karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/04/89)
(Followups redirected to news.groups....) In article <2714@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Since this was brought up in public as well as in private, I must >answer in public. As will I. >Recently I have been put through a great deal of personal stress, >considerable cost in telephone and legal expenses, ill health and >literally weeks of lost time because of my dedication to rec.humor.funny. >All this on top of the considerable time I put into moderating the >group. The whole battle isn't even over yet, and in some ways it is >escalating, as you will all soon find out. This moderation of the group was a personal choice; we should not be penalized (or subject to your "control") just because your lack of discretion in "ok"ing material (or ANY other cause) brought you some grief. "You will all soon find out?" How about some details and facts to back up the threatening words, Brad? >All this because I have worked hard to give you folks, for free, something >you tell me you enjoy a lot. After all these attacks, I had to ask myself >why I was submitting myself to such abuse, defamation and personal hardship. >Believe me, it's not pleasant to be called a racist on the front page of >major newspapers, and to become the enemy of the president of your alma >mater. But it is your choice to either bear or discard such a cross; a choice that I would _hope_ you made (and continue to make) with some semblance of a sound mind. It is also your right to seek redress from those papers and universitie(s) if you truly feel you were wronged. The law provides just compensation for those who were slandered or libeled. It is not your right as a moderator, who was voted in by the net at large, to change the charter of your group at whim and to designate who may and who may not receive the material! This is Usenet, not "Brad.Templeton.Net". >So I decided to affirm that the group is mine, and that I control it, >and that if somebody wanted to charge money for reading it, I have it in >my authority to control that, too. WRONG. There you and I (and I suspect, most of the remainder of the net) differ. You are a moderator - that is NOT a position equivalent to editor, or even publisher. R.h.f is not _YOUR_ group to do with as you please. You may be the shepherd of the group, but you are NOT a self-declared God! >So I have affirmed my compilation >copyright(*) in the group, and said all free usenet sites can carry it, and >that other sites have to ask. I have also said that just about anybody >who asks will get a yes. But it is *my* decision. If a commercial service >like Compuserve asks, I might say no, or ask for their standard moderator >arrangment -- that's all. I don't really know what Portal is, but if >I decide they're making money off what I do, then I have the right to >control it. No you don't, any more than I have a right to demand $x for a copy of a posting that I make to the net on the basis of where it's distributed. I posted it, it's out of my hands, it's on the net. (Those who feel otherwise -- note that Brad here has ALSO claimed that postings to rec.humor, unless otherwise noted, are fair game for his "compilation copyright". Anyone STILL think there isn't a problem with this last statement of Brad's?) Also note the "if I decide that they are making money" above. This is about as pompous a statement as I have EVER heard on this network. Look, who are you to decide? We do have "contributor" accounts here - people pay for the access. Part of that is Usenet, of course. People pay for Usenet access (sometimes). We _lose_ money on these accounts if you want to count them strictly as a profit/loss type of situation. We don't, of course; MCS receives the Usenet, and marginal cost of providing access to outsiders is reasonable enough for us to bear with a small amount of help from the users of this resource. Are we (or any other public access system that collects a fee for use) subject to your whim? I think not! I know that _I_, as an administrator of this Network, will not beg for the "right" to transmit, forward, store or read r.h.f. I _WILL_ nuke r.h.f from our site and all our downstream feeds if this bull-cocka about you flexing your muscles continues, and I will advocate that other sysadmins do so as well. How's that for preemptory action Brad? What goes around comes around. >That's all for now. But believe me, if attacks on me keep up, it's >not going to be all. This is not an attack on you, this is an attack on the policy that you have set. There is a difference and I hope you recognize it. >But I will have control over what I do, and *I* will get to decide if >somebody else can make money off of my work. If you're right in saying >that the net will laugh in my face for doing this, then I will leave. The net is laughing. Even worse; I'm drawing a motion together. Read on for the real good stuff. >(*) A compilation (editor's) copyright, for those that don't know, is >a special copyright on a work or service that is a collection of works >by other people (both PD and copyrighted.) It claims no ownership in >the individual works, but rather on the work to collect, edit, select >and publish them. It means that nobody can redistribute a significant >part (or all) of the collection without the editor's permission, or use >the compilation as a sourcebook for further compilations. > >All moderators have a compilation copyright on their moderated groups, >unless they explictly renounce it. They have to declare it to enforce it, >however. There I (and I suspect, the remainder of the net) disagree with you. If the net as a whole allows this precedent to be set (allowing a compilation copyright to be EXERCISED by an individual who moderates a group) then we're in real big trouble. Brandon could decide who could receive comp.binaries.ibm.pc. How about comp.sources.unix? Or any of the others? Who are YOU to claim that someone can (or cannot) receive the group when distributed with PUBLIC FUNDS? I perceive a call for $$$ here by Brad (from those sites which make money off Usenet use!); that's something that even a die-hard capitalist like myself simply cannot stomach. It started with the joke book, and your compilation copyright on that. No, I won't get on the soapbox about that issue -- it's long dead, and everyone who thinks about it must conclude that you're not making a killing on it. But this item is another matter entirely -- you've now come out and stated your intention is CONTROL of the group, and even the right to profit from it and it's material. You've asserted that rec.humor, a NON-MODERATED group, will be ALSO tapped for material for your "private forum"; jokebook and all. Brad, it's gone too far this time. As a result: ------------------------ OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT -------------------------- This is an official announcement of a discussion period (2 weeks) to remove rec.humor.funny from the Usenet. The discussion period begins now, Fri Feb 3 17:15:27 CST 1989, and will run until February 17, 1989. I'm sure you all know by now (if you really read this far) how I feel on this matter. After two weeks a vote will be called by myself. If 100 more YES votes than NO votes are received during the 30 day voting period at the address designated, I will petition the backbone to issue an official "rmgroup" for rec.humor.funny. Please note that this proposal follows existing guidelines for newsgroup modifications. DO NOT send votes now -- they will be ignored. DO NOT post votes at any time -- they will be ignored. I will post a public address for votes when the two week discussion period is over. The discussion period and vote will be cancelled should the backbone take appropriate preemptory action, or should Brad publically recant his postings regarding the "ownership" of Rec.humor.funny, and once again "permit" the entire net to receive and forward the group without encumberance. If you're going to act, Brad, act fast -- if you wait until the vote begins I doubt it will matter much what you decide to post. Get your Nomex suits out, guys and gals -- the "fun"ny is just beginning. And please do post your opinions. Email flames discarded; public discourse will be read and considered commensurately with it's value. -- 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"
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (02/06/89)
>In article <1233@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> I wrote: Brad says that all of this is just for protection against JEDRs. From the actual facts, this seems to be the case. Why not just trust him until his actions prove otherwise? In article <380@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.uu.net (Rick Farris) writes: > I guess you didn't see the posting from Brad where he reserved his > piece of the $200,000 / month that Compu$erve may someday get, eh? ^^^^^^^ No, I didn't miss it. Note the emphasis on SOMEDAY. This whole discussion is reminds me of the discussion about whether serious security holes should be posted. If Brad posts what he's actually trying to accomplish with all of this, what is lawyer's strategy will be against the next JEDR attack, and exactly what "copyright rights" if any he thinks he can enforce, he's throwing away most of his protection. Again, ONCE AGAIN, couldn't we just leave Brad alone until he actually DOES something objectionable.