webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (05/06/88)
In article <70@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >... > Further, while there may be freedom of speech, USENET also involves the > privilege of using other people's material resources for free, and anytime > you use somebody elses resources in the exercise of your rights, the owner >of those resources acquires some degree of control over your exercise of these >rights. That's because under our consitution, there are rights associated with > private property. > >And just in case someone thinks that then we need to abolish private property, >I'd advise you to study the degree of freedom(of speech and otherwise)in those >countries where they tried that. I'd rather be constrained by other people's >property rights than by an almighty state which grants noone any rights. While you are correct that Usenet involves the use of property and hence its customs legally are doubtless controlled by property rights, this is not a good base for grounding Usenet behavior. The reason is quite simply that historically (and even today) a very large number of Usenet news operations are run in complete ignorance of the property owners. I.e., the people that actually pay the bills are quite often completely unaware of the nature that their employees, etc., put the communication equipement attached to the computers to (for that matter, historically the use of computers for things other than what the money that pays for them was budgetted for has been a major ethical problem in the computer profession). Although usually the news site administrator is someone to whom general authority has been delegated, while their usage of it for news is hopefully justified in their own eyes, they usually present an image of doing things that they don't think their ultimate bosses would allow them to continue if the matter ever came to the attention of the people fondly referred to as ``the beancounters'' (which is different from saying that they would view the news site administrator as not having the authority to have set the thing up in the first play). Thus, although there are many sites where Usenet is under the direct view of the people who actually pay the bills on it, this is not the general rule. Thus neither the legal standing of free speech nor that of property rights is very relevant to Usenet custom, since ultimately much of Usenet consists of people very aggressively bending rules (and doubtless often breaking some) to get something they think justifies the risk. Thus the question is really which of these rights rests firmest in the hearts and minds of Usenet folk. Traditionally, although computer people tend to be members of the propertied class, they were also highly educated and tended to be working on things that made them reliant on other people's money (i.e., if they made $50k a year but the equipment that they personally view as necessary for their lifestyle costs a million dollars (including support staffs, software contracts, etc.), then their views of property rights relative to Usenet are going to be similar to someone making $5k a year and reliant upon welfare view of property rights relative to rent. Put another way, free speech rights are much more concrete for a classic Usenet person than property rights due to a higher than usual interest in the written word and very low income vis a vis what they view as useful property (even now-a-days, the vast majority of Usenet readers do not view themselves as being able to afford to own a functioning leaf node of Usenet). The allusion to poor performance of socialist countries is irrelevant because although they decrease individual property rights, they remain property-focussed societies, whereas Usenet is ultimately an information- focussed society where the very definition of information property is a very slippery concept with very little tradition that seems relevant to the current circumstances whereas informational access rights traditions in this country seem to have a clearer and more direct relevance to current circumstances. The foundation for the custom of it being bad form to abuse Usenet resources does not rest in property rights, but rather in the notion of ``honour among thieves.'' Many of the current problems with Usenet society rest in an aggrevation of its schizophrenic view of whether or not it has a legal right to exist coupled with the vast variance in the awareness of it by the people who ultimately pay the bills for it at the different sites and the varying relations of the Usenet users at different sites have with those bill payers and the great lack of real hard data about just how many sites with what connectivity fall into what categories (if that isn't a long enough list, throw in the change in the status of Unix which has significantly impacted the notion of a typical Unix user and hence the typical Usenet reader (while Usenet is clearly available on non-Unix boxes, I do not think (but hardly know) that Usenet has become independent of Unix society)). ------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
news@edm.UUCP (news software) (05/09/88)
From article <May.6.07.18.18.1988.13232@constance.rutgers.edu>, by webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber): > In article <70@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >>... >> Further, while there may be freedom of speech, USENET also involves the >> privilege of using other people's material resources for free, and anytime >> you use somebody elses resources in the exercise of your rights, the owner > > While you are correct that Usenet involves the use of property and hence > its customs legally are doubtless controlled by property rights, this is > not a good base for grounding Usenet behavior. The reason is quite simply > that historically (and even today) a very large number of Usenet news > operations are run in complete ignorance of the property owners. I.e., > the people that actually pay the bills are quite often completely unaware Well, either things are a LOT different in your area of this continent, or Edmonton is a WEIRD city (Ok. so we've got a man made waterfall and WEM, but still...:-) Just about everybody I know of in Edmonton who has a usenet feed has it legitimately (with the knowledge, and often the WISHES of the system owner). To be more precise, although the companies/organizations don't usually budget for a standalone USENET machine, the existence of the link tends to be open knowledge at the very least. (I mean: I'm not going to go to premier Getty just to get an OK for putting news on one of the Alberta Hospital machines, but I have also been paid (as an external consultant) for my efforts in getting usenet running on a machine.) Just because there isn't a item labeled 'USENET' in provincial/state /national budgets doesn't mean that it isn't officially accounted for at some level. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uqv-mts.bitnet
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (05/09/88)
In article <3103@edm.UUCP> news@edm.UUCP (news software) writes: >Just about everybody I know of in Edmonton who has a usenet feed has it >legitimately (with the knowledge, and often the WISHES of the system >owner). To be more precise, although the companies/organizations don't >usually budget for a standalone USENET machine, the existence of the >link tends to be open knowledge at the very least. Having an existing box with some disk space pick up a news feed isn't going to impact the operations of the business that much (the machine costs the same whether you run news on it or not). What's at issue here is the DIRECT cost to some sites of having a USENET feed - that cost being the long distance telephone charges incurred to bring in a feed. News on 'ncc' runs with the system administrators (my) blessing. HOWEVER, that's not to say that if the bean counters *really* know what our phone bills were all about that there wouldn't be some questions asked. I have a *rough* idea of what we spend on LD charges, but I'm sure as hell NOT going to go ask as I don't think I want to know what it really is... Yes, USENET is common knowledge to administrators. No, the *actual* costs are very rarely known to administrators. You would understand this better if you were paying LD charges to propogate news. >Just because there isn't a item labeled 'USENET' in provincial/state >/national budgets doesn't mean that it isn't officially accounted for >at some level. Don't be obtuse! The question at hand is: "What happens if/when the bean counters find out what the $xxxK per month under 'telecommunications' is *really* paying for?" -- {alberta,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
welty@steinmetz.ge.com (richard welty) (05/10/88)
In article <3103@edm.UUCP> news@edm.UUCP (news software) writes: *Just because there isn't a item labeled 'USENET' in provincial/state */national budgets doesn't mean that it isn't officially accounted for *at some level. In article <10219@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >Don't be obtuse! The question at hand is: "What happens if/when the >bean counters find out what the $xxxK per month under 'telecommunications' >is *really* paying for?" Exactly! I'm going through a related phenomenon right now -- the beancounters here noticed an increase in phone bills that was entirely my (unintentional) fault -- my mailing list reached the point of overwhelming a phone link (quite unexpectedly, I might add.) The first I heard of it was when my sysadmin told me that there was some discussion a level or two of management above me. After a day or two of trying to rationalize addresses, I found out more about the cost and the management reaction, and decided that my only responsible alternative was to pull the plug until cheap way of restoring the list turned up (it hasn't yet.) A week and a half later, there is still turmoil at higher levels -- I had an interview with my manager's manager this afternoon. I was assured that I was a valued member of technical staff, and he apparently believed that I had not intentionally tried to hose ge money down the toilet -- until that, I was concerned for my job if the beancounters really went over the edge. I was also told that while news is a nice frill, he's not prepared to defend it against a concerted attack from the beancounters if they decide to make one. I am neither suprised nor disappointed -- this attitude is perfectly understandable and reasonable (especially in the current cost-concious atmosphere at a place like GE.) I'm just glad he's willing to defend me -- pond scum, er, contractors are easy to terminate. -- Richard Welty Phone H: 518-237-6307 W: 518-387-6346 welty@ge-crd.ARPA {rochester,philabs,uunet}!steinmetz!welty