karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/06/89)
In article <2724@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Well, folks, if that's the way you want it, it looks like you are going to >win. Rec.humor.funny will be removed from conventional usenet. Temporarially, until and unless someone proposes that it be re-created with a new moderator (someone who volunteers, doesn't mind a little heat, and has the fortitude to stick it out [Hi learn :-]). >Unless a good compromise solution can be attained. Here are the concerns >of mine that must be addressed: > >1) If members of a site, in response to getting the group for free, do nothing >but attack it and me, particularly in the press with libel and >misrepresentation, then I need: > A) Legal protection that ensures nobody complains that they were > offended without deliberately subscribing and/or decrypting > B) The right to say, "if all you're going to do is waste my time > complaining about how you don't like what you're getting for free, > then you're not getting it any more." No. You need to use your legal capabilities to address the libel that has occurred. I support you in your fight to sue the media if they libelled you; there's no excuse for that behavior and it deserves a just reward. When you go beyond that you're taking revenge, and that is wrong. Rot-13ing the questionable postings takes care of "A", IF you do it consistantly. If you mess up, you deserve the consequences; it's that simple. We're adults here -- we can take responsibility for our own mistakes. As for item "B", I do not agree with you that you have that right. Remember, you're not God of rec.humor.funny, but merely a custodian. You can be replaced, and the group can go on. If I wasn't as busy as I am, I'd offer to take it over. Unfortunately I couldn't devote the time to it that it needs (I don't even have a free half-hour per day at present; running this vote is going to tax my free time immensely as it is). The problem with "B" is that the determination of who's in the "bad" group is completely arbitrary and subject to your decision and whim. U of Waterloo is a good example - did EVERY USENET USER assault you? No, it was a couple of individuals. Stanford is another example. For this you took and are taking revenge on the entire community of users there. I'm sure they all thanked you. DOING THIS IS WRONG. >2) If the newsgroup is to be picked up by Compuserve/Source/Genie/Delphi/Bix >or similar organizations that sell access to electronic services for either >an hourly fee >$3 or a large enough monthly fee to large numbers of readers, >then *I'm* the one that arranges the link, and *I'm* the one who is the official >moderator on that service. (From the descriptions of Portal I have read, >they don't seem to be a problem.) I don't see how you could say that. I bet Portal's users are on an average of only a few hours a month (otherwise they'd go broke; works the same way PC Persuit does, you see...); thus the real average cost/hour might surprise you. They DO have a large number of subscribers. How about The Well -- pay per hour, and from what I hear they have several _thousand_ subscribers? I don't like the precedent here, and personally I think it's bad for the network as a whole to permit this. It sets the stage for both raw commercialization of the entire network as well as regulation (with one comes the other, as we all know). I also do not acknowledge your claim of a right to take these actions; in fact, I specifically assert that you don't have those "rights" on the regular Usenet. If you want to set up your own top-level hierarchy, and invite only those people you want present, then I have no problem with your actions. That will take conscious action on each admin's part to implement, just as does the "biz" distribution (in which commercial ads are posted). But get the group out of rec.* >3) I am legit in making the annual jokebook, and its compilation copyright >is OK. I don't have a problem with this, although some others do. Now, if you start selling those books for $50 each you might have a beef with the net at large. In this event, though, it's a problem that can be dealt with by copyrighting submissions to r.h.f properly (ie: free electronic redistribution only is allowed, ala rec.mag.otherrealms). >If somebody can think of another method to address these needs, that would >be fine. But they are real needs, and they can't be ignored by me. >*CAN'T*. If you are immovable on these points, I'm afraid I have to be immovable in my position as well. Whether the vote wins or loses, r.h.f will have to come off our machines. We simply can't expose ourselves or our downstream sites to that kind of liability, nor do we want to support your position on these points -- and our only means of expressing disapproval at that point would be to disassociate the group from our machines. Btw: I read r.h.f -- and like it. I would miss the group. But I am also confident that someone else would take it over, or shortly propose it's recreation with a different moderator (like a phoenix?) The principles here are too valuable to the network as a whole to allow them to be trampled on so you can have an easier time of it as a moderator, and perhaps get rich someday on your unknowing r.h.f submitting "pawns". >So if you want to hold a vote on the matter, then either you lose because >you don't get 100 more removal votes than keep votes (that was the criterion >other people established during the last such debate.) or you lose because >rec.humor.funny leaves usenet. Maybe you don't think of that as losing, but >if you don't, then it will be just as well -- if people don't think the loss >of RHF would be a loss to usenet, then what am I doing here? >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 No, Brad, that's not quite true. And if you assert that r.h.f is _truly_ yours, and we can't use the name after replacing you with a different moderator....... I suspect that the net will show you to be wrong there too. Rec.humor.funny is a newsgroup. You are the _current_ moderator. You are replacable, whether you want to admit it or not. The group can and probably will go on in a moderated fashion one way or another. After all, the net does need some decent humor. This is discussion time. The VOTE starts in 10 days or so; if we have a replacement moderator who is (a) well enough connected and STABLE enough to take over, and (b) the people can live with, and (c) wants the job then perhaps the question on the ballot will be "Shall we remove Brad Templeton from moderating r.h.f and appoint <insert fav. net.person> in his stead" rather than the more mundane "Shall we remove r.h.f.". Note that standard backbone moderator files will do the rest of the work should the vote be to replace Brad and replace him/her with someone else. In either case the vote must carry by 100 more YES than NO tallies, that is established. The default action, as always, is to do nothing. As I see it, the questions at this time are: 1) Is a compilation copyright on the electronic distribution in Usenet to be considered "ok" by the net at large when the purpose is not solely to prohibit profiteering? (Alt.gourmand's copyright is to the Usenet Community Trust; you can't count this one as a problem. Chuq's policy was stated and OK'd at the time of the newsgroup creation. You're changing the rules mid-stream.) I have no problem with Copyrighting things on the network as long as the primary purpose is to prevent someone else from selling your work as theirs. This covers shareware (but not "begware"; a notice asking for a donation is ok as long as it's not harassing me!), Copylefted packages and PD items. As an example, I've posted a "chat" program to the net with a "Redistribution in whole not-for-profit is permitted, leave the copyright notices alone" copyright notice. That pretty much covers people claiming my work is theirs, and is nice and simple. 2) Can a moderator assert control over the distribution of a newsgroup? Is there any justifyable cause for this type of action? I maintain that there is no right to this action. A moderator is not a "god" or "lord" of a newsgroup. That's not the moderator's purpose. Besides being totally arbitrary this is also censorship in action and can even be considered borderline discrimination in some cases (beware this trap Brad!). I do not believe that a moderator has any right of ownership to the group or it's name anymore than Ronald Reagan can still claim to be the "President". 3) Is a moderator personally responsible for what they do? Of course! Aren't we all supposed to be? A person who takes on a controversial moderator position should expect some heat. If you don't like the warmth, get your feet out of the fireplace! 4) Should a moderator be allowed to demand or collect compensation from network sites (whether officially "Usenet" sites or not -- there's no good definition of what a "Usenet" site is!) under any circumstances, and furthermore refuse distribution (or sue) that site if the "fee" is not paid? I believe that if the net allows this precedent, we're in real trouble. It'll start with commercialization of parts of the network -- not just outside regular Usenet (like on 'biz') where these activities are relished and desired, but on the "normal" Usenet as well. Next will come government regulation, REAL lawsuits, you name it. The network will be radically changed; many sites will disconnect due to the liability problems with determining whether their downstream sites can/cannot receive groups, r.h.f will be gone in any event, and if you ask me all this change will not be for the better. Brad has asserted the right not only to use these jokes on Usenet, but _ALSO_ on any other electronic network. This means that Brad could set up a commercial system and start a pay-per-joke BBS -- or a SIG on CI$ -- with r.h.f submissions -- and be within his declared "rights". Is this ok with the net at large? I'd have a problem with this if I was submitting a joke; the possibilities for abuse are real and should be of concern. Let's try to keep the discussion rational, folks. I'd like a solution to this problem rather than a flame war with no outcome or rational discussion, but in the end, I prefer to lose Brad Templeton as a moderator or even rec.humor.funny as a group than to permit this twisting of the network's "code of honor" to be left unchallenged. Make your opinions known, the vote will be taken soon! -- 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"