pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (06/10/89)
In the referenced message, cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) wrote: }In article <3740021@eecs.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: }}While I do not dispute your right to establish or operate a computer network, }}I do dispute the propriety of taking the submissions of others, without }}their consent, and using them in a for-profit media outside the Usenet }}community. } }Indeed --- as you mention later, this would seem to be a straightforward }violation of the copyrights of the authors of the various messages. My interpretation is a little different. Among the rights implicitly granted when someone posts to Usenet is certainly the right to redistribute. Geoff has as much right to redistribute Telecom Digest as anyone else on the net, and if the Telecom Digest moderator says differently, he is wrong. If Geoff can con his recipients into paying $60 / month for what they can get elsewhere for free, good for him. However, it seems to me that those recipients are just as free to redistribute the messages as anyone else. So for example, I might pay Geoff the $60 / month and then re-sell his feed to 20 other sites for only $10 / month. Compilation copyright, you say? It is reasonable for the Telecom Digest and rec.humor.funny to claim a compilation copyright, since articles appear in them with the implicit permission of the authors. Geoff, on the other hand, can claim a compilation copyright all he wants, but he won't be able to make it stick since most of the authors he is compiling won't even know he exists. I fail to see how Geoff expects to stay in business. Note the important difference between what Geoff proposes and what Brad proposes: Brad will be adding new information, for example the newswires. Brad can place whatever redistribution restrictions he likes on this new information. Other issue: editing someone's message without their consent is, of course, inexcusable. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey "The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/10/89)
In article <12113@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes: }In the referenced message, cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) wrote: }}In article <3740021@eecs.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: }}}While I do not dispute your right to establish or operate a computer network, }}}I do dispute the propriety of taking the submissions of others, without }}}their consent, and using them in a for-profit media outside the Usenet }}}community. }} }}Indeed --- as you mention later, this would seem to be a straightforward }}violation of the copyrights of the authors of the various messages. } }My interpretation is a little different. Among the rights implicitly }granted when someone posts to Usenet is certainly the right to }redistribute. As I mentioned, THIS is where the legal knot lives. We all agree that in posting to usenet authors surrender _some_ rights to never-seen third parties. But what are those? I would argue that the only thing I'm sure I can make an AIRTIGHT case for is to "copy" my work as part of the generally accepted machinery of distributing *usenet*. Once you take my work OUT of usenet, you've exceeded my limited copying rights agreement. You, on the other hand, apparently believe that an author surrenders *all* of his rights, and so when someone takes what would otherwise be copyrighted[*], copies it, edits it, and SELLS it, that that is OK and I implicitly allowed that by posting. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable (assuming I had some financial, rather than mere harrassment, interest in the matter) dragging Geoff into court, making that argument, and letting Geoff try to argue that his "redistribution" is really proper. [*] Remember, under the current US setup (and Ithink this is true in Europe and Canada, also) anything done by a defined author is *born* copyrighted by that author. You, and everyone else, should be treating *every* usenet posting as if it had "copyright 1989 <me>" along with its disclaimers. So in some sense, having Patrick or Brad or individual authors PUT copyright notices on postings is gratuitous: we are _obliged_ to treat them AS IF they had the copyrigh notice *anyway*. Absent any real precedents (ARE there any even close ones? I should ask misc.legal...) no one really KNOWS how this would come down, of course, but I think that this is CLEARLY beyond. /Bernie\
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (06/11/89)
I believe that my .sig will allow only UUNET to charge for redistribution of my articles. I am only allowing them to charge because I know that they only charge enough to pay for the cost of doing so. If anyone else is charging to redistribute, but is only charging for expenses, you should post an article here so that I can figure out a way to add you, or a better way to state it. Mark -- Mark Smith, 61 Tenafly Road, Tenafly, NJ 07670 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith All Rights Reserved ***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are ***UUNET Communications Services.
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/11/89)
In article <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: >I believe that my .sig will allow only UUNET to charge for >redistribution of my articles. I am only allowing them to charge >because I know that they only charge enough to pay for the cost of >doing so. Wrong. Europe can not distribute your articles, since the backbone sites there charge fees to recover their expenses, and there are several areas of the country where several sites are reimbursing their neighbors for the cost of a UUNET feed. I suggest that you dump your .signature. The .signature in question follows: >Mark Smith, 61 Tenafly Road, Tenafly, NJ 07670 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu >...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith All Rights Reserved >***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are >***UUNET Communications Services. On the other hand, one could argue that your .signature is not binding because the very act of posting the article, given the current topology of the net, forces a violation of its provisions -- your article will be forwarded into Europe while the admins there are sleeping or otherwise unable to stop it. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (06/12/89)
Consider my previous .sig dumped. Now the question is, what line is required in a .signature to prevent the article from being carried over IN MODERATION NETWORK? Mark -- Mark Smith | "Be careful when looking into the distance, |All Rights 61 Tenafly Road|that you do not miss what is right under your nose."| Reserved Tenafly,NJ 07670-2643|rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith,msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) (06/12/89)
In article <12113@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >Other issue: editing someone's message without their consent is, of >course, inexcusable. Oh? Would it be necessary to quote your entire article, unedited, just to ask if this is really true? -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are my own. However, if you see this at Waterloo, Stanford, or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.
jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) (06/12/89)
In article <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: >***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are >***UUNET Communications Services. Another way to get the intended effect would be to say "only non-profit organizations may charge". This would more generally discriminate between those who would use Usenet to profit-minded ends and the Rest Of Us ;-) Of course, there's the old trusty standby, see below. This, I just realized, runs into problems in Europe though. Are the net hubs there run as non-profit organizations? Does such a concept even apply beyond US borders? --jh -- John Hood, Biar Games snail: 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 BBS: 607 257 3423 domain: jhood@biar.uu.net bang: anywhere!uunet!biar!jhood You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/12/89)
cosell@bbn.com writes:
I would argue that the only thing
I'm sure I can make an AIRTIGHT case for is to "copy" my work as part
of the generally accepted machinery of distributing *usenet*. Once you
take my work OUT of usenet...
I suggest that you are asking the wrong question. The right question
will at the very least revolve around, "What is Usenet, that one can
define its `generally accepted machinery,' as well as what constitutes
`within' and `without' it?"
Hypothesize an "unusual" feed. Imagine that I feed them using the
classic essential "generally accepted machinery" of my news software
including, e.g., [ir]news, spool areas, sys & active files, and
sendbatch with appropriate cron-initiated controlling scripts. They
even accept the feed with a black-box re-implementation of UUCP, let's
say. But the "rnews" program running on their OmniBlotchWorks 32x
bears no relation whatever to what we (presumed UNIX users, for the
sake of an audience definition) are used to, and instead slices the
incoming news batch into its articles in some different way and posts
the articles around some other, radically different article-
dissemination system.
Have I left behind the "generally accepted machinery?" Of course not.
Has the feed recipient? I doubt it - there is no such thing as
"generally accepted machinery." When NNTP was new, it wasn't
generally accepted, but later gained wide acceptance. When VN was
new... When RN was new... When Gnews was new... When GNUS was
new... When ANU-News was new... Right now, C-News is new (first real
release, anyway)... Rich Salz says there's YARN (Yet Another Reader
of News) in the comp.sources.unix queue, called NN...
[Please keep in mind that this is nothing but a hypothetical
case - I know of no one doing such things.]
I submit the hypothesis that, for purposes of restricting what can and
cannot be fed, "the Usenet" does not exist, and cannot be made to
exist. That is, "the Usenet" cannot be defined - there are too many
hooks into the system, too many different ways of looking at the same
thing, too many underlying transport mechanisms, to permit one to
create such a definition.
--Karlkarl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/12/89)
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu writes:
If anyone else is charging to redistribute, but is only charging for
expenses, you should post an article here so that I can figure out a
way to add you, or a better way to state it.
And while you're at it, you might consider a new implementation for
maintenance of an up-to-date Internet hosts table.
Strictly sarcastic,
--Karlemv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (06/12/89)
I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the in moderation network. After all, unless they are editing the text of articles (doubtful), the effect is simply that of a stream of cancel messages wiping out some fraction of each group. The delay in having someone else decide whether I'm going to be interested in an article doesn't encourage me much. ps. You think this signature gives me any protection? -- You may not redistribute this article under any circumstances, ever.
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/13/89)
In article <632@biar.UUCP> jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) writes: >Another way to get the intended effect would be to say "only >non-profit organizations may charge". This would more generally >discriminate between those who would use Usenet to profit-minded ends >and the Rest Of Us ;-) Whoops. Not quite. Didn't someone from a small company in Florida post recently saying he has some of the folks he's feeding help out with his uunet bill? Looks like he can't do that either. >Of course, there's the old trusty standby, see below. This, I just >realized, runs into problems in Europe though. Are the net hubs there >run as non-profit organizations? Does such a concept even apply >beyond US borders? The concept may or may not apply, case by case. Just as in the US, there are academic as well as commercial sites on the net in Europe. I claim that any restriction you add to your posting that will be automatically violated by the act of posting your article is invalid. For example, let's say I dislike the "portal" system (at one point, this was true; they've become much better net citizens lately, though). Let's say I post articles with the .signature: "I forbid anyone from transmitting this article to the Portal Communications Company". This is nonsense -- the net broadcasts using a flooding algorithm, and there is simply no mechanism to stop my article. The act of posting the article guarantees that the restriction will be violated. Now let's look at the .signature John Gilmore and others came up with -- "You may transmit this article only if your recipients may." I contend that this restriction IS valid because it is easily complied with, in either of two ways: 1) I can ignore it. In this case, anyone who receives this article has the right to pass it on, regardless of any other agreements between feeder and feedee. 2) I can filter such articles out. But if for some reason, I miss a few, no problem -- it's just that any recipients now have a right to send the article as well. I have no problem if someone wants to hire Geoff Goodfellow as their editor, and I have no problem if someone wants to sign up for Brad Templeton's service either. These efforts to attempt to stop innovation with legal restrictions seem to me to be the kind of thing that folks that believe in freedom should be against. The reason we're seeing a lot of proposals like Geoff's and Brad's at this time is because there's a demand for it. The net has simply become too large. A better response to these proposals is to come up with competing proposals that would be free. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/13/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun12111909@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: }cosell@bbn.com writes: } I would argue that the only thing } I'm sure I can make an AIRTIGHT case for is to "copy" my work as part } of the generally accepted machinery of distributing *usenet*. Once you } take my work OUT of usenet... } }I suggest that you are asking the wrong question. The right question }will at the very least revolve around, "What is Usenet, that one can }define its `generally accepted machinery,' as well as what constitutes }`within' and `without' it?" ... }I submit the hypothesis that, for purposes of restricting what can and }cannot be fed, "the Usenet" does not exist, and cannot be made to }exist. That is, "the Usenet" cannot be defined - there are too many }hooks into the system, too many different ways of looking at the same }thing, too many underlying transport mechanisms, to permit one to }create such a definition. I know all this, I wsa just groping for something that might make sense--- by _your_ analysis (which is mostly correct, of course), authors retain *no* rights: the act of posting to usenet essentially gives anyone who can contrive to receive the posting the privilege of doing anything they choose with it. Can one draw some other conclusion from your argument? As soon as you allow that authors retain _some_ rights to a posting to usenet, you go right into the quicksand of having to say what those rights *are*. [perhaps the folks that were so adamant at the time of the r.h.f debate that it was *not* proper for brad to pick up postings from random newsgroups and "republish" them in r.h.f could comment on this... clearly "in moderation" is more commercial than r.h.f's plans ever were, and is of *no* use to usenet proper, what legal basis is there (or should there be), if any, for preventing such activities?] /b\
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/13/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun12111909@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > I submit the hypothesis that, for purposes of restricting what can and > cannot be fed, "the Usenet" does not exist, and cannot be made to > exist. That is, "the Usenet" cannot be defined - there are too many > hooks into the system, too many different ways of looking at the same > thing, too many underlying transport mechanisms, to permit one to > create such a definition. Well, I don't know if this is still in the monthly posting... but last time I took note it defined Usenet proper is the set of sites recieving all messages in news.announce.important. If that's not rigorous enough for you, how about this: Usenet is the set of sites such that, if a given site receives a message in group X, it receives all messages in group X not crossposted to any group it explicitly excludes. The only exception is messages lost to hadware or software failures such as disk errors or full disks. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/13/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net writes:
Well, I don't know if this is still in the monthly posting... but last time
I took note it defined Usenet proper is the set of sites recieving all
messages in news.announce.important.
That's an extremely interesting definition to apply, especially in
conjunction with your additional, more rigorous definition later.
My comment regarding the non-definability of Usenet addressed
cosell@bbn.com's proposition that forwarding "within Usenet" was fine
but that problems arose when one takes a person's articles "OUT of
Usenet"; I suggested that the concept of "within Usenet" could not be
created. Now you have just re-asserted a definition of "Usenet" which
makes it positively trivial for a site to fit the definition, hence it
can claim to be operating entirely "within Usenet" no matter what its
internal policies, redistribution policies, or charging structure: All
it need do is make sure that news.announce.important shows up.
Oops.
--Karlcaasnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Clifford Adams) (06/13/89)
In article <3305@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass writes: >... >I have no problem if someone wants to hire Geoff Goodfellow as their >editor, and I have no problem if someone wants to sign up for Brad >Templeton's service either. These efforts to attempt to stop >innovation with legal restrictions seem to me to be the kind of thing >that folks that believe in freedom should be against. > >The reason we're seeing a lot of proposals like Geoff's and Brad's at >this time is because there's a demand for it. The net has simply >become too large. A better response to these proposals is to come up >with competing proposals that would be free. >-- >-- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck I have been working on a system like this for almost 6 months now. It will be free, but it will take a lot of work to get started (I plan to take about 5 years to write the software). I think that it will be useful by that time (I think Brad's proposal might be a bit early in terms of users willing to pay). The basic idea behind my approach is that people can "locally" (defined by cheap communications) communicate recommendations of good articles, and readers can use these recommendations to select articles. Added to this would be a number of national-level moderators who would select articles from local areas for a national recommendation, and add keywords to the article. Moderation would not be a paying activity, but many people would still moderate for ego reasons. Now I just need to write the software (a Simple Matter of Programming (1/2 :-)). I am interested in hearing from anyone who is doing similar, or related work, or anyone interested in programming this beast. I am also interested in any opinions about this. I will post more details if anyone is interested. -- Clifford A. Adams --- "I understand only inasmuch as I become." caasnsr@nmt.edu ...cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!nmtsun!caasnsr (505) 835-6104 | US Mail: Box 2439 Campus Station / Socorro, NM 87801
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (06/13/89)
In article <686@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > ps. You think this signature gives me any protection? From what? -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "Contemptuous lights flashed across the computer's -- karl@ficc.uu.net console." -- Hitchhiker's Guide
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/13/89)
In article <10348@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes: }In article <12113@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes: } }>Other issue: editing someone's message without their consent is, of }>course, inexcusable. } }Oh? Would it be necessary to quote your entire article, unedited, just }to ask if this is really true? It is the difference in meaning between _editing_ and _excerpting_. Yes, broadly editing can include excerpting, but editing that is OK _only_ to the extent that it is excepting (and even then, only excepting with a purpose) is better called 'excepting', and by contrast if just unqualfied 'editing' is used, I presume (as did Jef, I think) that the broader term was used because of broader intent. An 'intent' which is _not_ appropriate. /bernie\
mikej@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) (06/13/89)
In article <686@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >ps. You think this signature gives me any protection? >-- >You may not redistribute this article under any circumstances, ever. Sure does. Now NO ONE can transmit it to their net neighbors at all. -- Michael R. Johnston System Administrator rutgers!lilink!mikej LILINK Public Access Xenix (516) 872-2137/2138/2349 1200/2400 Login: new
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/14/89)
<Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> <686@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: In article <686@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >ps. You think this signature gives me any protection? >-- >You may not redistribute this article under any circumstances, ever. Ooops, looks like all of usenet violated your restriction. Your going to have to sue us all ;-) How about this one: You may not read this article unless you pay John Sparks $5.00 (C) Copyright 1989 Brute Force Cybernetics - Creating a need and filling it. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) (06/14/89)
In article <41279@bbn.COM>, cosell@bbn (Bernie Cosell) writes: >I know all this, I wsa just groping for something that might make >sense--- by _your_ analysis (which is mostly correct, of course), >authors retain *no* rights: the act of posting to usenet essentially >gives anyone who can contrive to receive the posting the privilege of >doing anything they choose with it. Can one draw some other conclusion >from your argument? As soon as you allow that authors retain _some_ >rights to a posting to usenet, you go right into the quicksand of having >to say what those rights *are*. Posting to the net is *not* like publishing a book. It is much more like writing on a fence, or hanging a poster on a wall in Beijing. As Karl Kleinpaste pointed out, the act of posting is an implicit acknowledgement that your wit (or lack of it) will be flooded through an ill-defined loosely coupled network. Do you copyright your grafitti? Do you retain rights in a letter to the editor of your local paper? (In fact, they do. They resell your letter for profit). Let's get real. USENET is an abstraction. I doubt you could even call it a legal fiction. There is no organization, no officers, no board of directors, no accountability. People (and systems) drop in and out. Remember that when ascribing legal rights to USENET access. -- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ *NEW ADDRESS* AUDIBLE: (201) 582-5928 *NEW PHONE* READABLE: andys@ulysses.ATT.COM or att!ulysses!andys *NEW EMAIL* The views and opinions are my own. Who else would want them? *OLD DISCLAIMER*
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/14/89)
<Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> <632@biar.UUCP>
<3305@epimass.EPI.COM>
Sender:
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords:
It has been stated that your can't put such restrictions in your
signature as "not for Portal" because they aren't legally enforcable. Portal
gets it's news in batches and can't be expected to check every message. That
is so, but I think that in the case of the In Moderation Network, it is a
legally viable restriction.
Since IMM is claiming to weed through usenet and picking the best of the crop,
that means that they have to check articles on a one by one basis. Therefore a
restriction such as "Not for In Moderation Network" seems to me to be legal as
they should have seen it in their weeding, or they could screen it out with
whatever other parameters they use to keep out the 'vermin'.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/14/89)
I wish people wouldn't confuse Brad's ClariNet with Goodfellow's IN
MODERATION. They really have nothing to do with each other. Brad
proposes to feed NEW MATERIAL -- wire service news copy and so forth,
stuff NOT currently available on Usenet -- to consenting, paying
subscribers using the existing B news *mechanism*. No
interconnectivity with Usenet per se is necessary, although it turns
out in practice that almost anyone TODAY subscribing to ClariNet has
probably already got a Usenet feed. Nor does Brad's choosing to offer
Reuters reports, syndicated movie reviews etc reflect (it seems to me)
any judgment on the present Usenet S/N ratio or posting quality -- as
Goodfellow's clearly does. Nor does ClariNet make a dime off the net,
except in the nebulous sense that by spending a decade developing this
baby we have created an infrastructure for ClariNet to add to. (I do
hope he pays UUNET well for its services. UUNET is plenty smart enough
to make sure he does!)
Goodfellow's thing is the dicier one. Digesting free information for
profit, which is what he's talking about doing, seems anti-Net in
concept. Besides which, I can't imagine what groups I would want to
(a) subscribe to in the first place, but (b) have someone edit for me!
Is he saying that with a good editing job news.groups or talk.volume
would somehow be worth reading? Conversely specialized groups like
comp.sys.rayovac or sci.phrenology have a good enough S/N right now
that editing would be a waste of time. I suspect what would get edited
is stuff like "Can anyone help me, my inodes are going away." By all
means let's not waste time actually *helping* each other... let's just
cut straight to the good stuff someone ELSE is posting.
I guess that gets to the heart of why I don't like for-profit
digesting. Maybe in practice it doesn't always work this way, but
we're supposed to be equals here - help the other fellow as well as
glom others' info. Let's put it this way, if *everyone on the net*
used IN MODERATION instead of direct free feeds, would it even be
worth bothering to read?
--
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/14/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun12230800@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > peter@ficc.uu.net writes: > Well, I don't know if this is still in the monthly posting... but last time > I took note it defined Usenet proper is the set of sites recieving all > messages in news.announce.important. > That's an extremely interesting definition to apply, especially in > conjunction with your additional, more rigorous definition later. That's why I made the more rigorous definition. It's a suggestion for a useful definition the gist of which is that Usenet sites can select which groups to get, but if they get one they get all of it. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) (06/14/89)
In article <14397@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0 (Tom Neff) writes: > [Editing committed here] >................ I suspect what would get edited >is stuff like "Can anyone help me, my inodes are going away." By all >means let's not waste time actually *helping* each other... let's just >cut straight to the good stuff someone ELSE is posting. Actually, the problem with postings like "Can anyone help me, my inodes are going away" is that a *lot* of people hit the F key when they see it. A good editor could summarize 20 identical responses in one short article. That does not preclude people helping each other. -- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ *NEW ADDRESS* AUDIBLE: (201) 582-5928 *NEW PHONE* READABLE: andys@ulysses.ATT.COM or att!ulysses!andys *NEW EMAIL* The views and opinions are my own. Who else would want them? *OLD DISCLAIMER*
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (06/20/89)
In article <2213@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >In article <632@biar.UUCP> jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) writes: ><In article <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: ><>***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are ><>***UUNET Communications Services. >< ><Another way to get the intended effect would be to say "only ><non-profit organizations may charge". This would more generally ><discriminate between those who would use Usenet to profit-minded ends ><and the Rest Of Us ;-) > >Sorry, but "non-profit organization" != "organization that doesn't make >a profit". "Non-profit organization" has a very specific legal meaning >that is quite different from what you have in mind. And I rather doubt >that more than a small fraction of the sites on the net are *legally* >non-profit. And odds are that they aren't the ones charging for access. >Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard Don't forget also that the precise meaning of non-profit is something that is defined by the tax codes of the various political entities in the U.S.A. I'm sure that they don't even agree 100% (maybe 99% though). When your message crosses a country boundary, though, you may have any definition applied. BTW, has anybody given serious thought to the various implementation alternatives that In Moderation Network has available to it? Everybody assumes that it would take the form of a trimmed-down newsfeed, because that would make the most sense. However, in the face of various knee-jerk reactions, it could be handled in several other ways: 1. You could get your feed from anywhere, and transmit it anywhere. In Moderation Network would supply you with a list of cruft article IDs; this list would be copyrighted, of course. IMN would also supply a program which would take the article IDs and mark a given newsreader's .newsrc so they would not be read. In the extreme case, this could give IMN a good reason to charge on a per-reader basis. 2. You could get your feed from anywhere, and transmit it anywhere. In Moderation Network would supply you with a feed of cancel messages. Each of these would be frobbed up to ensure that they will be accepted by your news software, and each would carry a distribution which would ensure that the cancel messages themselves would not get out of your organization. IMN could if necessary supply patches to the news transport software to ensure this. Of course, these cancel messages would also carry a copyright, in addition to being covered by IMN's contract. This one has the advantage that it only wastes transmission time; most likely, the articles would not spend much time in your spool directory, and quite likely would be removed before they were batched for downstream transmission. But a sysadmin has the right to do a local cancel, doesn't he? In any case, neither of these two alternatives would seem to be affected by any signature phrase imaginable. (Thanks to Brad Templeton at the Usenix Usenet BOF for getting me thinking on these lines. Geoff Goodfellow is free to implement these ideas; I'd appreciate a thank-you note if he does. If he has thought of them independently, then I congratulate him.) -- Craig Jackson {bbn,ll-xn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/20/89)
>Don't forget also that the precise meaning of non-profit is something that >is defined by the tax codes of the various political entities in the U.S.A. >I'm sure that they don't even agree 100% (maybe 99% though). This is why I prefer to use the term non-commercial to non-profit. Both In Moderation and Brad's service are commercial operations, so the term would hold while avoiding the specific legal definition attached to non-profit (besides would that mean they had the rights to distribute as long as they lost money? non-profit doesn't imply lack-of-intent-to-make-a-profit... Most of what I've seen people seem to be really trying to restrict it to non-commercial situations). As an aside, OtherRealms is limited to non-commercial enterprises without permission. Neither service, as far as I'm concerned, will carry rec.mag.otherrealms or the electronic OtherRealms (Brad, actually, has asked me about it, and I declined to join the service. In Moderation hasn't contacted me, so I assume they don't plan on carrying it. The two commercial services that do carry OtherRealms or subsets (Delphi and CompuServe) both have written agreements with me to do so....). >1. You could get your feed from anywhere, and transmit it anywhere. >In Moderation Network would supply you with a list of cruft article IDs; Gads. Erik Fair wrote an article for 'login:' a few years back that covered something very similar to this concept. Called the "accolade" named by yours truly, it had people sending control messages around the net 'congratulating' a specific article -- and you could set your system to only read messages with a specific minimum number of accolades. Alternatively, you could look for accolades by a given net-address who's judgement you trusted. Good ideas always seem to come back, although I don't believe it's practical large numbers of accoladers. A few specific editors, though... >2. You could get your feed from anywhere, and transmit it anywhere. >In Moderation Network would supply you with a feed of cancel messages. >Each of these would be frobbed up to ensure that they will be accepted >by your news software Unfortunately, both of these ideas carries one serious negative (at least, from the point of IMN). Once a site trashes an article, it won't retransmit downstream. This means that a site like mcvax could buy the IMN service and all of Europe would live on its coattails. Any group of sites willing to funnel through a single point could then accept the services of IMN passively without paying for them. Besides, one of the main advantages of IMN that I see is getting the trash off my modem. Doing the deletion after the fact actually increases traffic load rather than decreases. It also has timing problems -- if you read your news between the time the article comes in and IMN pops in it's batch of deletion messages, you see all the articles you're paying to not see. chuq Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (07/22/89)
In article <632@biar.UUCP> jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) writes: <In article <Jun.10.18.52.35.1989.6219@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: <>***You may only charge a fee to redistribute this article if you are <>***UUNET Communications Services. < <Another way to get the intended effect would be to say "only <non-profit organizations may charge". This would more generally <discriminate between those who would use Usenet to profit-minded ends <and the Rest Of Us ;-) Sorry, but "non-profit organization" != "organization that doesn't make a profit". "Non-profit organization" has a very specific legal meaning that is quite different from what you have in mind. And I rather doubt that more than a small fraction of the sites on the net are *legally* non-profit. And odds are that they aren't the ones charging for access. This is being pointed out to avoid the fate of the BBS sysops in Oklahoma who were asked by SW Bell "are you a business or are you non-profit". Due to the *legal* meaning of non-profit being different than the one you seem to think it has, *either* answer resulted in business phone rates. The "proper answer" was "neither, this is a hobby". The only thing I can think of that would do what you seem to want, is to say "The In Moderation Network may not carry this message." Or something like that. If it's as important to you as you seem to imply, then my advice is to find a *good* lawyer who either understands the net or can be taught. But from previous discussions on copyright and the net, I'd be willing to make a small bet that you'll be told that the net isn't explicitly covered and there are no clear precedents, so there is now way to guess what would happen if you wound up in court. *And* that the kind of limited distribution you want isn't possible (as in the *legal* way of accomplishing it isn't practical). What do you do if you are told that given the nature of the law and of the net, the only way to do it is to *explicitly* list the systems you are giving permission to? Wouldn't that do wonders for volume? From your comments I doubt that an explicit list of sites denied permission would meet your wishes. The whole problem boils down to this: The law expects you to be explicit in stating the limitations. If you aren't, then it will be the *courts* that decide the interpretation of any ambiguities, not you. Are you willing to take that risk? -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short