olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) (02/07/89)
The recent unpleasantness over rec.humor.funny is getting out of hand. I would like to suggest a way to preserve r.h.f with Brad as moderator. Brad claims a legal right to restrict distribution of r.h.f over USENET. Others consider this claim of dubious validity, and a bad idea even if valid. Here is my suggestion: - r.h.f continues with Brad as moderator. - Brad acts as if his claim were valid. - Those who disagree with Brad act as if the claim were invalid. The beauty of it is that, for now, the two courses of action are identical. As far as I understand it, Brad currently has no objection to distributing r.h.f to any of the sites on USENET that want it. Let's call a truce, valid unless and until Brad actually wants to exclude r.h.f from a site that wants it (and that time may never come). Then, and only then, would the sh-t hit the fan.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/07/89)
In article <1241@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) writes: > > - r.h.f continues with Brad as moderator. > > - Brad acts as if his claim were valid. > > - Those who disagree with Brad act as if the claim were invalid. > >The beauty of it is that, for now, the two courses of action are identical. >As far as I understand it, Brad currently has no objection to distributing >r.h.f to any of the sites on USENET that want it. > >Let's call a truce, valid unless and until Brad actually wants to exclude >r.h.f from a site that wants it (and that time may never come). Then, and >only then, would the sh-t hit the fan. What! Tell the Chicken Littles that the sky *isn't* falling! Stop having all this fun? Stop wasting all this net.bandwidth? Why, next you'll be saying that the end of the net isn't near. :-) :-) end of sarcasm mode ;-) ;-) Seriously folks this is by far and away one of the most sensible comments made on this topic. Or perhaps just once we could raise the level debate above name calling and irrational, unjustified or just plain incorrect or stupid statements. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (02/07/89)
In article <1241@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) writes: > >The recent unpleasantness over rec.humor.funny is getting out of hand. I >would like to suggest a way to preserve r.h.f with Brad as moderator. > >Brad claims a legal right to restrict distribution of r.h.f over USENET. >Others consider this claim of dubious validity, and a bad idea even if >valid. Here is my suggestion: > > - r.h.f continues with Brad as moderator. > > - Brad acts as if his claim were valid. > > - Those who disagree with Brad act as if the claim were invalid. > >The beauty of it is that, for now, the two courses of action are identical. >As far as I understand it, Brad currently has no objection to distributing >r.h.f to any of the sites on USENET that want it. > >Let's call a truce, valid unless and until Brad actually wants to exclude >r.h.f from a site that wants it (and that time may never come). Then, and >only then, would the sh-t hit the fan. Here are a few reasons why that won't work: (a) Some of those who flamed Brad **LIKE** to flame others, and they won't be deprived of an opportunity to do so just for the sake of peace. (b) Some of those who flamed Brad feel **THEIR** concept of the USENET is sacred dogma, and the very fact that Brad expressed a different concept (regardless of what he actually DOES about it) is heretical in their eyes. One can no longer burn heretics at the stake, but one can still flame them. (c) The perennial doomsayers ("this incident means the end of the net") need occasional reasons and justifications for their predictions, and this one is very handy for that purpose. (d) Similar reasons apply to those who would like to restructure the net into something less anarchic than it is now, with more formal democracy, a more formal structure for cost sharing, and (most recently) salaries for those who contribute work to the USENET (i.e. moderators). All of these varied groups of NET people don't need the sh.t hitting the fan, the aroma reaching their noses is quite enough to spur them into flamage. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) (02/08/89)
Revised peace proposal (really a truce proposal): 1. Brad agrees to RENOUNCE any COPYRIGHT without prejudice to his RIGHT to ASSERT IT LATER. 2. We CANCEL the VOTE without prejudice to our RIGHT to RESCHEDULE it after a FULL DISCUSSION. Careless assertion (or rejection) of copyright by moderators could entangle us legally in unforeseen ways. In the absence of any explicit policy it could well be taken as a precedent. To act without getting legal advice and mulling it over would be dangerous. Let me list some issues involved here. Should all profit making from net contents be barred? (This site pays for USENET access and has no objection in principle to getting some of that back--or profiting for that matter.) Should any profit making from net contents be barred? Where should the line be drawn if between these two positions? The net is now a democracy/autocracy/anarchy. Newsgroup are created or eliminated democratically. News is distributed via an anarchy with some autocratic elements. Posting is anarchic except in moderated newsgroups. A moderated newsgroup is a democratically licensed autocracy. Is this the structure that makes most sense? What should the net/moderator relationship be? What of copyrights asserted by posters over their postings? I plan to post something soon where I will want a copyright. If the net decides that is against its etiquette, I will obey and post a public domain summary. (This posting will probably not be profitable, to the extent that is considered relevant.) And before doing anything, I plan to consult counsel. Anyone acting as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I envy the self-assurance of anyone who feels they have the answers to even one of the above questions. Given a take it or leave it vote on Brad's original copyright, I would have voted for expulsion and worried very much about the consequences of doing so. I *DO* object to the rn-style copyright on a newsgroup (as opposed to a posting or piece of software), but could not predict how I would vote, given the extreme nature of the proposed remedy. I do not think the net has even begun to cope with the issues posed by moderated groups, which have to be the trend of the future, given the rising volume in this net. I have a lot more to say on these matters, but two weeks is not enough time. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090, 703-471-1378