their > subscribers could continue to use (and re-distribute freely) the standard news > feed, and would merely be restricted from re-distributing the article list > (and other comments provided by IMN) which are of course protected by copyright. Sounds like a good idea to me! My worry with the IMN concept is the *uncontrolled* censorship which may lead to an unwarranted bias in reader's opinions. Suppose IMN's editor was recently laid off from Apple - he might subconsiously pass more articles tilted against Apple than for it, despite their equally high quality. In short, the IMN's readers will get to pick up the built-in biases of the IMN's editors. Heaven help us if the IMN's editors are bribable... -- Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w). Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace... +1 713 568 3460 (h).
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/07/89)
According to brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): >According to chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >>But that's not all. They're also proposing to limit redistribution of the >>articles they forward. > >You just can't redistribute the exact same set or something just like it. Read my lips: "IMN will attempt to limit redistribution." Any phrase beginning "you just can't" _is_ a limitation. IMN's proposed limitations may be reasonable and acceptable to some. Nevertheless, they are limitations on redistribution of articles posted for the purpose of free redistribution to anyone and everyone. I cannot abide any redistribution limitations, no matter how "reasonable" they may appear. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/07/89)
According to mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen): >Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever >mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed -- a list of >articles that they deem worth reading -- and provide each subscriber with a >special news reader program [...] Now this idea I like. Mr. Goodfellow, are you paying attention? This approach could avoid all the messy article copyright issues and reduce transmission time to boot. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (07/08/89)
In article <24B4CCD7.5183@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I cannot abide any redistribution limitations, no matter how "reasonable" >they may appear. ...Which is, I suppose, a reasonable stand to take. >You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. I find this redistribution limitation quite reasonable. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/08/89)
Let's not get down to the read my lips level... But you say IMN might limit redistibution on articles. But do they? Take any given article from IMN. Can you redistribute it? YES. Take another, can you redistribute it? YES. This one? YES. This is true for *any* article that doesn't have a special copyright applied to it. Thus it's true for an article that says "you may only redistribute this if your recipients may." and for one that doesn't In fact, the "you may only redistribute...." is a non-statement, since *nobody* can prohibit redistribution of a single article that you write and post without restriction. But can you re-send *all* the articles in an IMN group? No. It is the collection that you can't redistribute, not the articles themselves. Where does the borderline reside? It's undefined. In the end, if anybody wanted to go that far, a judge would decide if the bulk redistribution of some large chunk of something like IMN captialized unfairly on the moderator's efforts. But I still don't understand the fuss, and particularly from Patrick Townson, who, at last account, made great speaches about how a moderator should have no control over what happens to a group once he/she sends it out. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/08/89)
In article <24B4CDB3.5287@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen): >>Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever >>mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed -- a list of >>articles that they deem worth reading -- and provide each subscriber with a >>special news reader program [...] > >Now this idea I like. It doesn't change much. In fact, I had this idea many moons ago when I considered doing something like what Geoff's doing. (I decided to do ClariNet instead, something totally different from USENET.) But let's say a moderator makes a list of approved or un-approved articles. You think this is OK. Would you then forbid a site from asking that this list control their FEED, and not just their reading? But if it controls their feed, it's exactly the same as IMN. Including the redistribution restriction, since the feed is an instantiation of the copyrighted list. And most would want the list to control their feed, and not just their reading. At least small sites or sites that pay long distnace charges. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/09/89)
In article <8888@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >I have been paid for my articles which have appeared in various magazines >and newspapers. I am paid for talking on the radio for half an hour twice >a week on subjects of my choice relating to Chicago history. >But I am not paid for things I write on Usenet. Why not? Is it because as Becasue they are entirely voluntary. >you say, I don't value my intellectual efforts? Or is it because Usenet is >not the place to charge for things? If you decide to publish it gratus, whether on Usenet or in any number of printed publications which do not pay their writers, then it is *you* who have set the monetary value. There is no law I know of that says you cannot give something away for which you might otherwise have found a way to be paid. Also, I think that it is not *necessarily* implied that one who is paid for *some* of his writings should necessarily be paid for anything he may write which is read by other persons. At the extreme, this would imply that your local laundry should pay you to read the list you submit to them along with your dirty linen. And a copywrite notice would only compound the absurdity. A less provocative example is the "Letter to the Editor". In all cases I know of, submitting such a letter implies a complete release of any and all rights by the person submitting it. Even if were it written by a Hemingway or a Townsend. Both in this example and on the usenet, such submission is entirely voluntary on the part of the writer - unlike *any* printed medium in which editorial judgement (decision to print or reject the article) plays a dominant role in determining whether an article gets published. (Arguably, academic journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, since they are dominantly designed for getting academics published, merit having no place in the editor's decision-making process). And even with the Letter to the Editor, the publication is not *required* to carry the offering on its pages. The usenet - purely upon your whim - *is* required to carry your work. At some considerable expense to all the people who transport it thru a marketplace to which you would otherwise have little or no access. It really ain't *free* - and others are paying the main freight, not you. Whether they read your article or not. And they don't get a vote. Perhaps one of the major difficulties in this discussion is semantic. Thru historical practice, submissions to the net have been referred to as 'articles', notwithstanding that many such 'works' are simply short responses to other 'articles' submitted by others. No one refers to office memos as 'creative works', even though many of them carry much more weight of thought than most of what appears on the net. Now the question is: is a submission to usenet more like a traditional 'article' comparable to what one would expect to read in an editorially controlled publication, or more like a 'letter' comparable to what one would find in the op-ed section? Since the decision to release the 'article' is exclusively that of the person submitting it, I have difficulty understanding how anyone could conclude that in its raw form, such a 'work', stand-alone, would have identifiable market value, since there is no editor to make such judgment. And the 'marketplace' gets no choice, since everything comes in together, (some) jewels and (much) garbage. I would not quarrel with you, Patrick, if you were to assert that you are able only to contribute jewels. But just remember that you - and *only* you make that judgement before you release your work. It would require supreme confidence to further assert that no second-opinion could possibly be valid. Notwithstanding that every author tends to believe that - right up until the time he meets with his editor. Indeed, one could argue that it is the editor who frequently contributes as much 'value-added' to a final, published article as does the author. In some cases, more. And some - a very few - authors acknowledge that fact. But they tend to earn the *dominant* portion of their income by their published writing. People who submit their work to usenet, it seems to me, are releasing their monetary interest in such work, absent a signed contract granting them specific payment. Unless one wishes to believe that an implied copyright also extends to a voluntary Letter to the Editor - and which will have the livin' shit whacked out of it by the typical editor! And *still* without compensation, apology, permission, or even a by-your-leave. And certainly with no individual copyright notice attached! Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
kdb@InterCon.uu.net (Kurt Baumann) (07/10/89)
In article <4907@ficc.uu.net>, cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) writes: > In article <14219@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael > McClennen) writes: > > Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever > > mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed -- a list of > > articles that they deem worth reading > > Sounds like a good idea to me! > > My worry with the IMN concept is the *uncontrolled* censorship which may > lead to an unwarranted bias in reader's opinions. Suppose IMN's editor was > recently laid off from Apple - he might subconsiously pass more articles > tilted against Apple than for it, despite their equally high quality. In > short, the IMN's readers will get to pick up the built-in biases of the > IMN's editors. Heaven help us if the IMN's editors are bribable... > > -- > Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large > Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w). > Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace... +1 713 568 3460 (h). Then don't subscribe to the service. That is a simple way to take care of your fears isn't it? You or anyone can still read the FULL and uneditted feed on your machine. This isn't being done for the entire net, just those who want it. I read a newspaper everyday, they have a tendency to edit stories the way that they want them to appear. That happens all of the time. Everyone should be aware that reading it in print does not give it validity, take anything you read with a grain of salt. Just as those who decide to subscribe to INM will be aware that they are reading editted material, so should you. Even the news on TV is slanted to some extent. So what is the problem? Suppose that President Bush yelled at Dan Rather on TV? Do you think that that would have an affect on Dan's reporting about Bush? Your damn right it would (will :-)). So what you are saying is that anyone with a beef against someone should not be an editor? You better start sending your letters to CBS... -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 46950 Community Plaza Suite 101-132 Sterling, VA 22170 Phone: 703.450.7117
kdb@InterCon.uu.net (Kurt Baumann) (07/10/89)
In article <3600@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Let's not get down to the read my lips level... > > But you say IMN might limit redistibution on articles. But do they? > Some deleted (ahh, I think I just stepped on some peoples toes :-)) > > But can you re-send *all* the articles in an IMN group? No. It is the > collection that you can't redistribute, not the articles themselves. > > Where does the borderline reside? It's undefined. In the end, if anybody > wanted to go that far, a judge would decide if the bulk redistribution of > some large chunk of something like IMN captialized unfairly on the moderator's > efforts. > > But I still don't understand the fuss, and particularly from Patrick Townson, > who, at last account, made great speaches about how a moderator should have no > control over what happens to a group once he/she sends it out. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Someone with some sense. Come on folks what is the problem here? Someone is making money. That is the problem. You all would rather that no one make money from what you feel are your efforts. But the problem is that these people are not making money from your efforts, but rather their's. Look at it this way: I say, "Gee I hate going through all 3,000,000 articles daily in comp.sys.mac. What I would like is someone (or something) to go through and pick out the ones with content, not the ones asking for the 5,000th time how to copy a disk. Yeah, that's what I want." INM comes along and says gee you know I have someone who reads comp.sys.mac all the time and they are good at picking out what articles have some informational content as opposed to flamage, or silly questions (not that any question is silly when you need an answer, but I don't have time to save the world everyday just some days :-)). Now it is up to me to decide, probably after using the service for a bit, if this is what I want, and if they ARE good at finding what I am interested in. Or I go use Brads stuff and have it electronically picked out for me based on what I put in. In BOTH cases I have access to the full news feed so that I can take a look. In no case is anyone making money off of your article, just off of picking out the ones that are worthwhile reading. Simple, no? This is what the newspapers do for me everyday. If I want to read it all I read the raw UPI, AP, Rueters, etc... wires and wade through it all myself. Truth of the matter is that I do not have the time to do that. -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 46950 Community Plaza Suite 101-132 Sterling, VA 22170 Phone: 703.450.7117
bsa@telotech.uucp (Brandon S. Allbery) (07/10/89)
And here I seem to recall someone getting highly upset when I proposed a compilation copyright on comp.sources.misc in order to *avoid* such things as this... I'm not happy with In Moderation, but I was cowed into not taking preventive measures, so I'm stuck with it. As is the Usenet. (needless to say, I'm less than thrilled....) ++Brandon
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/10/89)
According to dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi): >In article <24B4CCD7.5183@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>I cannot abide any redistribution limitations, no matter how "reasonable" >>they may appear. > >...Which is, I suppose, a reasonable stand to take. > >>You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. > >I find this redistribution limitation quite reasonable. Touche. :-) Allow me to rephrase: I cannot abide any redistribution limitations on any Usenet article, unless those limitations are imposed by the author. Or, in other words: I can restrict my articles, and you can restrict yours; but don't you try to restrict mine, or I'll get really mad. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/10/89)
According to brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): >Let's not get down to the read my lips level... Okay. >Take any given article from IMN. Can you redistribute it? YES. >But can you re-send *all* the articles in an IMN group? No. It is the >collection that you can't redistribute, not the articles themselves. So it it will, no doubt, have a compilation copyright. So the articles will be part of a "published collection." Will Anterior be asking authors for permission? They'd better ask me, so I can tell them: "No". But that's beside the point. Just why does IMN get my goat, anyway? I'll tell you. Usenet has always been freely redistributable. In pieces, if desired, but also -- nay, _especially_ -- as a whole. That free interchange of articles, even those articles that you don't care to read but your neighbor does, makes Usenet a community. Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck. I'm saddened that Mr. Goodfellow sees Usenet, not as a community to be joined, but as a natural resource to be exploited. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/10/89)
According to brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): >>According to mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen): >>>Here's an idea: Why don't the IMN people simply distribute (via whatever >>>mechanism they choose) each day a comment on the day's news feed [...] > >You think this is OK. Would you then forbid a site from asking that this >list control their FEED, and not just their reading? > >But if it controls their feed, it's exactly the same as IMN. Including >the redistribution restriction, since the feed is an instantiation of the >copyrighted list. No, it's not; not any more than a bibliography is an instantiation of the books it references. "So," someone may ask, "just how is IMN supposed to make their money?" Perhaps there is no legal way for IMN to make money. Aww, too bad. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (07/11/89)
In article <24B8CEB3.19453@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
: Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic
: givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck.
Speak for yourself. I am no altruist. Nor are many other of the "best
and brightest of Usenet". I view each and every posting I make as an
investment of one kind or another.
Altruism, ptoohey!
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comrsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (07/11/89)
In article <24B8CEB3.19453@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
: Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic
: givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck.
So what? I went to get sources out to people. How is my "cause" hurt
by someone paying for what they can get elsewhere for free?
/r$
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (07/11/89)
In article <24B8D053.19561@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > Perhaps there is no legal way for IMN to make money. Aww, too bad. I don't think that "legality" enters into it, particularly. Usenet is unregulated, and has no controls beyond some very fuzzy conventions that we all try to adhere to in order to keep things running. This is, if anything is, "the spirit of Usenet." This lack of regulation has its good points and its bad points, but when you get right down to it, Usenet is not a medium of publication; it is a very informal cooperative venture between a bunch of people and organizations that have computers. This very informality, which has kept Usenet alive for far longer than a lot of people would have thought (cf. the perennial "Imminent Death Of The Net" predictions, of which this is just the latest variation), also means that people will disagree about what the operating conventions are or should be. If you don't like what Geoff is doing, it seems to me that the thing to do is not to threaten him with legal complications or to scream "censorship." The thing to do is simply not to let him play. Refuse to give him news feeds. Refuse to forward mail to & from his site. Whatever. But also realize that there are enough people that disagree that you will never be able to enforce a boycott net-wide. If it's not worth his time and effort, he won't bother with IMN. If it is, he will. Sort of like Usenet on a smaller scale... Funny how that works, eh? Being offended won't get you anywhere, as has been proven on the net many times over. If you don't like it, do something about it. Just please stop whining that "someone should do something." You are Usenet. If you don't like something, fix it. If it's hard to fix, well, maybe that's why no one has done it already. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation -- amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/12/89)
In article <692@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > Both in this example and on the usenet, such submission is entirely voluntary > on the part of the writer - unlike *any* printed medium in which editorial > judgement (decision to print or reject the article) plays a dominant role > in determining whether an article gets published. You've obviously never heard of vanity presses, amateur press associations, and other ego-publication media. amateur press associations (APAs) and fanzines are almost a direct equivalent in print media of Usenet. One of the larger APAs, Alarums and Excursions, even has overlapping writer- and readership with Usenet. Books published by vanity presses, zines in APAs, and fanzines are all protected by copyright. > [Academic] journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, > since they are dominantly designed for getting academics published, > merit having no place in the editor's decision-making process). And what about peer review? > Now the question is: is a submission to usenet more like a traditional > 'article' comparable to what one would expect to read in an editorially > controlled publication, or more like a 'letter' comparable to what one would > find in the op-ed section? Neither. It's more like a zine in an APA. > Since the decision to release the 'article' is exclusively that of the person > submitting it, I have difficulty understanding how anyone could conclude that > in its raw form, such a 'work', stand-alone, would have identifiable market > value, since there is no editor to make such judgment. It has an identifiable market value. Many people spend hundreds of dollars a month getting Usenet. Divide that by the article volume and you have a good approximation of the market value of the average article. > And the 'marketplace' > gets no choice, since everything comes in together, (some) jewels and (much) > garbage. As opposed to the newspaper, where everything comes in together, some jewels and much garbage. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Th-th-th-that's all folks... Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | -- Mel Blanc Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | May 30 1908 - Jul 10 1989
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) (07/12/89)
In article <24B8CEB3.19453@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >[...] >Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic >givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck. I'm >saddened that Mr. Goodfellow sees Usenet, not as a community to be joined, >but as a natural resource to be exploited. Or "Anterior intends to suppress the thoughts and works of thousands of noisy incompetents -- the worst and dullest of Usenet -- and to turn a buck for doing so. I'm happy to see that Mr. Goodfellow sees Usenet, not as a totality which must be endured, but as a natural resource waiting to be uncovered." Why is it so hard to accept the value of paying someone to take out the trash? Surely you can understand that someone might feel that the gain in being able to read all of their favourite newsgroups in 20 minutes per day instead of 6 hours per day is much greater than the combined value of all of the additional interesting articles they would have found by doing their own searching? Are there many people on the net who truly read everything that goes by? At 4 Meg per day and growing fast, most readers must be skipping some newsgroups. Any newgroup that one is only marginally interested in is pointless to try and scan - very few groups avoid flamefests, new user questions, etc., so it is not worth your while to read a group enough to find the meat unless you are really interested in the topic. -- John Macdonald
rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (07/13/89)
In article <295@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >Why is it so hard to accept the value of paying someone to take out the >trash? Surely you can understand that someone might feel that the gain >in being able to read all of their favourite newsgroups in 20 minutes per >day instead of 6 hours per day is much greater than the combined value of >all of the additional interesting articles they would have found by doing >their own searching? Frankly, I find using the '=', ^N and search-string options in rn let me manage quite well, and my .newsrc keeps 145 active groups. I get through in about 20-25 minutes/day. Occasional use of KILL files when a unwanted topic blooms (how many more Bat-movie articles do YOU want to see in rec.arts.movies?) helps even further. I continue to check the headers, though, so I can see if something new and interesting comes through, and I can't see how I.M. would be able to know my mind well enough to pick up on these things on my behalf. Bob Halloran ========================================================================= UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM USPS: 17 Lakeland Dr, Port Monmouth NJ 07758 DDD: 201-495-6621 eve ET Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" - Joker, BATMAN
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/13/89)
The problem with a pay service that "throws out the trash" from Usenet is that it violates the spirit of the Net. The implied assumption that the Net is mostly trash is anathema. The idea here is supposed to be that we RESPECT our net.neighbors as colleagues and equals and, if we're not always interested in what they have to say, the lack of interest is oriented more along topic lines than personal or critical lines. That is, I don't give a flying @(*$@($ about comp.sys.atari, but anyone who posts something in comp.unix.i386 or sci.space or alt.sources will have my ear for as long as he or she takes to tell me whether I want to keep reading. I kill a third of the articles in my feed without hesitation, but what cowardice it would take to insist some third party do this for me! Even if they could do it *right*, which I view with deepest suspicion. I renew my challenge / slash / question re: In Moderation. WHAT WOULD YOU THROW OUT, and WHAT WOULD YOU KEEP. I can see no harm in a representative "culling" from recent postings. Five examples of each type would suffice. If they can't show us that then they don't trust us as potential customers. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (07/14/89)
In article <14465@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >The problem with a pay service that "throws out the trash" from Usenet >is that it violates the spirit of the Net. The implied assumption that >the Net is mostly trash is anathema. Come on, Tom. To say that the Net is mostly trash is to state the obvious. But, to paraphrase Sturgeon, 90% of everything is trash, so what do you expect? I freely admit that in the 5 or so years I've participated in Usenet, and in the 2 years I participated in many Arpanet mailing lists before that, I've posted more than a couple of articles that weren't worth the bandwidth. I've also posted a few that were real contributions to the community (IMHO); most were somewhere in between. So what? I can subscribe to a clipping service that sends me articles collected from various well-known newspapers based on subject, value, or whatever. Is doing so a gross insult to the publications that they survey (because they aren't sending me whole newspapers, just articles)? Of course not. Geoff's original message (calling the net a sewer) was inflammatory, but surely you're not going to tell me that all 4Mb a day are high quality stuff? -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/15/89)
Just a point of clarification... According to amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker): >According to chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >> Perhaps there is no legal way for IMN to make money. Aww, too bad. > >I don't think that "legality" enters into it, particularly. Usenet is >unregulated, and has no controls beyond some very fuzzy conventions that >we all try to adhere to in order to keep things running. This is, if >anything is, "the spirit of Usenet." I quite agree that "you go your way, I'll go mine" is very close to the heart of the collective Usenet intelligence. However, this traditional anarchy is quite distinct from the possible violations of copyright laws which may be required for IMN to make money. Specifically, IMN may try to claim a compilation copyright on a collection of articles which are individually and automatically copyrighted, without asking for permission from the authors. Would this be legal? If, in fact, it would not be legal, then IMN may have no legal way to keep their customers from using the IMN article collection however they please. Such a result would render IMN dead very quickly, as sites borrow their neighbors' IMN feeds. >If you don't like what Geoff is doing, it seems to me that the thing to do >is not to threaten him with legal complications or to scream "censorship." Oh, I'm not screaming "censorship." >Being offended won't get you anywhere, as has been proven on the net many >times over. If you don't like it, do something about it. I consider reasonable discussion to be "something." -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/15/89)
According to jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald): >Why is it so hard to accept the value of paying someone to take out the >trash? Surely you can understand that someone might feel that the gain >in being able to read all of their favourite newsgroups in 20 minutes per >day instead of 6 hours per day is much greater than the combined value of >all of the additional interesting articles they would have found by doing >their own searching? Oh, I quite agree there is a market for IMN. I simply believe that IMN is a Bad Thing. Surely _you_ can understand that a thing's being "marketable" does not imply that it is a Good Thing, or even that it is legal. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (07/15/89)
According to rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz): >According to chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >>Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic >>givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck. > >So what? I went to get sources out to people. How is my "cause" hurt >by someone paying for what they can get elsewhere for free? I admit that IMN is not a direct threat to Rich's "cause" nor anyone else's. However, IMN is a force for change; and I do not like the kind of change that IMN, as I currently understand it, may cause. Perhaps many people will like the post-IMN Usenet; perhaps even I will. But I'd rather not find out the hard way. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/15/89)
For the Nth time in the past month, someone suggests that
>...IMN may try to claim [many things]...
Has any of those who object ever so strenuously to IMN bothered to
find out exactly what it is that IMN will claim?
I have my doubts.
From the map data, the entry for "fernwood":
#N fernwood
#F fernwood.mpk.ca.us
#S MIPS M/1000; UNIX/UMIPS 4.3BSD
#O Anterior Technology
#C Geoff Goodfellow
#E fernwood!geoff, Geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us
#T +1 415 328 5615
#P P.O. Box 1206uu, Menlo Park, CA 94026-1206
#L 37 27 30 N / 122 10 20 W
#U decwrl asylum yasc hercules c3
#R Registered in US Domain; Internet host 130.93.1.2 & 130.93.2.1
#W fernwood!geoff; May 24, 1989
Give him a call, or write him mail. Ask him specific questions. You
just might get specific answers. And then at least you'll know to
what aspects of IMN you object, and you can critique advisedly.
Until then, this is alarmingly pointless.
--
I think that everyone's brains get scrambled one way or another.
--Killashandra Reebbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/16/89)
In article <4954@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <692@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: >> Both in this example and on the usenet, such submission is entirely voluntary >> on the part of the writer - unlike *any* printed medium in which editorial > >You've obviously never heard of vanity presses, amateur press associations, >and other ego-publication media. amateur press associations (APAs) and fanzines I have - and the cost of publication and distribution is borne entirely by the author. This is because no publisher has been found who believes that the market value of the work will return its cost. What is *obvious* here is that the analogy fails. Again, the question is: *who* bears the primary cost of publication and distribution. On usenet, the author does not support even a fraction of the cost of publication/distribution. He may have the vanity to publish, but that doesn't qualify the medium as a "vanity press" or anything else of like ilk. >> [Academic] journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, > >And what about peer review? You can't be serious. :-) "Publish or perish" is a game that *all* the players are committed to, willingly or not. The object of the game is to get a better career path in academia. If you don't publish, someone else will - and will get a leg up ahead of you. This is such a well-known complaint among academics as to have become a public joke. And you think "peers" are gonna make waves? The primary audience of such publications is composed of other academics in the same fix (and usually the same field) who have the same motives arising out of a fully-justified fear of loosing. There are some very fine journals out there, but there are *thousands* of journals, and most are published to serve this purpose almost solely. Few gain any readership outside the small group of people who are required to keep the game going in order not to fall behind. >> Since the decision to release the 'article' is exclusively that of the person >> submitting it, I have difficulty understanding how anyone could conclude that >> in its raw form, such a 'work', stand-alone, would have identifiable market >> value, since there is no editor to make such judgment. > >It has an identifiable market value. Many people spend hundreds of dollars a >month getting Usenet. Divide that by the article volume and you have a good >approximation of the market value of the average article. This argument has merit, I suppose. I doubt if it would fly in a court of competent jurisdiction. But you could be right, and I quite wrong. And I think that this entire issue is really moot unless and until someone is moved to attempt to defend in the courts an asserted copyright for a work that has been 'published' on Usenet. Until then, this is an argument amongst a crop of legal amateurs (including me, most assuredly). Perhaps the opinion of a seasoned copyright lawyer would be appropriate at this point. But more bandwidth devoted to this subject strikes me as, indeed, an exercise in vanity. If one believes his rights are infringed, he should take it to the courts. Lawsuits have a way of distilling issues very rapidly. :-) Though they are a hell of way to have to resolve disputes. Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"
kdb@intercon.uu.net (Kurt Baumann) (07/16/89)
In article <24BE2661.3547@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz): > >According to chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): > >>Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic > >>givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck. > > > >So what? I went to get sources out to people. How is my "cause" hurt > >by someone paying for what they can get elsewhere for free? > > I admit that IMN is not a direct threat to Rich's "cause" nor anyone else's. > However, IMN is a force for change; and I do not like the kind of change > that IMN, as I currently understand it, may cause. > > Perhaps many people will like the post-IMN Usenet; perhaps even I will. > But I'd rather not find out the hard way. I still do not understand what your problem is? You keep making it seem like IMN is going to take over the entire net. First thats impossible, second that is not what is going on. It is an alternate feed. It all comes out of the same tank, it is just that one of the hoses is filtering out the garbage. Is that such a problem? I am not a lawyer and talking about possible copyright infringments is not going to get the problem solved. Someone has to press the issue. Are you going to do that? Or what? The legal issue is not solved in an easy manner, you can bet that the recourse IMN will possibly take will be just to shut off the offending system. That sort of takes care of the problem doesn't it? If all systems who are paying want to send the feed on and they end up losing their feed of IMN that sort of solves that problem doesn't it? Those who find value in IMN and want to keep getting it will not pass it along. -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 46950 Community Plaza Suite 101-132 Sterling, VA 22170 Phone: 703.450.7117
bsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (07/16/89)
In article <09-Jul-89.234056@192.41.214.241>, kdb@InterCon (Kurt Baumann) writes: >Someone with some sense. Come on folks what is the problem here? Someone is >making money. That is the problem. You all would rather that no one make >money from what you feel are your efforts. But the problem is that these >people are not making money from your efforts, but rather their's. Look No, that's not all of it. One of the arguers-against in this group also threatened to stop posting to comp.sources.misc after I proposed a change in the group which would *prevent* IMN from doing its thing. Yet he is equally opposed to IMN doing it as to stopping IMN from doing it. I fail to understand people sometimes.... ++Brandon
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (07/17/89)
I predict that most sites (>95%) are too cheap to subscribe to IMN anyway. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/18/89)
In article <702@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > In article <4954@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <692@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > >> Both in this example and on the usenet, such submission is entirely voluntary > >> on the part of the writer - unlike *any* printed medium in which editorial > >You've obviously never heard of vanity presses, amateur press associations, > >and other ego-publication media. amateur press associations (APAs) and fanzines I notice that you cut this off before I really explained APAs... > I have - and the cost of publication and distribution is borne entirely by > the author. This is because no publisher has been found who believes that > the market value of the work will return its cost. What is *obvious* here is > that the analogy fails. Not true, at least for fantasy-related APAs like A&E. For as long as I did a zine in A&E... > On usenet, the author does not support even a fraction of the > cost of publication/distribution. ... I never supported even a fraction of the cost of publication/distribution. When I didn't have a zine in the current issue, I bought a copy. The page rate for zines was so low that it *must* be largely supported by sales. APAs are *not* the same as vanity presses. They're strictly a hobby, supported by volunteer effort in people's spare time. As hobbies go, they're a lot cheaper than sports cars, boats, or other toys that require a large time and money investment... and (IMHO) a lot more fun. The parallels between usenet and APAs are clear and obvious to anyone really familiar with them... > >> [Academic] journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, > >And what about peer review? > You can't be serious. > :-) "Publish or perish" is a game that *all* the players > are committed to, willingly or not. The object of the game is to get a better > career path in academia. If you don't publish, someone else will - and will get > a leg up ahead of you. This is such a well-known complaint among academics as > to have become a public joke. And you think "peers" are gonna make waves? Sure. Papers *do* get rejected. And there are media with even lower standards than Usenet, you know. There's alt, to begin with. And fidonet. Not to mention a few zillion BBSes. > Lawsuits have a way of distilling issues very rapidly. :-) Though they are a > hell of way to have to resolve disputes. So why do you recommend people follow this course... -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (07/23/89)
In article <5053@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <702@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: >> In article <4954@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >In article <692@whizz.uucp>, bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: >I notice that you cut this off before I really explained APAs... Sorry, Peter - I thought you *had* explained it (in the posting from which it was taken). It was not an attempt to invalidate your point. And I do think your position is arguably correct. >APAs are *not* the same as vanity presses. They're strictly a hobby, supported >by volunteer effort in people's spare time. As hobbies go, they're a lot >cheaper than sports cars, boats, or other toys that require a large time >and money investment... and (IMHO) a lot more fun. >The parallels between usenet and APAs are clear and obvious to anyone >really familiar with them... Ok. We will have to agree that we aren't fully agreed on this point. But you may be right. >> >> [Academic] journals might be cited as a singular anomoly in this regard, > >> >And what about peer review? > >> You can't be serious. > :-) "Publish or perish" is a game that *all* the players >Sure. Papers *do* get rejected. Yes, they do. At a rate directly proportional to the prestige of the journal. Some causes for such rejection (in no particular order) seem to be because: 1. The author cannot construct a sensible, coherent statement in the English (or other) language, or ... 2. Because the subject being presented is not of interest to readers of that journal - which doesn't preclude its publishment elsewhere in a journal that has different readers, or... 3. Because the subject being presented would otherwise be an embarrass- ment to the journal owing to its obvious lack of any merit whatsoever. Given what meets the minimum standard for "scholarship" in the current academic world, it is difficult to imagine a work that an author could not publish *somewhere* in *some* journal (assuming point 1, above, isn't a problem). And there are many *fine* pieces of work that are published in journals - work that would be considered meritorious by any standard. But like usenet, when one turns the page to the next article - well, it's pot luck. Like the net, you see there the good, the bad, the ugly, the vicious, and the downright silly. :-) >And there are media with even lower standards than Usenet, you know. There's >alt, to begin with. And fidonet. Not to mention a few zillion BBSes. Not to mention commercial television :-) >> Lawsuits have a way of distilling issues very rapidly. :-) Though they are a >> hell of way to have to resolve disputes. > >So why do you recommend people follow this course... Heh..... :-) Given a lack of reasonable consensus on an issue that is, after all, a matter of assertion of *legal* rights, parties to the conflict may have no choice but to proceed to a professional legal opinion (at minimum) or a trip in front of a judge and jury (at maximum) to resolve it. Recognizing that this is so is *hardly* a recommendation. I have, fortunately, never been party to a lawsuit, and am not eager to engage that experience. Clearly, though, a point is reached at which the only course is to put up or shut up. A point which has, IMHO, long since passed [i.e., regarding the LEGAL RIGHT (neither established nor denied by consensus) of In Moderation to act on its proposal]. When/if IMHO proceeds, the choices will be immediate and simple for other parties who feel they have received substantial LEGAL INJURY. Anyone who chooses to present an argument based on legal (vs. moral) rights is chaining himself to the courts as the forum of last (not necessarily *first*) resort for resolving the dispute. A claim under copyright law is a *legal*, not a *moral* claim. What we think about it here is irrelevant. Even were you and I lawyers :-(, it might not be relevant, since lawyers *do* tend to assert quite different arguments on an issue, depending on which side they are defending, and upon how well-versed they are in that particular domain of the law. You (and others) may be exactly correct in your analogy of usenet with other specific media. You may not be. It is moot, absent competent legal judgement, unless the parties agree to compromise on this issue. Failing that, legal recourse is all that remains. Or can you suggest some process less draconian that will terminate the do-loop on this issue? :-) Bud Hovell USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin} USPO: McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR USA 97035 MOTD: "Vote NO!"