chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/12/89)
According to romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey): >Give it a rest, folks. It's not your articles that Anterior is >selling, it's the services of an editor who will weed out the cruft >and summarize high-flammage, low-content discussions. I understand the concept of selling an editing service. I simply don't believe that the In Moderation people can charge for forwarding articles that the recipient doesn't already have and call that an "editing service". -- 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!
romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) (06/13/89)
In article <1989Jun12.100804.24166@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I understand the concept of selling an editing service. I simply don't >believe that the In Moderation people can charge for forwarding articles >that the recipient doesn't already have and call that an "editing service". I think the value in the service is in the messages *not* forwarded - the volume reduced, the summarizations, whatever - the weeds that are pruned out rather than the messages that remain. Technically, it's an awful lot easier to forward the articles than it is to get rid of them once they're there. I suppose that IN MODERATION could forge cancel messages for the articles which get edited down; this seems a lot easier way. If the business venture succeeds, then obviously there's a demand for it, whatever we all consider the company to be charging for. If it fails, then there wasn't. I'm interested in seeing the results. I agree with Joe Buck's observation about why there are more things like Geoff's and Brad's ventures happening: people view netnews as a resource, but there's so much raw stuff that it's becoming impossible to use. I mean, look, rec.arts.comics is an extremely civilized news group with (generally) very little flaming, and I can barely weed out the stuff I'm really interested in out of the daily volume. There's been a lot of talk about software solutions to the signal-to-noise ration problems of the USENET for years; they haven't materialized. So IN MODERATION provides one solution and ClariNet provides a whole new information flow. -- - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com "We had some good machines/But they don't work no more" - Shriekback
msb@ho5cad.att.com (Mike Balenger) (06/13/89)
In article <1989Jun12.100804.24166@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey): > >Give it a rest, folks. It's not your articles that Anterior is > >selling, it's the services of an editor who will weed out the cruft > >and summarize high-flammage, low-content discussions. > I understand the concept of selling an editing service. I simply don't > believe that the In Moderation people can charge for forwarding articles > that the recipient doesn't already have and call that an "editing service". > -- > 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! It's not what they PASS that's the issue. It's what they remove or summarize that's important. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <cute quote> Michael S. Balenger (201) 949-8789 <cute disclaimer> AT&T Bell Labs Room 1L-405 msb@ho5cad.att.com Crawfords Corner Road att!ho5cad!msb Holmdel, NJ 07733
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/15/89)
According to msb@ho5cad.att.com (Mike Balenger): >According to chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >>I understand the concept of selling an editing service. I simply don't >>believe that the In Moderation people can charge for forwarding articles >>that the recipient doesn't already have and call that an "editing service". > >It's not what they PASS that's the issue. It's what they remove or >summarize that's important. For the point of view of Anterior and their hypothetical customers, it is true that the removal and/or summary of articles is the thing of prime importance. It is, from their viewpoint, a commercial service that is worth money (they hope!). However, I see things somewhat differently: Usenet articles which originate in the U.S.A and, I believe, Canada, are >automatically< copyrighted by their authors. (Berne Convention and all that.) IMN passes Usenet articles to their customers who have not already received those articles. IMN does not make any agreement with the authors of the articles for redistribution rights or royalties. IMN expects and receives payment from their customers. What I, as a Usenet author, see here is IMN selling my copyrighted postings for profit without my consent. I cannot put up with such behavior. Further, in my opinion, the only way IMN will make money is to limit its customers from redistributing articles received via IMN. I do not believe that IMN can legally restrict redistribution of articles which are copyrighted by others! IMN is Evil and Rude and possibly illegal. I say: Boycott IMN. -- 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!
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (06/15/89)
msb@ho5cad.att.com (Mike Balenger) writes: >> According to romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey): >> >Give it a rest, folks. It's not your articles that Anterior is >> >selling, it's the services of an editor who will weed out the cruft >> >and summarize high-flammage, low-content discussions. >It's not what they PASS that's the issue. It's what they remove or >summarize that's important. I think that's an important part of the issue. Not only inappropriate and unapproved capitalization upon the efforts of others, but inappropriate and unapproved filtering of relevant news. I don't trust editors. That's why I read the USENET and listen to international radio broadcasts, and I doubt I'm alone in my habits. ><cute quote> Michael S. Balenger (201) 949-8789 -- richard -- * "We must hang together, gentlemen ... else, we shall most assuredly * * hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, 1776 * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho *
cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) (06/16/89)
In article <1989Jun14.172942.23300@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > Further, in my opinion, the only way IMN will make money is to limit its > customers from redistributing articles received via IMN. I do not believe > that IMN can legally restrict redistribution of articles which are > copyrighted by others! I agree; however if others pay IMN for this service that's their business. In other words, I can pay IMN for a better feed, but IMN can't stop me from sending this feed out to my friends - because IMN can't copyright this feed. However, IMN can refuse to sell me this feed unless I agree to NOT give this feed to my friends. I can always refuse to do business with IMN, but if I want the feed I have to get it from IMN, or somebody that's breaking their contract with IMN. I would futher hazard that IMN cannot hack the "contents" of an article (removing the gratuitous flame, leaving the meat) because of the risks of presenting the author out of context, and thus libeling (slandering?) him. If this argument is carried out ad absurdo (sic) then IMN cannot present an authors article without presenting all the articles he was responding too - IMN can't present me saying "That's silly" without also presenting the rest of the "conversation". > IMN is Evil and Rude and possibly illegal. I say: Boycott IMN. I say the legalities of IMN are *very* questionable, and laysuits could run around for years - worse these lawsuits could point out the basic fallicy of trying to copyright *anything* anybody says - buts another can of worms. -- 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).
wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle) (06/16/89)
In article <1989Jun14.172942.23300@ateng.com> "deliver Author" <chip@ateng.com> (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >IMN is Evil and Rude and possibly illegal. I say: Boycott IMN. Yo Chip, Lighten up, guy. Lay back, hack code, stay cool, go with the flow. EVIL? Come on. It might be rude or illegal, but evil? I kinda liked the idea, but don't know if I would pay for such a service. I look at IMN as an electronic newspaper; either it's worth the cost to subscribe to a newspaper or it isn't. Each person must decide for himself. Those people who steal neighbors' newspapers are committing the same (minor) crime as those who let neighbor sites see their pay feed(s). Take it easy Chip. Life is wonderful! If you're still angry, just run this program on your machine and hit the beach. main() { while (1) fork (); } -- -Mitchell F. Wyle Institut fuer Informationssysteme wyle@inf.ethz.ch ETH Zentrum / 8092 Zurich, Switzerland +41 1 256 5237
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (06/17/89)
In article <4576@ficc.uu.net> cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) writes:
: In other words, I can pay IMN for a better feed, but IMN can't stop me
: from sending this feed out to my friends - because IMN can't copyright
: this feed.
That is incorrect. They may claim a compilation copyright. That does
not prohibit anyone from distributing the individual articles (e.g.
Usenet); it most certainly would prohibit someone from simply
redistributing the feed.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.combill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (06/19/89)
In article <12250@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
: In the referenced message, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) wrote:
: }That is incorrect. They may claim a compilation copyright. That does
: }not prohibit anyone from distributing the individual articles (e.g.
: }Usenet); it most certainly would prohibit someone from simply
: }redistributing the feed.
:
: So what's the difference?
Like this: if I take a standard newsfeed, their compilation copyright
is irrelevant.
If I provide a service like theirs, but with my own people doing the
selection and editing, and without reference to theirs, their
compilation copyright is irrelevant.
If I provide some service that uses their material as input, but use
the material *only* to guide my own actions, and not as direct input,
their compliation copyright is irrelevant.
If I provide some service that uses their material as input and is
essentially a mechanical transformation (whether done by people or
machines is irrelevant) of their material, their compilation copyright
should permit them to sue my pants off.
There are grey areas, but this is how I've heard it from the legal
gurus around where I work.
Basically, what the compilation copyright protects is the
intellectual effort invested in forming the compilation. One can use
the results indirectly, as one could use the information in a book,
but copying, cutting, or rearranging it and then distributing the
result would be a violation of the compilation copyright.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.compokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (07/23/89)
In the referenced message, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) wrote: }That is incorrect. They may claim a compilation copyright. That does }not prohibit anyone from distributing the individual articles (e.g. }Usenet); it most certainly would prohibit someone from simply }redistributing the feed. So what's the difference? --- Jef Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey "...an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often quite often picturesque liar." -- Mark Twain