len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) (01/16/89)
I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them
into a bloody mailing list. I would also like to find out how
much money they got for it.
If there was ever a mis-use of the net (i.e. commercialization),
this is surely it.
After Monday I plan on finding out as much as I can..
--
len@netsys.com
{ames,att,rutgers}!netsys!lenclarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke) (01/16/89)
From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them > into a bloody mailing list. I would also like to find out how > much money they got for it. Gee guy, lighten up! Like I never would have known that Apple was a subsidiary of Sun Microsystems if I hadn't seen the cute picture of the Mac with the mustache on the front of "The SUN Observer". 'Course I haven't actually opened the magazine since I don't have (and probably never will have) a Sun system but it does make a nice pad for my bench top. -- Ed Clarke uunet!bywater!acheron!clarke
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (01/16/89)
Where is it written that such information is not to be used for commercail means? I would hope that when people refer to ``commercialization of the net'' they are talking about using the net as an advertisement medium. Otherwise, there would be no commercial organizations on the net. What would be the point? It just so happens that this group's use is a bit more overt. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
hack@merkin.cactus.org (Greg Hackney) (01/17/89)
In article <11891@netsys.COM> len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) writes: >I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them >into a bloody mailing list. I bet you are just pissed because they are sending you an "Altos" magazine. :-) -- Greg
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (01/20/89)
From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them > into a bloody mailing list. I would also like to find out how > much money they got for it. Personally, I resent it too. Probably because three copies of Altos Magazine, Sun Observer, and AIX Review appear in my home mailbox in Ohio. Two of them are addressed to Lauren Weinstein, who lives in California. Plus there's the copy that appears at work because I'm listed in ATT.COM as well as Stargate.COM. When the maps were first put out, it was clearly stated that they were NOT to be used for generating mailing lists. Now some nameless bozo organization has violated the policy. Mark
root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (01/20/89)
In article <3274@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): > > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them > > into a bloody mailing list. I would also like to find out how > > much money they got for it. > > Personally, I resent it too. Probably because three copies of > Altos Magazine, Sun Observer, and AIX Review appear in my home > mailbox in Ohio. Two of them are addressed to Lauren Weinstein, > who lives in California. Plus there's the copy that appears at > work because I'm listed in ATT.COM as well as Stargate.COM. > > When the maps were first put out, it was clearly stated that > they were NOT to be used for generating mailing lists. Now > some nameless bozo organization has violated the policy. > > Mark I know it nigh near to impossible, but it would be nice to attempt to find out who did it. With so many companies (apparently) buying this list up out of nowhere, somebody has got to be seeking these guys out and selling it to them. Now, if some of us were to contact the points of origin for these mailouts, surely one of us could get it out of the sender where they got their list. One could pose as a "interested party" wanting the list for similar reasons. While there is no real recourse after locating the perpetrators, we could at least hound them with phone calls and display our discontempt. I wonder also what price they are charging for the list. I would be even more so angered if they are collecting a large sum for it. It is a free country, but if that is the case, I might wonder why I didn't collect on it! ;-) [no - just kidding!]. I guess we have just grown so large and with so many different types of people, that it was time for somebody to rape sacred ground. Where is the UBI (USENET Bureau of Investigation) when you need them ??? Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co. DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USA
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (01/22/89)
Don't you believe that it's a bit absurd to complain about someone breaking a rule that hasn't been mentioned in years? -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) (01/24/89)
From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them > into a bloody mailing list. I would also like to find out how > much money they got for it. Just a thought :-) OK - it looks as if the process was semi-automatic, I get the stuff both here at Lakart (work) and at home, using the two addresses in the maps. Now suppose we create a lot of bogus addresses, something like: #N pallio #S Televideo TS803; Zilog Z80A; CP/M 2.2 #O Guru's Anon. #C Sebastian Wheaties #E pallio!dg #T +1 617 555 1212 #P 543 Commonwealth Ave., Newton, MA, 02159 #L 42 20 N / 71 11 W #R For real - this is a CP/M machine #W pallio!dg (David Goodenough); Mon Oct 3 11:24:26 EDT 1988 # with a genuine "No such address". Can you imagine the effect that will have on the mailing list when it gets used ....... :-) BTW - I live at 541 Commonwealth Ave (see pallio in the real maps), and can assure you there is no 543: the grocery next door is 545. I grant that this is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it would be worth it for next time (yes, I'll take a $5.00 bet says there is a next time) As a separate note, perhaps we could get the Government interested in the fact that someone has used their machines for commercial purposes without their permission. Naaahhh, just another silly thought. (for those that claim that sarcasm doesn't work on usenet, the above paragraph is meant to be a bit sarcastic, as shown by my use of Naaahhh, rather than No) -- dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ....... !harvard!xait!lakart!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%lakart.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/25/89)
I really don't see what the big deal is. I don't remember seeing a
copyright notice on the maps, so it seems that anybody is free to use them
for whatever they want. And, it sounds like a damn good way to get a high
quality list of Unix techie types.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"root@oid.UUCP (Admin-P.L. Aeten) (01/27/89)
Lots of text deletion for brevity..... In article <405@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >In article <3274@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >> From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): >> > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them >> > into a bloody mailing list. >> >> When the maps were first put out, it was clearly stated that >> they were NOT to be used for generating mailing lists. Now >> some nameless bozo organization has violated the policy. >> >> Mark > >I know it nigh near to impossible, but it would be nice to attempt to find out >who did it... > Yes I also agree this is a foul deed...Perhaps we can turn this into an opportunity while at the same time fencing out those that greedily prey on the hard work and openess of the "NET". Why not see if the maps can be copyrighted? Once done then some mech- anism can be put in place to take advantage of and use the maps to generate revenue to keep or at least help to fund the enormous costs of moving news and mail. I am NOT proposing a commercial venture but at least we don't have to force policing (?) [ we certainly don't have the time to play "COPS and "Robbers"" ] Any further thoughts or discussion? -- P. L. Aeten {attmail!}bacyn!paeten -o {att,dsinc,netsys,}!aeten@oid [215-581-4444]
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/28/89)
In article <1622@oid.UUCP> root@oid.UUCP (Admin-P.L. Aeten) writes: >Lots of text deletion for brevity..... > >In article <405@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: >>In article <3274@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >>> From article <11891@netsys.COM>, by len@netsys.COM (Len Rose): >>> > I would like to find out who took the maps and turned them >>> > into a bloody mailing list. >>> >>> When the maps were first put out, it was clearly stated that >>> they were NOT to be used for generating mailing lists. Now >>> some nameless bozo organization has violated the policy. What policy? I've been on the net for 2+ years (admittedly not forever) and have never seen (1) a copyright on the map files or in the README, or (2) ANY statement of the maps being used only for routing -- in fact, it is EXPLICITLY mentioned that the maps are a good means of finding out where a company is located, who to contact, etc. If I send my resume to every computer manufacturer that I can find in the maps, is that misuse of the maps? From the example(s) given in news.announce.newusers as well as the lack of an admonition against doing same, the answer would appear to be "no". Then why complain if some company (an "invented" person by law) does the same in an attempt to market it's products & services (whether they be newspapers or something else)? >>I know it nigh near to impossible, but it would be nice to attempt to find out >>who did it... >> >Yes I also agree this is a foul deed...Perhaps we can turn this into >an opportunity while at the same time fencing out those that greedily >prey on the hard work and openess of the "NET". Huh? Look, let's be realistic. Every commercial entity that connects to Usenet does it because they see a benefit in doing so. Educational institutions do it for many reasons, but firms like Motorola, AT&T and thousands of others do it for one reason only -- it makes economic sense. The benefit may not be economic (directly), but knowledge IS worth something, and that something is valuable enough for a corporation to foot the bill. If your site is corporate (and quite possibly if it isn't as well), you too "prey on the hard work and openness of the Net". Did you donate to Rick Adams for the software of HIS that you use? How about Larry Wall (rn)? Spaf and others for the enormous amount of time they put in doing "nice" things for the net at large? Shall I go on? We all derive a benefit from being here; I haven't seen a (true) vulture yet. I have seen a lot of irate people on the network who are indignant without justification; this is but one prime example. >Why not see if the maps can be copyrighted? Once done then some mech- >anism can be put in place to take advantage of and use the maps to >generate revenue to keep or at least help to fund the enormous costs >of moving news and mail. I am NOT proposing a commercial venture but >at least we don't have to force policing (?) [ we certainly don't have >the time to play "COPS and "Robbers"" ] > >Any further thoughts or discussion? Sure (you asked for this!) First, you can't copyright the maps themselves; the entries are the property of the submitter (and since they are published w/o notice, the entire mess becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN and can be used for any purpose anyone desires). The UUCP Project COULD copyright the entire compilation of the maps -- but this doesn't stop someone from using some of the map entries, only from using (or selling) the entire collection. What mechanism do you propose to "generate revenue", who's gonna administrate and collect it, and why do I get the feeling this is getting awfully close to "commercializing the entire Usenet"... Or are you just intending to force compliance with the "uucp mapping projects" domain registration system (at $x per year, which we already went over in this group and the consensus was that while some people pay, they don't get anything for their money and can receive the same registration at no cost). Lastly, I saw a call for people to submit misleading entries. Sure, you can do this -- IF you want to effectively be "unpublished". If you do take this path, you'll cost a few mass-mailers a few bucks -- but one day when someone really DOES want to get ahold of you or your company to either purchase something or for some other legit reason, they'll be unable to do so. With the privacy of such an act comes the responsibility for the possible unwelcome outcome. What's the beef if you get a few more pieces of paper mail? This isn't EMAIL, the person doing the sending is paying for the privilege of mailing to you, and you can always use the paper to start the winter fires in the fireplace (or simply trash it if you wish). Are you really so naive to believe that manufacturers and publishers don't sell their lists of names -- you PAID for those products -- Usenet is FREE! How about the phone company -- ever get a cold call for insurance or any one of a million "new tenant" things right after moving in a new place (and having a phone installed; note -- I got calls before the landlord had the new number)! Now you complain about someone using your name and address taken from a publically-posted notice -- which you put in place for the EXPLICIT reason of encouraging communication with you and your site. I just don't understand. I for one didn't mind reading "Focus on AIX" (but I wonder what Information Builders thought of the name; >I< was initially confused :-); it was good for a number of laughs. The rest got canned on sight; if I had received some USEFUL information I might have even made use of it! Finally, most companies will take you off their mailing list(s) if you call or write and ask them to do so -- why would they want to waste the postage on you if all you're going to do is trash the paper anyways? -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (02/01/89)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > I really don't see what the big deal is. I don't remember seeing a >copyright notice on the maps, so it seems that anybody is free to use them >for whatever they want. And, it sounds like a damn good way to get a high >quality list of Unix techie types. That's the short-term perspective. Now let's look at a long-term perspective. A perspective that includes the gradual refusal to register machines, for fear that it will be used for an inappropriate purpose as the computer-mailing-list-vendors of the world peddle one's name across every doorstep they can find. I already give false names to a lot of mailing lists, partially to track who sells their mailing list to whom, but mostly to fuck with their database. So, I guess we ought to include the possibility of someone doing something along those lines, to make the mailing-list peddlers' product a bit less reliable. Now, these false map entries generate false mappings, and mail starts to get hosed. Connectivity droops. ( No, that's not a typo. ) The UUCP domain falls apart at the seams. Well, so much for a publically-maintained, reliable database and connectivity. ===== Now, while that's a worst-case scenario, there are many possible paths for things to follow if we allow this one critical first step, the commercializing of the UUCP map databases, to exist unchallenged. The people who did this don't care. It's profits to them, they sell the map, the map sells goods, everyone is happy except the consumer, and since when has s/he mattered ? Perhaps this is an opportunity to examine the dangers of public databases, as this isn't the first time a publically maintained database has been open to sabotage, and, given the facility of the US Government at ignoring common restrictions on invasion of privacy and the like, it won't be the last. So it's not all bad. This might help us avoid future efforts at harrassment. But, yes, a lot of bad - erosive to what we've worked for - things can happen if this first step is allowed to exist as an acceptable alternative to the older, more acceptable method of building mailing databases through hard work. In many respects, this use of the database without first exposing the idea to public discussion has all the hallmarks of a person whom knew exactly what they were doing. It also feels, to me, like stealing from the Usenet. >Roy Smith, System Administrator >Public Health Research Institute >{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net >"The connector is the network" -- richard -- * -= If it works, it must be a Fluke =- * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/03/89)
In article <453@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > >> I really don't see what the big deal is. I don't remember seeing a >>copyright notice on the maps, so it seems that anybody is free to use them >>for whatever they want. And, it sounds like a damn good way to get a high >>quality list of Unix techie types. > >That's the short-term perspective. > >Now let's look at a long-term perspective. A perspective that includes the >gradual refusal to register machines, for fear that it will be used for an >inappropriate purpose as the computer-mailing-list-vendors of the world >peddle one's name across every doorstep they can find. Like you can refuse to register your operating system, perhaps? Or did you forget that your name is already in many databases and on many mailing lists just by virtue of the fact that you purchased the machine and software that you're using? How many computer companies sell your name when you get on their lists (hint: if it's mail order, ALL OF THEM, and that includes most "large" concerns). >I already give false names to a lot of mailing lists, partially to track who >sells their mailing list to whom, but mostly to fuck with their database. So, >I guess we ought to include the possibility of someone doing something along >those lines, to make the mailing-list peddlers' product a bit less reliable. I see. If you give false addresses when registering a product, so a mailing list based on same is useless, you ALSO lose out on any update notices or other bulletins that you should have gotten. Too bad for you! If you give false (connectivity) information in the maps, you might lose out on your mail, or someone might not be able to find (you/your company) when they need to. Same risk & reward schedule, as far as I can see. What purpose would sending in a false map entry have? Remember, the part of the maps that are useful for mail routing have NO information pertaining to your physical location. That's there simply for the convenience of those people who might want to contact you in that fashion. If you don't like people using your address in the freely-published maps, you don't have to give it out. How about a line like: #P Not given so money-grubbing Capitalists can't find me. in your map entry? It doesn't change the routing information ONE BIT; every site could easily do just this and solve your "problem" without hosing A SINGLE MAP ENTRY. Heck, the physical "plots" would even still work, as you wouldn't be messing with the Lat/long coordinates encoded within.... Those sites which DID do this would be saying to those nasty mailing-list mongers: "Don't waste your 21 cents sending your crap to me, it'll get round-filed without even being read". Of course, when someone REALLY DOES want to find your organization, and tries to use the maps to do so, you lose. That's the price you pay for your "privacy". You can't have it both ways. >Now, these false map entries generate false mappings, and mail starts to get >hosed. Connectivity droops. ( No, that's not a typo. ) The UUCP domain falls >apart at the seams. > >Well, so much for a publically-maintained, reliable database and connectivity. WRONG. See above. Physical addresses have NOTHING to do with routing information, and the only part of the maps that affect connectivity is the routing information. Please look at the subject (the map files) before posting such an obviously-incorrect analysis of the effect that changing your physical, published address to "No one home" would have. The net effect on connectivity from such an act would be ZERO. >Now, while that's a worst-case scenario, there are many possible paths for >things to follow if we allow this one critical first step, the commercializing >of the UUCP map databases, to exist unchallenged. I, for one, don't mind at all that we get some more information in the mail, or a newpaper or two. Others have posted concurring views; I've received several "yep, me too"s in the mail as well. >The people who did this don't care. It's profits to them, they sell the map, >the map sells goods, everyone is happy except the consumer, and since when >has s/he mattered ? How about when the consumer IS happy because he/she found out about some product or service that they really did want to use -- information that would otherwise pass them by. Or is it "I don't want the crap, and I don't want to be bothered." Fine. Fix your OWN entry so the physical address isn't shown. Leave the rest of us who DO want our addresses known to the public ALONE. And quit carping about a situation that is, in the end, your own doing. >Perhaps this is an opportunity to examine the dangers of public databases, >as this isn't the first time a publically maintained database has been open >to sabotage, and, given the facility of the US Government at ignoring common >restrictions on invasion of privacy and the like, it won't be the last. So >it's not all bad. This might help us avoid future efforts at harrassment. Sabotage? Harrassment? Nice words, but you haven't given us any examples of what you would consider "sabotage". Harrassment is not the right term for it either -- unless you consider unsolicited mail harrassment (hint: the post office, the law, and most consumers don't!) >But, yes, a lot of bad - erosive to what we've worked for - things can happen >if this first step is allowed to exist as an acceptable alternative to the >older, more acceptable method of building mailing databases through hard work. Please specify the harm -- the bad -- the erosive -- that can come of this. You've been given the means to block the mailings to YOUR address -- so make use of it if you're hell-bent on doing so. >In many respects, this use of the database without first exposing the idea to >public discussion has all the hallmarks of a person whom knew exactly what >they were doing. It also feels, to me, like stealing from the Usenet. Of course the marketing type(s) that did this knew what they were doing! That's why they get paid to do marketing-type things.. (sheesh) Stealing from Usenet? How can you steal from Usenet? Did the people who made this list steal from me? No, they GAVE TO ME. Gifts! Yes, pretty much useless paper, but nonetheless, GIFTS. BTU value for my fireplace! The law (darn, that again) says I get to keep that which arrives in the mail that I didn't order. So I did -- I perused the contents and discarded that which I felt was worthless. What's the problem? >>Roy Smith, System Administrator >>Public Health Research Institute >>{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net > >-- richard > * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * > * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D * I rest my case; this is my second posting on this subject. Everyone who wants to be left out of future money-grubbing attempts by mailing-list hawkers can do so simply by changing the "#P" line in their map entry. 'Nuff said. Can we quit arguing now? -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
len@netsys.COM (Len Rose) (02/03/89)
I have been thinking about this for awhile,and admit that it's
not an earth shattering matter at stake. However, I feel that the
only way to safeguard the maps are to copyright them. I am not a
legal expert so this basic idea may be flawed. If an entity like
Usenix or The UUCP project (dunno if it exists as anything but a
name) could copyright the maps surely this would stop slime ball
outfits from misuse of the database.
Len
--
len@netsys.com
{ames,att,rutgers}!netsys!lengus@danvia.danvia.UUCP (Gus Danielson) (02/04/89)
From article <2844@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger): > I rest my case; this is my second posting on this subject. Everyone who > wants to be left out of future money-grubbing attempts by mailing-list > hawkers can do so simply by changing the "#P" line in their map entry. > Anyone who paid more than the cost of 1/2 hour of programming time for the mailing list got screwed. That's the length of time it took to write a C program to create a mailing list from the maps and put it in a searchable data base. Gus Danielson
Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) (02/04/89)
In article <12320@netsys.COM> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >If an entity like >Usenix or The UUCP project (dunno if it exists as anything but a >name) could copyright the maps surely this would stop slime ball >outfits from misuse of the database. Your local police do not go around arresting copyright violators. The only way to enforce a copyright is for the copyright owner to sue the alleged violator in civil court. I strongly suspect that neither USENIX nor The UUCP Mapping Project have either the resources (read: money) or the willpower to do this. Does *anyone*? :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Disclaimer: Logicon doesn't even know we're running news. Internet: Makey@LOGICON.ARPA UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.arpa!Makey
don@eastern.UUCP (Don O'shaughnessy) (02/07/89)
> name) could copyright the maps surely this would stop > slime ball > outfits from misuse of the database. Why would it? If a person has access to the information, as both you and I have, then that information can be either used correctly or misused. There is really no more way to prevent someone sending you a message (which you don't like) via your computer than there is to prevent them dialing your voice phone with a machine and selling you aluminum siding. The solution is the same in both cases: lack of response. Ignore them, and they *will* go away. It'll take time, but a simple fact of marketing is that an unproductive medium is an unsupported medium. -- Don O'shaughnessy - via Fidonet node 1:223/228 UUCP: ...!moore!eastern!don INTERNET: don@eastern.UUCP \...!moore!eastern!don
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (02/08/89)
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <453@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >>... let's look at a long-term perspective. A perspective that includes the >>gradual refusal to register machines, for fear that it will be used for an >>inappropriate purpose as the computer-mailing-list-vendors of the world >>peddle one's name across every doorstep they can find. >Like you can refuse to register your operating system, perhaps? Or did you >forget that your name is already in many databases and on many mailing lists >just by virtue of the fact that you purchased the machine and software that >you're using? How many computer companies sell your name when you get on >their lists (hint: if it's mail order, ALL OF THEM, and that includes most >"large" concerns). My name isn't on the purchase orders of the machines I'm administering now. It's on other purchase orders, but hey, if those hypercorps want to continue mailing me stuff where I don't work any more, that's their problem, not mine. Certainly, P.O.s represent acceptable methods of acquiring vendor mailing list data, more reputable than lifting the UUCP map. >>I already give false names to a lot of mailing lists, partially to track who >>sells their mailing list to whom, but mostly to fuck with their database. So, >>I guess we ought to include the possibility of someone doing something along >>those lines, to make the mailing-list peddlers' product a bit less reliable. >I see. If you give false addresses when registering a product, so a mailing >list based on same is useless, you ALSO lose out on any update notices or >other bulletins that you should have gotten. Too bad for you! Silly boy !! I didn't say I gave *everyone* false data, only those people whose mailing lists I *don't* want to be on. I never give false addresses. Just false names, so I can see whom they *think* lives at location NNN. Subtlety, not gross deceit. That's not my style. (-: >If you give false (connectivity) information in the maps, you might lose out >on your mail, or someone might not be able to find (you/your company) when >they need to. Yes, this is a problem, isn't it ? Perhaps I could post my map entry with an individual's name that doesn't exist, so as to screen out those calls which are coming from a commercially motivated organization ... as opposed to a peer administrator, that group of individuals whom created the database under discussion and for whose convenience it was originally created. >Same risk & reward schedule, as far as I can see. I lose nothing if I decide to list myself as simply 'USENET Nerd' in the map. Sophisticated individuals will ask for the postmaster. Salespeople will ask for the 'USENET Nerd'. Guess who I'll hang up on ? >What purpose would sending in a false map entry have? Remember, the part of >the maps that are useful for mail routing have NO information pertaining to >your physical location. That's there simply for the convenience of those >people who might want to contact you in that fashion. So that's the portion of the map that I'd need to modify, if I were intent. I didn't say what part of the map would be false. I didn't say I would do it, either. I was outlining some worst-case possibilities. Aren't you being a bit quick at attributing intention to casual conversation ? >If you don't like people using your address in the freely-published maps, >you don't have to give it out. How about a line like: > >#P Not given so money-grubbing Capitalists can't find me. > >in your map entry? It doesn't change the routing information ONE BIT; every >site could easily do just this and solve your "problem" without hosing A >SINGLE MAP ENTRY. Heck, the physical "plots" would even still work, as you >wouldn't be messing with the Lat/long coordinates encoded within.... That sounds fine. It seems like we're thinking about the same thing, after all. But I'd rather not have to do this *at all*. I shouldn't have to. Nobody should have to engage in a defensive posture towards predatory commercial interests in their day-to-day duties as UUCP administrator. >Those sites which DID do this would be saying to those nasty mailing-list >mongers: "Don't waste your 21 cents sending your crap to me, it'll get >round-filed without even being read". >Of course, when someone REALLY DOES want to find your organization, and >tries to use the maps to do so, you lose. That's the price you pay for >your "privacy". You can't have it both ways. I say that publishing the UUCP maps is inappropriate, if it's to facilitate profiteering. You seem to feel it's OK, and that the burden is upon me to make it difficult for them to sell to me. I say I shouldn't have to do such a thing. My privacy should be assured, it should never come into question. Private abuse of confidential information is inescapable. But I see no reason to institutionalize it. Do you ? I'm sure there are a lot of people with home UUCP machines whom are asking the exact same question. I don't think I'm alone here. >Please look at the subject (the map files) before posting such an >obviously-incorrect analysis of the effect that changing your physical, >published address to "No one home" would have. The net effect on >connectivity from such an act would be ZERO. <<< flame on >>> Look, thimbletwit, you're the one who didn't read my posting correctly. I hypothesized about some of the possible reactions of a diverse user group to such predatory practices. Including partially or completely forged map entries. At no time did I suggest I was intent on doing either of these, had done so in the past - in relation to UUCP - or would in the future. You have cast me as a perpetrator, instead of a commentator. Re-read the posting, re-write your response, *then* you can come on all self-righteous about how you've read the map files and nobody else has. I know precisely whereof I speak, and if you didn't read the article right and it failed to accumulate in your aged dendrites, that's your problem. <<< flame off >>> >>Now, while that's a worst-case scenario, there are many possible paths for >>things to follow if we allow this one critical first step, the commercializing >>of the UUCP map databases, to exist unchallenged. >I, for one, don't mind at all that we get some more information in the mail, >or a newpaper or two. Others have posted concurring views; I've received >several "yep, me too"s in the mail as well. Time will tell. I'd like a commercial network like USENET, too, but it won't be possible without public key encryption, otherwise competitors will be erasing each others' stuff when it passes through their machines, and what's to date been a happy, con-competitive, cooperative environment will fall apart at the seams. I'm not so dumb as to believe I can force USENET to fit into the Procrustean bed of a Utopian future reality of infinite electronic interconnectedness. It might be a piece of the pie, but it's never going to be a backbone. >>The people who did this don't care. It's profits to them, they sell the map, >>the map sells goods, everyone is happy except the consumer, and since when >>has s/he mattered ? >How about when the consumer IS happy because he/she found out about some >product or service that they really did want to use -- information that would >otherwise pass them by. Nothing stopping them from using conventional channels of advertising. As you pointed out, you're already on a zillion different mailing lists and databases. Why do they have to shit in our uupond ? >Or is it "I don't want the crap, and I don't want to be bothered." Fine. >Fix your OWN entry so the physical address isn't shown. Leave the rest of >us who DO want our addresses known to the public ALONE. And quit carping >about a situation that is, in the end, your own doing. Oh, brother. I sold the UUCP database to a mailing list company, huh. Is your thinking always this ... clear ? >>Perhaps this is an opportunity to examine the dangers of public databases, >>as this isn't the first time a publically maintained database has been open >>to sabotage, and, given the facility of the US Government at ignoring common >>restrictions on invasion of privacy and the like, it won't be the last. So >>it's not all bad. This might help us avoid future efforts at harrassment. >Sabotage? Harrassment? Nice words, but you haven't given us any examples >of what you would consider "sabotage". Harrassment is not the right term >for it either -- unless you consider unsolicited mail harrassment (hint: the >post office, the law, and most consumers don't!) It has been my observation that whiners always end up citing The Law. Well, I follow common sense, and it tells me that if I repeatedly addressed mail to you, you would get angry. That is harrassment. Most people don't need to check with their lawyer before they feel harrassed. The current state of the law has nothing, or damned little, to do with the concepts of right and wrong. Thus, in this discussion, I'm ignoring it as relevant to the topic at hand. If we can't settle this out of the courts, then we're not much good as a freely associating cooperatively-based network. >>But, yes, a lot of bad - erosive to what we've worked for - things can happen >>if this first step is allowed to exist as an acceptable alternative to the >>older, more acceptable method of building mailing databases through hard work. >Please specify the harm -- the bad -- the erosive -- that can come of this. >You've been given the means to block the mailings to YOUR address -- so make >use of it if you're hell-bent on doing so. I did specify the bad, but if you want me to reiterate - I know, hard to pay attention - I will. Cooperation is a fragile thing, it doesn't stand up well under abuses such as these. Got it ? >>In many respects, this use of the database without first exposing the idea to >>public discussion has all the hallmarks of a person whom knew exactly what >>they were doing. It also feels, to me, like stealing from the Usenet. >Of course the marketing type(s) that did this knew what they were doing! >That's why they get paid to do marketing-type things.. (sheesh) Good. We're not marketing types, this isn't a market, and I have faith that some way will be made available to keep such people away from USENET folk. We have a handful of 'market' and 'sales' groups ... and they're not for commercial use. Maybe we should channel this tendency into a misc.commercial newsgroup, and see what happens. That's what *I* get paid to do. >Stealing from Usenet? How can you steal from Usenet? Did the people who >made this list steal from me? No, they GAVE TO ME. Gifts! Yes, pretty >much useless paper, but nonetheless, GIFTS. BTU value for my fireplace! The >law (darn, that again) says I get to keep that which arrives in the mail that >I didn't order. So I did -- I perused the contents and discarded that which >I felt was worthless. >What's the problem? I'm already choking my fireplace with crap paper from home junk mail. I'll be damned if I'll cart home junk mail I get at work. And fireplaces aren't a solution, anyway, that's just more pollution of some carcinogenic inks and plastic-embedded paper on the pulp from trees that we need more to recycle the atmosphere than to perpetuate news about the newest hardware from Frobozz, Inc. A better solution is required. >I rest my case; this is my second posting on this subject. Everyone who >wants to be left out of future money-grubbing attempts by mailing-list >hawkers can do so simply by changing the "#P" line in their map entry. I'd like to hear what people say about a misc.commercial newsgroup before I go #P'ing all over my map entry. >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) -- richard -- * "Do not look at my outward shape, but take what is in my hand." * * -- Jalaludin Rumi, 1107-1173 * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/10/89)
In article <465@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: +karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: + +>In article <453@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: + .....(why should admins) +have to engage in a defensive posture towards predatory commercial interests +in their day-to-day duties as UUCP administrator. Predatory? Again, I don't see anything predatory about the newspapers I received. I could have probably called the company that sent them and had my name removed if I did have a problem with it. +>Those sites which DID do this would be saying to those nasty mailing-list +>mongers: "Don't waste your 21 cents sending your crap to me, it'll get +>round-filed without even being read". + +I say that publishing the UUCP maps is inappropriate, if it's to facilitate +profiteering. You seem to feel it's OK, and that the burden is upon me to +make it difficult for them to sell to me. I say I shouldn't have to do such +a thing. My privacy should be assured, it should never come into question. No, I disagree there. By listing your site in a public place you have lost that privacy. You can be completely private if you wish (at some cost in connectivity) by simply not publishing a map entry, and using one site to mail through (with explicit return paths). Yes, it's sloppy, but you're now an "unknown" and could have some presumption of privacy. The very reason for the maps is to facilitate communication.....of both the computer AND human kind. There would be no need for 90% of the data if the only purpose was to list mail connectivity! +Private abuse of confidential information is inescapable. But I see no reason +to institutionalize it. Do you ? + +I'm sure there are a lot of people with home UUCP machines whom are asking the +exact same question. I don't think I'm alone here. No, you're not alone. Perhaps you and other have stepped into a public world without realizing it; that was, nonetheless, a choice you did make. Usenet is by it's nature a public and free network. +>I, for one, don't mind at all that we get some more information in the mail, +>or a newpaper or two. Others have posted concurring views; I've received +>several "yep, me too"s in the mail as well. + +Time will tell. I'd like a commercial network like USENET, too, but it won't +be possible without public key encryption, otherwise competitors will be +erasing each others' stuff when it passes through their machines, and what's +to date been a happy, con-competitive, cooperative environment will fall +apart at the seams. We're not talking about a commercial network (I never was); we're talking about someone who used the network maps for a mailing list. Whether these companies did it themselves, or someone sold a list to them, is irrelavent. It was pointed out, if the buyer paid more than half-hour programming time, they got ripped off (and we should be laughing). +Nothing stopping them from using conventional channels of advertising. As you +pointed out, you're already on a zillion different mailing lists and databases. +Why do they have to shit in our uupond ? It's only you and a few others who feel it's "shit" in "your" pond. Lots of others like the material (or at least heat their homes with it) :-) I, for one, don't mind it one bit, and I'll say it now: Anyone who wants to "use" my entry in the maps for a mailing list is welcome to do so. Heh, here we go! A new field: #M YES (for ok on mailing list) #M NO (you send it, I'll bitch and/or sue 'ya :-) Would that satisfy everyone? I, for one, _condone_ companys using my name and address info from here for mailings and such. I laugh at those that are stupid enough to pay for such a list when it's freely available, but nonetheless, I don't mind getting these things in the regular mail. +>Or is it "I don't want the crap, and I don't want to be bothered." Fine. +>Fix your OWN entry so the physical address isn't shown. Leave the rest of +>us who DO want our addresses known to the public ALONE. And quit carping +>about a situation that is, in the end, your own doing. + +Oh, brother. I sold the UUCP database to a mailing list company, huh. Is your +thinking always this ... clear ? No no no no no. You divulged your address of your own free will. No one coerced you into doing so. You published it without a request or anything else asking that others not use it (ie: public domain, remember?). (non-informative response on "sabotage" deleted) + +>Stealing from Usenet? How can you steal from Usenet? Did the people who +>made this list steal from me? No, they GAVE TO ME. Gifts! ... +>What's the problem? + +I'm already choking my fireplace with crap paper from home junk mail. I'll be +damned if I'll cart home junk mail I get at work. Then throw it out unread and unopened. Sheesh. +I'd like to hear what people say about a misc.commercial newsgroup before +I go #P'ing all over my map entry. It already exists. It's called biz (the distribution). Ask your news person to get it for you... +>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) + +-- richard --- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) (02/11/89)
commercialization of the maps will be the death of the net as we know it. next problem? --Ed
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (02/23/89)
In article <2898@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >Predatory? Again, I don't see anything predatory about the newspapers I >received. I could have probably called the company that sent them and had >my name removed if I did have a problem with it. If I had to call every junk company every time I wanted to tell them I didn't want their junk, I'd be broke. And so would you. Quit fiddling around and I'm sure you'll see that the simplest solution is for Them to get Their data from another location. >+I say that publishing the UUCP maps is inappropriate, if it's to facilitate >+profiteering. >No, I disagree there. By listing your site in a public place you have lost >that privacy. That's ugly. I refuse to accept that as a 'solution'. I would regard the Usenet, not as a place where the lowest common denominator is acceptable, but as a place where the higher common denominators might manifest, and I don't plan to change. >The very reason for the maps is to facilitate communication.....of both the >computer AND human kind. There would be no need for 90% of the data if the >only purpose was to list mail connectivity! Good. Let's see some Freedom of Information occur, along with the email addresses of the parties responsible. So I can freely address them, too, along with their being able to freely address me. If they are unwilling to submit themselves to that which they have submitted the rest of us, without first checking to see if we minded, then it would seem that something is wrong with their rationalization, in that it incor- -porates a double standard. >No, you're not alone. Perhaps you and other have stepped into a public >world without realizing it; that was, nonetheless, a choice you did make. Maybe the people who live for nothing more than money and mailing lists have made that mistake. They don't seem to be acting very public, though. More of that double standard ? >We're not talking about a commercial network (I never was); we're talking >about someone who used the network maps for a mailing list. Whether these >companies did it themselves, or someone sold a list to them, is irrelavent. >It was pointed out, if the buyer paid more than half-hour programming time, >they got ripped off (and we should be laughing). I'm not. Nobody else is, that I know of. Who cares what they paid ? Why can't you see anything beyond dollars and increased advertising ? >+Nothing stopping them from using conventional channels of advertising. As you >+pointed out, you're on a zillion different mailing lists and databases. Why >+do they have to shit in our uupond ? >It's only you and a few others who feel it's "shit" in "your" pond. Lots of >others like the material (or at least heat their homes with it) :-) Anybody dumb enough to burn coated paper deserves what they get. Most of the inks used in advertising are carcinogenic when burned. Enjoy. >Heh, here we go! A new field: > #M YES (for ok on mailing list) > #M NO (you send it, I'll bitch and/or sue 'ya :-) > >Would that satisfy everyone? This would satisfy me. But I'd rather come up with a policy that's acceptable to a visible and recognizable majority, that attempts to determine what place if any commercially-motivated broadcast traffic has on the Usenet. >I, for one, _condone_ companys using my name and address info from here for >mailings and such. I laugh at those that are stupid enough to pay for such >a list when it's freely available, but nonetheless, I don't mind getting >these things in the regular mail. I agree, it's a trivial thing to get upset about. I'm worried about the principles involved, though. I'd like to see this stopped - or resolved - in the bud. >No no no no no. You divulged your address of your own free will. No one >coerced you into doing so. You published it without a request or anything >else asking that others not use it (ie: public domain, remember?). So I've got to explicitly put an explicit notice in my map, a la public domain software, declaring what it may and may not be used for. Multiply this by several hundred thousand sites. Isn't it cheaper to evolve a policy ? >+I'd like to hear what people say about a misc.commercial newsgroup before >+I go #P'ing all over my map entry. >It already exists. It's called biz (the distribution). Ask your news >person to get it for you... I *am* the newsperson. I've never heard of any newsgroup starting with 'biz' in over three years of approximately daily reading of the Usenet, at half a dozen different sites. Maybe I'll inquire upstream. But the fact that I've never heard of it suggests how popular it is. >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) -- richard -- * Life is a batch - then you multitask ... * * * * ..{amdahl,decwrl,octopus,pyramid,ucbvax}!avsd!childers * * AMPEX Corporation - Video Systems Division, R & D *
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/24/89)
In article <521@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes: >In article <2898@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>Predatory? Again, I don't see anything predatory about the newspapers I >>received. > >If I had to call every junk company every time I wanted to tell them I didn't >want their junk, I'd be broke. Perhaps. But throwing away the material costs you nothing. It's only if you are REALLY upset that you would call/write/whatever; and if you're that upset, it only makes sense that you should bear the cost. There are a large number of people, ourselves here included, that WANT this kind of material. >>+I say that publishing the UUCP maps is inappropriate, if it's to facilitate >>+profiteering. > >>No, I disagree there. By listing your site in a public place you have lost >>that privacy. > >That's ugly. I refuse to accept that as a 'solution'. I would regard the >Usenet, not as a place where the lowest common denominator is acceptable.... Open your eyes. Usenet has been a LCD network for some time now; look at the recent ads posted by both Telebit and SST data to comp.dcom.modems recently (neither of which I complained about, and am not complaining about them here). How about "netcom" which posted an ADVERTISEMENT (oh no!) to half a dozen groups the other day? You can refuse to accept this as a solution, but you can't force others to follow your desires on a network that is, for most purposes, an anarchy. If you truly want that, then start your own network -- and CONTROL it. Usenet will never have that level of control or accountability. >>The very reason for the maps is to facilitate communication.....of both the >>computer AND human kind. There would be no need for 90% of the data if the >>only purpose was to list mail connectivity! > >Good. Let's see some Freedom of Information occur, along with the email >addresses of the parties responsible. So I can freely address them, too, >along with their being able to freely address me. What if they don't have an email address? What if the publishers of FOCUS (the AIX mag we're all getting) had an employee in marketing who had a Portal or other public access account, and used that to make the list. How do propose to find this person in a sea of 500,000 news readers?! Lastly, why would you want an EMAIL address? Try a PAPER address; after all, you should have to pay to bitch at them just as they paid to send you the material. That seems fair, no? Or is it that you want the net as a whole to bear the burden of your complaining, while the companies that compiled and/or sold the mailing list bore the cost of sending you FOCUS on AIX? The paper address for ALL of these companies can be found on the material they send out, if you care to look. If you care to comment, I'm sure someone will read your PAPER mail. >If they are unwilling to submit themselves to that which they have submitted >the rest of us, without first checking to see if we minded, then it would >seem that something is wrong with their rationalization, in that it incor- >-porates a double standard. No double standard at all. The people who did this are not publishing their mailing information in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Remember that -- public domain. That's a very important principle, you know; the Usenet as we know it is largely dependant on PD material.... And again, no one cost you one red cent. That mail certainly didn't arrive postage-due! You now wish to send them EMAIL, at significant cost to OTHERS, because you feel aggrieved. Sorry, but I feel that you should bear the cost of complaining just as they bore the cost of sending you the original mail. >>No, you're not alone. Perhaps you and other have stepped into a public >>world without realizing it; that was, nonetheless, a choice you did make. > >Maybe the people who live for nothing more than money and mailing lists have >made that mistake. They don't seem to be acting very public, though. More of >that double standard ? What mistake? And what double standard? These people did NOT publish their information in a public database. You did! You STILL can't see the difference? If you want privacy, go crawl in a hole and pull it in after you. Then you can be completely private. If you ever buy anything on credit, if you ever give you real name on a sales receipt (useful if the warranty only applies to the original purchaser), if you ever open a business, and if you ever drive a car, information including your address and name is available to business for the purpose of sending you literature. In most of these cases, you PAY for the privilege of putting your name on the mailing list(s). >>It was pointed out, if the buyer paid more than half-hour programming time, >>they got ripped off (and we should be laughing). > >I'm not. Nobody else is, that I know of. Who cares what they paid ? Why can't >you see anything beyond dollars and increased advertising ? You don't read this group then. I've seen several opinions which concur with mine, and have received many pieces of mail concurring as well. As for seeing beyond dollars and the like, did you read my recent postings regarding the Brad Templeton fiasco? I guess not. >>+Why >>+do they have to shit in our uupond ? > >>It's only you and a few others who feel it's "shit" in "your" pond. Lots of >>others like the material (or at least heat their homes with it) :-) Yes, OUR pond. Some of the inhabitants (such as myself) LIKE this evolutionary phenomena in the use of the maps. We've actually learned of a couple of products that will be useful to us in our work through this "money grubbing capitalistic enterprise". I want the magazines and ads, and the firms who publish them are WELCOME to use our map info to find us. Some others feel the same way. If you don't, then take responsibility for yourself and your privacy rather than asking the net.police to do it for you. >>Heh, here we go! A new field: >> #M YES (for ok on mailing list) >> #M NO (you send it, I'll bitch and/or sue 'ya :-) >> >>Would that satisfy everyone? > >This would satisfy me. But I'd rather come up with a policy that's acceptable >to a visible and recognizable majority, that attempts to determine what place >if any commercially-motivated broadcast traffic has on the Usenet. WHY? Why not take the action you feel is necessary to protect your god-blessed privacy? Is it not your responsibility to do so? I argue that it is, especially when you take the first step and list your name and address in a public domain database! I am all for a "#M" field in the maps; it's simple, cheap to implement, and easy for those who would use the maps for mailing lists to check. Firms are motivated to check it too -- see, if you send to a "#M NO" person you KNOW he/she/it will can your material instantly -- why waste the money? Can someone from the UUCP mapping project pick up on this and include the "#M" field or an acceptible substitute in the next posting on the maps? >>I, for one, _condone_ companys using my name and address info from here for >>mailings and such. I laugh at those that are stupid enough to pay for such >>a list when it's freely available, but nonetheless, I don't mind getting >>these things in the regular mail. > >I agree, it's a trivial thing to get upset about. I'm worried about the >principles involved, though. I'd like to see this stopped - or resolved - >in the bud. What principles? You haven't listed any that I can see apply. If you really feel that the net should not be used for profit, then you had better find a way to disconnect EVERY COMMERCIAL SITE -- believe me, they feel that it's profitable to be connected to the net or they WOULD NOT BE HERE. >>No no no no no. You divulged your address of your own free will. No one >>coerced you into doing so. You published it without a request or anything >>else asking that others not use it (ie: public domain, remember?). > >So I've got to explicitly put an explicit notice in my map, a la public >domain software, declaring what it may and may not be used for. Multiply >this by several hundred thousand sites. Isn't it cheaper to evolve a policy ? Public domain software can't have any notices attached restricting it's use, or it's not PD. What's the problem with "#P Deleted so dirty capitalists can't mail me"? Is it that you don't like to take responsibility for your own actions and privacy? (this is a common problem today, and not just on the net....) I think I understand. You want a net.police to do your work for you. Sorry, but there's no net.police on Usenet. >>+I'd like to hear what people say about a misc.commercial newsgroup before >>+I go #P'ing all over my map entry. > >>It already exists. It's called biz (the distribution). Ask your news >>person to get it for you... > >I *am* the newsperson. I've never heard of any newsgroup starting with 'biz' >in over three years of approximately daily reading of the Usenet, at half a >dozen different sites. Maybe I'll inquire upstream. > >But the fact that I've never heard of it suggests how popular it is. No, the fact that you've never heard of it suggests you don't read news.* or are using selective memory. There was a largish discussion about a year ago, and the distribution was established. We're one of the originating sites for this distribution. If you wish to poll us, you're more than welcome to a feed. I just sent out a "sendsys" for the distribution and will be posting a list of current recipients of the distribution soon. I get really fed up with all the anti-capitalists here, especially those in the USA. Like it or not, the US's economic system is capitalism. As long as it is, PROFIT is not a dirty word -- it's the way we ALL live. That's right -- your salary and mine are both paid for by PROFIT. If you are a US citizen, and truly feel that PROFIT is an evil concept, then you should move to the USSR (whoops - they're trying out the concept of "profit" now too... darn!) I see nothing wrong with any firm making use of public domain information in any way they see fit. Yes, that includes SELLING that information (if you can find a buyer who believes it has value and is willing to pay). I only raise an objection when there is deception or fraud involved, and even the most ardent of complainers on this subject will be hard-pressed to find any instance of deception or fraud in the use of the maps. Heck, I've never even seen a notice on the maps that would indicate that list-making is "verboten" or "not recommended", much less a Copyright notice. I've been a sysadmin here now for more than two years, and was on the net for a year or so as a user as well....... (Obviously these are my own opinions :-) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) (02/24/89)
# If I had to call every junk company every time I wanted to tell them I didn't # want their junk, I'd be broke. And so would you. And so would They! "Excuse me, ma'am, but we've received 50,000 calls from our last mailing." "Great!" "Not really. 49,876 of them were people demanding to be removed from our mailing list. I'm afraid our operators have been quite busy with all of these people and we really havn't any payback from the mailing." -- Paul Vixie Work: vixie@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!vixie +1 415 853 6600 Play: paul@vixie.sf.ca.us vixie!paul +1 415 864 7013
paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) (02/25/89)
In article <3008@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > Perhaps. But throwing away the material costs you nothing. I must disagree, at least in my case. The local landfill is filling at a rapid pace, so the local haulers have a 2 bag per week limit, with excess resulting in a surcharge. Though I have not yet received junk mail from the maps, I have in the past received junk mail from other sources (conventions, magazines, and suchlike) to have to mete out the rubbish over a two week period. [ note: I did not receive >2 bags of mail, rather my faimly/business generates about 1.75 bags of non- recyclable trash per week ] I have toyed with the idea of sending out the extra trash bag and invoicing the mailers for the cost + invoicing costs :-). Paul J. Mech oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul
simpson@minotaur.uucp (Scott Simpson) (03/01/89)
In article <172@deadpup.UUCP> paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) writes: >In article <3008@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >> Perhaps. But throwing away the material costs you nothing. > >I must disagree, at least in my case. The local landfill is filling at >a rapid pace, so the local haulers have a 2 bag per week limit, with You should do what a guy back east did. He got on as many junk mail lists as he could and then bought a wood burning stove and heated his house with it. Scott Simpson TRW Space and Defense Sector oberon!trwarcadia!simpson (UUCP) trwarcadia!simpson@oberon.usc.edu (Internet)
wfp@dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips) (03/03/89)
In article <172@deadpup.UUCP> paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) writes: >In article <3008@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >> Perhaps. But throwing away the material costs you nothing. >I must disagree, at least in my case. The local landfill is filling at >a rapid pace, so the local haulers have a 2 bag per week limit, with >excess resulting in a surcharge. Why not just mark the unwanted mail "REFUSED -- RETURN TO SENDER" and shove it in the mailbox or hand it back to the letter carrier? You can do that, you know! Some of it might even get back to the sender (though that's highly unlikely) and cause them some annoyance. It also feels good! -- William Phillips ..![cucard|uunet]!dasys1!wfp System Co-administrator wfp@dasys1.UUCP BEC Public Excess Unix New York, NY, USA !!! JUST SAY "NO" TO OS/2 !!!
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (03/29/89)
hmmm ...
would it be reasonable that the map coordinator for a particular region
could own a "compilation copyright" on the data for that region?
hmmm ...
--
<- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-
<- The problem with mnemonics is they mean different things to different people.eric@egsner.UUCP (Eric Schnoebelen) (03/29/89)
In article <11356@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes:
-
-would it be reasonable that the map coordinator for a particular region
-could own a "compilation copyright" on the data for that region?
-
-< David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
-< ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
-< The problem with mnemonics is they mean different things to different people.
I have always thought that the compilation copyright for all
things on the net should belong to the "USENET Community Trust", the
amorphous thing that currently holds the copyrights on Elm, and other
goodies on the net.
Just my $0.02 worth,
--
Eric Schnoebelen
egsner!eric@texbell.uucp ...!texbell!egsner!eric
egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us ...!killer!u-word!egs
"I know it sounds absurd, but please tell me who I am..."