webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/23/87)
In article <5049@ut-ngp.UUCP>, clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) writes: > In article <181@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > > .... > > In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment. Twenty years > > from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to > > the Oneida colony). You will tell your children about a free network > > where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to. > > ... > > Gee, it seems to me that Usenet still 'is'. I was stuck out on arpanet for a few years a couple of years ago (nice place to transfer files, but they haven't heard the news since the 60s), and when I got back to usenet it was heaven for about half a year and then they started that silliness about changing group names. > ... Here again we have the > misperception that Usenet is free. To your particular site, it may ... Sigh. That is free as in freedom. I know it costs. I also know what `free public libraries', `free public education', `free local calls' and `free coupons you get in the mail' cost. > But sooner or later some beancounter at some backbone is going to wonder > why so much tribute is being paid to AT&T - and boom goes Usenet, > either in toto or the 'talk.*' and 'rec.*' groups. ... Oh, you think those are the ones to go. What if they become more concerned about the free code their programmers are sending to comp.sources or the free advice they are sending to comp.arch than the worthless opinions that they are sending to rec.croquet . If the beancounters ever see what is going on, the phone bills will be the least of the problems. Considering the amount of `non-work-related computing' that goes on at most sites, I think the systems people have the beancounters pretty much under control (after all, the beancounters would be lost without their computer support -- indeed the large market in computers is due to the beancounters trying to cover up their mistakes). > Besides, Usenet isn't the only game in town BOB, if you want 'complete' > freedom, then go out an buy yourself a PC/AT or some such box, a LOT > of hard disk and a modem or two, and run the Usenet software in whatever > fashion you wish. That is how Usenet has grown. Hmmm. If I read this right, you are telling me to go and build my own net if I don't like the way this one is hobbling. Nice thought - and I suppose everyone that doesn't like the current government (in the whatever country they happen to be) should leave there too. Incidently, it is interesting that you didn't come up with an alternative source of uncensored opinion/dialogue on the scale of usenet. Perhaps the anthropologists could get grants to fund usenet just to watch how it evolves. I wonder how many computer marketing groups have links just to keep in touch. Usenet was qualitatively different from every thing else that was happening in the world (perhaps the endangered species act applies). ------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)
rs@mirror.UUCP (04/23/87)
/* Written 3:15 am Apr 23, 1987 by webber@aramis.rutgers.edu */ >THE BASIC SOLUTION: >The most natural solution would be that if the a site cannot expend >more than a certain amount of resources toward supporting the net, >then it should just support the net to the extent that it can and then >cease for that day. Well, they're doing something very similar: they're supporting the net to the extent they feel they can, in terms of giving preference to what THEY want: moderated groups first, and "high-content" groups last. Ultimate anarchy. It is not a requirement of Usenet that you read -- let alone believe -- the group listings posted by spaf@gatech, or the group creation/deletion messages posted by rick@seismo. Most people and sites just find it in their best interests to do so. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps a discussion with your SysAdmin might be worthwhile. /* Written 2:39 am Apr 23, 1987 by webber@aramis.rutgers.edu */ >Incidently, it is interesting that you didn't come up with an >alternative source of uncensored opinion/dialogue on the scale of >usenet... What about GENie, CompuServe, etc: uncensored, pay-as-you-go, with lots of people there talking about lots of things. It's silly to get all misty-eyed because something's evolving away from what you like, especially when more equitable alternatives available exist. /r$ -- Rich $alz "Drug tests p**s me off" Mirror Systems, Cambridge Massachusetts rs@mirror.TMC.COM {cbosgd, cca.cca.com, harvard!wjh12, ihnp4, mit-eddie, seismo}!mirror!rs
spietrow@atlas.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) (05/01/87)
in article <213200002@mirror>, rs@mirror.UUCP says: > /* Written 2:39 am Apr 23, 1987 by webber@aramis.rutgers.edu */ >>Incidently, it is interesting that you didn't come up with an >>alternative source of uncensored opinion/dialogue on the scale of >>usenet... > What about GENie, CompuServe, etc: uncensored, pay-as-you-go, with lots > of people there talking about lots of things. It's silly to get all > misty-eyed because something's evolving away from what you like, > especially when more equitable alternatives available exist. One sysop in particular on CompuServe deletes notices that have anything to do with competing services. In fact, some postings that I put on CompuServe clarifying something a user had a question about were deleted. The user remarked about a feature that wasn't available in a certain version of a program that I had written. I wrote back to that person and told him that the current version had what he wanted and it was on PeopleLink (another network)....and the next time I logged in the notice was gone. In follow up postings, it became evident that the sysop deleted my notice since I'm associated with another network.
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (05/10/87)
In article <255@atlas.UUCP> spietrow@atlas.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) writes: >One sysop in particular on CompuServe deletes notices that have anything to >do with competing services. In fact, some postings that I put on CompuServe I recently had the chance to watch CIS in action in such a case. They zapped some messages dealing with another service. The sysop in question was then confronted about it. Public messages dealing with this confrontation were then deleted as well. The sysop replied via private e-mail that the messages hadn't been deleted, but rather had been removed from public view :-). Things got rather childish after that so I won't go any further... As for censorship, it IS rampant on most services. Both CIS and GEnie have active censorship policies. More bothersome is that most of these services have active policies for restricting distribution of their contents. Some are even going so far as to claim a copyright on works without valid copyrights by their authors. This is insidious since most authors don't seem to understand how copyrighting works. Statements like "This work is Copywrite 1987 by" appear more than you might think! The reason for this policy is that if the work is copyrighted by the author they make no restrictions on it other than those imposed by the author. But if the SERVICE claims the copyright you're lucky if you can print it on your printer without being in "violation" of the service's copyright. Usenet is probably the largest network in the world that doesn't attempt to restrict what it's users can do with the material they download. Scott Turner -- L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM. GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020 If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs [ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)
mjr@well.UUCP (Matthew Rapaport) (05/12/87)
Lets clear the air here a little regarding CIS and copyrights in general! CIS might have some sort of censorship policy regarding certain subjects, I don't know, but their policy regarding REDISTRIBUTION in mass form of stuff that individuals download (we're talking code here) makes perfect sense. They do not object to personal use or even casual re-distribution, but they do try to put their foot down when individuals attempt massive electronic redistribution -- set up their own BBS and just re-broadcast things obtained from CIS. As far as I'm concerned, this policy is justified since CIS invests much time and effort into making reliable storage and distribution facilities available. Usenet may not have an official policy on such matters, but I get the impression that here too, if an individual were to download large amounts of code from the net and then RESELL it (as distinct from giving it away), some people here would be rightlypissed!
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (05/13/87)
In article <116@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
<
< More bothersome is that most of these services have active policies for
< restricting distribution of their contents. Some are even going so far as to
< claim a copyright on works without valid copyrights by their authors.
Not quite. Compuserve seems to have the attitude that everything
available on CIS is owned by *someone*, and you have to get permission
from that someone before you do anything other than personal use.
For example, if you wanted to redistribute a transcript of a
conference from one of the forums, you would ask the Sysop of
that forum for permission.
If you want to redistribute some software you download, you would
ask the copyright holder of that software.
If there is no other copyright holder to grant permission, than
you have to ask CIS. If you are using CIS, you probably
agreed to this when you signed your Service Agreement. It is via
this agreement that they could prevent you from redistributing
public domain stuff you got from them.
There was much misunderstanding caused by the case of a BBS last year
that CIS threatened. That BBS had an announced policy of calling up
CIS and other commercial services and downloading everything that the
people who ran the BBS thought was interesting. For a fee you could
join the BBS. CIS asked Neil Shapiro, the Sysop of the Macintosh
forums to call the BBS and see what they had. Neil called, and
found several copyrighted works. He contacted the authors of those
works and found out that the BBS had *NOT* gotten permission from
any of them to sell their works.
Note that the BBS was both violating the copyrights the authors of
the software held, and redistributing stuff on a commercial basis.
CIS's lawyers then dealt with the BBS. Then people started claiming
all over USENET and in INFOWORLD that CIS was shuting down the BBS
for distributing public domain software.
CIS seems to go to a great deal of effort to protect the rights of
the authors who upload stuff. For example, I uploaded a desk
accessory I wrote for the Mac ( Maxwell ), which contained notices
all over the place that it was public domain, etc, etc.
CIS decided they wanted to use it on a disk they were putting together
to give to User Groups to promote CIS. It was public domain. They
did not need to get my permission. Not only did they ask me for my
permission, but they gave me $100 of credit on my account.
--
Tim Smith "Froh wie seine Sonnen fliegen
sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Durch des Himmels praecht'gen Plan,
Laufet, Brueder, eure Bahn,
Freudig wie ein Held zum Siegen"