bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (01/07/91)
In article <1991Jan06.230231.21840@hoss.unl.edu> greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >In <1991Jan06.180558.4405@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >>This discussion has already been done extensively in comp.org.eff.talk. It >>does not belong in news.groups. > >Looks like a group I'll need to subscribe to if I am to hear more about >this. > I agree, in light of the existence of talk.libertarians... >>It is also futile, other than telling people to request deletion. You can't >>make what Lotus is doing illegal. If the information is public (not gained >>by breaking any confidences) and true, then they can publish it. Congress >>shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press and all that rot, >>remember? > >Hello, since when is information encoded electronically on a CD ROM >considered press? > Unfortunately, electronically encoded information really should be considered the same as any other kind of published media. What irking here is that we don't even have that, and things like the Neidorf case are needed to establish that electronic publishing is the same as any kind, and Lotus comes around and rocks the boat. On one hand, anything but the most specific law would be a setback to the "cause" as it were, because just as anti-trust laws were used to break up unions in the past, and anti-electronic publishing law could be turned on its head and used to hound "hackers". On the other hand, what Lotus has done strikes everybody as ethicly wrong -- its smacks of Big Brotherism, and all the privacy concerns that have been breing for the last several years. Myself I'd rather not have any laws made which boil down to the form "You can't..." We've got enough of those as it is. >>-- >>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 >-- >/// ____ \\\ >| |/ / \ \| | greg@hoss.unl.edu >\\_( \==/ )_// Lig Lury Jr. > \__\\/ > >> -rj -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjan Bagchi - At Large. Well Kinda. | what kind of person bagchi@[eecs | would want to count syllables caen, | just to write haiku? math.lsa].umich.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/07/91)
I guess when Prodigy says it is. Bob J.
kamins@kumr.UUCP (Scot Kamins) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan06.230231.21840@hoss.unl.edu> greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: > >>shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press and all that rot, B >>remember? > >Hello, since when is information encoded electronically on a CD ROM > considered Frede om of the Press? IMHO, the only reason it might NOT be is that folks have forgotten their history. At the time (if memory serves B-} ), the only publishing medium those guys in Philadelphia had in 1775-6 was the printing press. Didn't have CD-ROMs, and SSeems to me that the intention was to have media of public communication to be free - both in terms of creation andd of access. -- Scot Kamins Co-author, "HyperTalk 2.0: The Book" (415) 282-8872 (with Dan Winkler) 671 28th Street San Francisco 94131 uunet!hoptoad!kumr!kamins kamins@wet.UUCP
kmc@netcom.UUCP (Kevin McCarty) (01/08/91)
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >In <1991Jan06.180558.4405@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: ... >Hello, since when is information encoded electronically on a CD ROM >considered press? Hello, since they started mass producing CDs and selling them for the information they contain. What, you want molten lead and newsprint? >-- > /// ____ \\\ > | |/ / \ \| | greg@hoss.unl.edu > \\_( \==/ )_// Lig Lury Jr. > \__\\/ -- Kevin McCarty kmc@netcom.uucp {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!kmc
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (01/11/91)
... greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >... brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>It is also futile, other than telling people to request deletion. You can't >>make what Lotus is doing illegal. If the information is public (not gained >>by breaking any confidences) and true, then they can publish it. Congress >>shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press and all that rot, >>remember? >Hello, since when is information encoded electronically on a CD ROM >considered press? Perhaps I should clarify this statement. What I mean is that currently electronic text is not press. So if you take Lotus to court and lose, you will gain a status of electronic text as speech/press, and if you win, well you've prevented them from putting out the questionable CD ROM. Either way, something is gained. I think I phrased that better to someone in email -- perhaps he could repost it for me, if he still has a copy of it. -- /// ____ \\\ | |/ / \ \| | greg@hoss.unl.edu \\_( \==/ )_// Lig Lury Jr. \__\\/
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.204101.29296@hoss.unl.edu>, greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: > Perhaps I should clarify this statement. What I mean is that currently > electronic text is not press. So if you take Lotus to court and lose, you > will gain a status of electronic text as speech/press, and if you win, > well you've prevented them from putting out the questionable CD ROM. But you've weakened the status of *all* electronic publishers. > Either way, something is gained. And something is lost. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (01/13/91)
... greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >Perhaps I should clarify this statement. What I mean is that currently >electronic text is not press. So if you take Lotus to court and lose, you >will gain a status of electronic text as speech/press, and if you win, >well you've prevented them from putting out the questionable CD ROM. And of course, Lotus will appeal until they win, gaining the status, or perhaps a settlement, and we're back at square one, but still have prevented them. Is that better? Sorry but I am not an expert in law, nor do I claim to be one. -- /// ____ \\\ | |/ / \ \| | greg@hoss.unl.edu \\_( \==/ )_// Lig Lury Jr. \__\\/
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (01/14/91)
Ok, here is the mail that you sent me. . . ---include begin-- From zane Wed Jan 9 18:33:42 1991 Subject: Re: Personal Privacy Violations To: greg@hoss.unl.edu (Hammer T. H.) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 18:33:42 CST In-Reply-To: <9101082351.AA19050@lll-winken.llnl.gov>; from "Hammer T. H." at Jan 8, 91 5:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] | | > | >In article <1991Jan06.230231.21840@hoss.unl.edu> you write: | >> | >>Hello, since when is information encoded electronically on a CD ROM | >>considered press? | | > Prepare to be lynched for posting THAT on comp.org.eff.talk. . . | >One of the major goals of the eff is promoting that. . .And why SHOULDN'T | >it be press? | | Hmm, perhaps I should make a posting explaining what I meant about that. | I meant it sarcastically, and partly saying, "If this is being used | against the little guy, let's use it against the companies, and either | way it turns out, something good will come of it: company is defeated in | court, or electronic text is given status of press." | | [Unrelated comment of mine deleted] -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM ---end include--- That was the response to him by me. . .I am glad I included the whole text of his response. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM