Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!chinet!patrick
From: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation
Message-ID: <8853@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 4 Jul 89 14:08:44 GMT
References: <8831@chinet.chi.il.us> <3300@epimass.EPI.COM> <197600001@inmet> <14403@bfmny0.UUCP> <3749@viscous.sco.COM> <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> <3579@looking.on.ca> <1147@intercon.UUCP>
Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 176

In article <1147@intercon.UUCP> amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) writes:
>In article <8831@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us
>(Patrick A. Townson) writes [about comp.dcom.telecom]:
>> I do all editing, period.
>
>Well, in the simplest possible terms, why?

Because I want a decent looking publication. I attempt to provide consistency
in the way the headers are prepared; in the grouping of articles relating
to a given topic on any day; and correct spelling errors and major 
grammatical flaws because correct spelling and grammar lend a professional 
appearance to the Digest. I avoid most grammatical changes since the author's
own words are important. I try to correct, or ferret out the proper return 
address for the author and adjust the 'From' lines accordingly, so that the 
correspondents can write to each other with ease. I take the Digest quite
seriously. I decline messages which contain advice and helpful hints for
phreaks, since these could cause serious legal repercussions for the owners
of the machines which distribute the Digest  (virtually all sites). 

>I read comp.dcom.telecom, and I certainly appreciate the work you put into
>it.  I don't come close to reading every article, though. Is this a problem?

Not at all. It is your personal copy of the Digest to read as you see fit.

>If I use a kill file, or more to the point, something that functions in the
>opposite way (a highlight file?) to help me select items of interest, is
>that a problem?

Again, this is no problem at all. You are working with your personal copy,
to be used in *almost* any way you desire. You should use your own tools,
as you are doing, to make the Digest convenient and useful for yourself.

>I occasionally point out interesting articles to my coworkers who do not
>read the group.  Is that a problem?  If my boss considered it a part of
>my job to look for useful stuff on Usenet (including comp.dcom.telecom),
>and thus paid for the time I spent doing so, would that be a problem?

This is no problem, because you are not engaging in a commercial activity
with the collective output of TELECOM Digest correspondents and myself.
For example, the Digest is distributed not only to individual names on
my master list, but to several dozen 'expansion lists' or 'exploder
addresses'. Many of these special addresses take the Digest and perform
'undigesting' on it; that is, putting it into single message-by-message
format, since the readers on that list have indicated they prefer this
style of reading. The demarcation point -- where we would differ in our
interpretation regards the ethical use of the Digest -- is when the 
receiver of a copy re-arranges it *and/or charges for re-distribution of
it.* 

If your sole employment duties were to take Usenet material, select from
it, re-arrange it and re-distribute it, then I believe there would be a
violation of the 'spirit of Usenet', if not an actual violation of
copyright law.

But if in the course of your employment, you occassionally 'clip' items
of interest from your electronic newspaper/magazines and pass them along
to your co-workers and employers, then I think it would be very uncharitable
of me, or anyone on Usenet to say you were violating a copyright. The answer
to your last two questions would be that your activities would have be to
examined in the context of your employment. Is your employment exclusively
for this purpose? Is it being done specifically to make a profit for 
yourself?

>If so, why, and if not, how is this qualitatively different from what
>Geoff is offering?

See the above paragraphs. Geoff G. has one purpose in extracting Usenet
material for re-distribution: To repackage and resell it as a commercial
activity for his company. His company was formed for the express purpose
of extracting from Usenet and reselling the output. I assume your employer
has other things going on, and your use of occassional articles from the
Digest is incidental to whether you work there or not. Am I mistaken?
If the Digest, or all of Usenet shut down operations tomorrow, would there
still be a purpose in your employment? 

>To take the particular example of comp.dcom.telecom, I would greatly enjoy
>only reading articles about data communications.  I couldn't care less
>about COCOTS, or NPA codes, or any number of the things that are of 
>evidently of great interest to a lot of your other readers.  Should I have
>to wade through all of this in order to find occasional articles on things
>like switched 56K service, fractional T1, and the like?  If not, what
>does it matter if I do my filtering by means of a program or an external
>service like Geoff's?  How is it different from, say, a newspaper clipping
>service?

It does not matter what kind of editing you do. It can be external or
internal, but the point is, *you* make the choices of what you want to 
see and read -- not someone else. If it is convenient for you to use a 
commercial 'electronic press clipping' service for this, that is fine. You
made the choice. 

A better example might be to compare Geoff's product with the [Reader's
Digest] versus a press clipping service. In Geoff's proposed electronic
reader's digest, he will select what he wants you to read. My understanding
from reading his own messages are that he considers the net to be a lot of
noise, with just a fraction of the transmissions being useful. He will
select the things he considers useful, using his judgment and criteria, and
market this new product, ala [Reader's Digest]. 

On the other hand, when you sign up for a press clipping service, *you
tell them* what you want to get: "Give me all the items you find on the
price of tea in China"; "Give me all the articles you find with the phrase
'long distance phone call' therein", etc.  And the press clipping service
finds these *frequently by the hundreds* and sends them off to you -- making
no judgment of their own as to what you ought to be seeing or reading.

Press clipping services do not pay royalties on the articles they cut out
of the various papers and pass along. Conversely, [Reader's Digest]
must *ask permission and pay royalties if requested* prior to publishing
an article in their magazine. The difference is, they claim to be selling
a whole new product. 

Some of us who have had running arguments with the [Reader's Digest] over
the past sixty years or so contend that the late Dewitt Wallace and his
wife, the late Lila Acheson Wallace (co-publishers/founders) of the [Reader's
Digest] were a couple of liars from the word go. They could excerpt an
article to make it say whatever they wanted, and they frequently did so. 
The crew running things at Pleasantville NY these days are *slightly* more
honest in their approach; perhaps because now they seem to originate more
of their own material instead of excerpting (and taking wildly out of
context) the work of other people.

>If I want to read everything, I can.  No one is stopping me.  If I don't,
>how am I violating your prerogatives?

You are not violating anything of mine. You are using your personal copy
of the Digest in a way convenient to you. I don't even care if you buy the
[Reader's Digest] every month and only read selected articles.

>I'm sorry if I sound a little testy, but I'm quite serious.  So far most
>of the arguments I've seen against Geoff so far seem to amount to "But
>these are MY words!  Nobody else can touch them if I don't want them to!"

I'm serious also. In non-commercial, personal usage, you are free to do what
you want with Usenet stuff. In a commercial application such as Geoff G.
or [Reader's Digest], you are not free to make alterations.

>If that's how you feel, you shouldn't be putting them on Usenet.  Publish
>a magazine column.  Do radio spots for NPR.  Whatever.  Some of the strengths
>of freely accesible media are also "problems."  Lack of central control is
>one of these.  Life's full of tradeoffs.

You have it backwards. If Geoff feels that he wants to make money by taking
a wide variety of articles and excerpting/reselling them, then *he* is the
one who does not belong on Usenet. Usenet stuff is given freely by its
authors with the understanding it will be used *freely* by the readers. It
is not put here with the idea that I will either get a check back in the mail
from a site which agreed to 'publish me' or a pink rejection slip if they
decide against publication. 

I put the information here so that you or anyone can use it and perhaps
benefit from the knowledge gained. The 'tradeoff' you mention is that I
in turn benefit from your knowledge. But Geoff seems to feel the tradeoff
should be that if I am witty and clever enough, and my ideas seem to be
in synch with what he thinks should be distributed, then he will take my
ideas and sell them, at a profit to himself. And the benefit to me? Still
wider distribution, I guess -- provided I am witty and clever enough, of
course.

Geoff is not attempting to start an electronic press clip service. If he
were, I would praise his efforts. He is attempting to start a Usenet
version of [Reader's Digest], where ideas and concepts which meet his
approval will receive circulation, and he will receive payment for same.

All well and good -- but not on Usenet. Let him sign contracts and make
arrangements with his own Information Providers. A service now operating
comparable to his is [Newsnet], which takes a couple hundred electronic
publications and regularly puts them on line, both in full and in excerpted
versions, per their *written contract* with the individual newsletter
writers and publishers. Let Geoff try it that way if he wishes.


-- 
Patrick Townson 
  patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 
  FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) /  MCI Mail: 222-4956