alan@essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) (06/13/89)
I find the IN MODERATION network somewhat distasteful. I can see
the point that what subscribers are paying for is the services of
an editor, and the production of a flame-free, coherent, and relevant
feed. But what those editors start from are articles originally posted
for free distribution. It is even possible that some of those articles
might be mine.
I don't mind sharing my articles. But I OBJECT to someone other than
myself making a profit from my intellectual efforts.
So I have designed myself a new .signature, which I think will stop
the IN MODERATION people from including my articles in their feed. I
do not know if the wording will give legitimate USENET readers any
problems. Can anyone out there advise, or give a better wording?
Thanx
Alan M Stanier copyright A M Stanier 1989
email alan@sx.ac.uk Essex University This article may be redistributed
tel +44 206-872153 Colchester <-- for profit only if such profit is
FAX +44 206-860585 England CO4 3EA sent to A M Stanier at this addresskarl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/14/89)
alan@essex.ac.uk writes:
I don't mind sharing my articles. But I OBJECT to someone other than
myself making a profit from my intellectual efforts.
A scenario for you...
You are a person who is very knowledgeable about the OmniBlotchWorks
32x line of (strictly hypothetical) computers. You participate fairly
regularly and extremely informatively in comp.sys.obw32x. Joe Random,
somewhere off in the darkest boondocks of the network, has an OBW32x
and reads your postings religiously, and as a direct result of your
contributions, gains additional expertise and direction by which to
improve his working position, resulting in raises and/or promotions
which would not have occurred without your help.
Joe made a profit (monetarily, career-advancement-wise, or both) from
your postings.
Are you going to attempt to get a lien against Joe's future salary as
compensation for your contribution to his career?
--Karl
borderline anarchist
PS- `Joe' is not hypothetical. I consider my own position to have
improved dramatically by my participation in and observation of the
network. And I am fully aware that my participation in some areas of
the news have resulted in similar assistance from myself to other
`Joes' out there - more power to them.jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (06/14/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun13142738@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >...Joe made a profit (monetarily, career-advancement-wise, or both) from >your postings. >Are you going to attempt to get a lien against Joe's future salary as >compensation for your contribution to his career? Well *I* wouldn't, because that's the kind of interaction and the kind of profit-making that Usenet was built for. It has grown up as a cooperative venture, where people help each other make profits by sharing information. It was not built so that the Firstest with the Mostest could help themselves make profits by exploiting its popularity and the wide range of information and commentary on it. As a "borderline anarchist", Karl, you should recognize the difference between competition and cooperation. [Rabid pro-competition flames will be ignored.] Now Usenet is huge and popular, and we still have the lack of control and regulation that goes along with the cooperative spirit, which is good. But because of that, I don't see how we can stop these kind of things from happening, other than including long copyright notices and so on. That doesn't mean that I have to be happy about them happening. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "What made it special, made it dangerous"
alan@servax0.essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) (06/14/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun13142738@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > A scenario for you... > You are a person who is very knowledgeable about the OmniBlotchWorks > 32x line of (strictly hypothetical) computers. You participate fairly > regularly and extremely informatively in comp.sys.obw32x. Joe Random, > somewhere off in the darkest boondocks of the network, has an OBW32x > and reads your postings religiously, and as a direct result of your > contributions, gains additional expertise and direction by which to > improve his working position, resulting in raises and/or promotions > which would not have occurred without your help. > Joe made a profit (monetarily, career-advancement-wise, or both) from > your postings. > Are you going to attempt to get a lien against Joe's future salary as > compensation for your contribution to his career? No, of course not. But I would expect that Joe would also be posting to comp.sys.obw32x, and I would get some benefit from his postings: this seems to me an acceptable way for him to return to me the profit he has made from my efforts. But I do not see any analagous way I can profit from the IN MODERATION network, who (apparently) plan to take from USENET and give nothing back. However, with your point in mind, can you suggest a better wording of my .signature? I have had several suggestions, and the current layout follows. -- Alan M Stanier copyright A M Stanier 1989 email alan@essex.ac.uk This article may be redistributed for profit only tel +44 206-872153 if all such profit is paid to Dr Alan M Stanier, FAX +44 206-860585 University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, England
andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) (06/14/89)
In article <1106@servax0.essex.ac.uk>, alan@essex (Stanier A) writes: > So I have designed myself a new .signature, which I think will stop >the IN MODERATION people from including my articles in their feed. I >do not know if the wording will give legitimate USENET readers any >problems. Can anyone out there advise, or give a better wording? > Thanx > > Alan M Stanier copyright A M Stanier 1989 >email alan@sx.ac.uk Essex University This article may be redistributed >tel +44 206-872153 Colchester <-- for profit only if such profit is >FAX +44 206-860585 England CO4 3EA sent to A M Stanier at this address I can get around this one easily. What if I offer a service where I redistribute articles for free (or for cost). The service I charge you dearly for is the non-distribution of what I deem to be junk. -- 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*
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/14/89)
alan@servax0.essex.ac.uk writes:
But I would expect that Joe would also be posting to comp.sys.obw32x...
If Joe is sufficiently neophyte in the ways of an OBW32x, he may not
post anything at all for quite a long time, or perhaps only questions.
But I do not see any analagous way I can profit from the IN MODERATION
network, who (apparently) plan to take from USENET and give nothing
back.
Um - that last clause is news to me. I had been expecting that the
recipients, who will be getting a noise-dampened newsfeed, would be
more motivated to participate when faced with such a feed.
Presumably, they will feed back through IMN, yes? Geoff, comment?
--Karlvnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (06/14/89)
In article <1113@servax0.essex.ac.uk> alan@servax0.essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) writes:
)But I do not see any analagous way I can profit from the IN MODERATION
)network, who (apparently) plan to take from USENET and give nothing
)back.
I disagree. What they are giving us is more contributors.
How, you ask? Think about it. Currently there are a number
of groups that I would read if I had more time or if their flow was
lighter. I doubt that I am alone. If their were a moderated feed
of those groups I might be able to read them. I might even have
observations to make. And when I did post I would try to produce
material of the same quality as the feed I was getting. So, as long
as people reading news via In Moderation are still posting to the
net in general (not explicitly stated, but something I infer from the
announcement) then the *service*, by its existence, is adding to both
the quality and quantity of Usenet.
Now then, does anyone know if they need any more moderators? I
could use a part-time job doing something that I enjoy...
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"The plot thicks..."wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (06/15/89)
In article <11663@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: >>email alan@sx.ac.uk Essex University This article may be redistributed >>tel +44 206-872153 Colchester <-- for profit only if such profit is >>FAX +44 206-860585 England CO4 3EA sent to A M Stanier at this address > >I can get around this one easily. What if I offer a service where I >redistribute articles for free (or for cost). The service I charge >you dearly for is the non-distribution of what I deem to be junk. The real beauty of charging for non-distribution is that you can charge the highest rates to those who don't subscribe (and therefore, receive the most service from you) 8-) ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com I'm the NRA Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (06/15/89)
In article <8993@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >In article <1113@servax0.essex.ac.uk> alan@servax0.essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) writes: >)But I do not see any analagous way I can profit from the IN MODERATION >)network, who (apparently) plan to take from USENET and give nothing >)back. > > I disagree. What they are giving us is more contributors. > > How, you ask? Think about it. Currently there are a number >of groups that I would read if I had more time or if their flow was >lighter. I doubt that I am alone. If their were a moderated feed >of those groups I might be able to read them. I might even have >observations to make. And when I did post I would try to produce >material of the same quality as the feed I was getting. Does IMN intend to feed back to Usenet at all ? I don't recall any statement to this effect ? It just occurred to me that this could present something of a noise problem on Usenet. Consider that every article on IMN has to go through a moderator. Unless (s)he's working full time, that means up to a 24-hour propogation delay added; this could noticeably increase the number of redundant postings seen on Usenet (the same phenomenon that is already seen from the "boonie" sites which get news after a long delay; they're still hitting their "f" keys when the mainstream of the Net has finished the issue and gone on to the next). Moreover, how much difficulty might arise from the fact that IMN subscribers are seeing an edited stream of articles ? It seems inevitable that some points made in Usenet will not find their way to IMN; for example, if an author makes a good point while flaming another author, the IMN moderator might delete the flame, and the point with it. IMN subscribers would then respond with the same point, which would appear, redundantly, on Usenet some 2-3 days later. ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
lum@armadillo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) (06/15/89)
In article <KARL.89Jun13142738@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >... I consider my own position to have improved dramatically by my >participation in and observation of the network. And I am fully aware >that my participation in some areas of the news have resulted in similar >assistance from myself to other `Joes' out there - more power to them. Indeed, this is the genuine infrastructure of culture: "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants." -- Sir Isaac Newton We all build on each others achievements, all the time. -=- -- Lum Johnson lum@cis.ohio-state.edu lum@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu "You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -------
alan@servax0.essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) (06/17/89)
In article <11663@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: >I can get around this one easily. What if I offer a service where I >redistribute articles for free (or for cost). The service I charge >you dearly for is the non-distribution of what I deem to be junk. What a great idea! And the more you don't distribute, the more you can charge! Ladies and gentlemen, we are proud to announce the IN MITIGATION network. Tired of using the 'j' key? Tempted into use of the 'k'? Will it have to be 'u' next? Now your troubles are over! Subscribe to the IN MITIGATION network, and we will do all the hard work for you. Our highly trained editors will go through the entire USENET feed, taking out every single article! For a small fee, we will send you, by email, snail mail, carrier pigeon or shouting it through your granny's window, absolutely nothing! Send us 200 pounds sterling monthly, and all your troubles will be over. The IN MITIGATION network: filling a badly needed hole. I suppose this ought to have a :-), so there it is. Though if you do want to send me vast sums of money, feel free. I also have a good deal on a second hand Empire State Building (other large important buildings by request). Alan M Stanier copyright 1989 A M Stanier email alan@essex.ac.uk This article may be redistributed for profit only tel +44 206-872153 if such profit is returned to Dr Alan M Stanier, FAX +44 206-860585 University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, England