Xref: utzoo news.admin:12541 news.misc:6189 comp.mail.uucp:5999 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: New rules for UUPSI Message-ID: <7669@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> Date: 6 Mar 91 08:12:54 GMT References: <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> <1991Mar05.113406.16833@usaos.uucp> <1991Mar5.210338.5356@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Followup-To: news.admin Organization: Dixie Communications Services Lines: 101 xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> If this is true, PSI just lost one prospective customer. I was >> planning to sign up with them, but I will not do so under these >> restrictions. Likewise. That we had not contacted PSI this week is only because we've been busy processing higher priority interrupts. We'll now find another provider and will advocate that others do likewise. >The last time we had someone try to pull this garbage on the net (the >Stargate project) a bunch of people developed variations on the >attached signature (the one I did then got quoted in a sociologist's >study of the issues, a bit of an ego boost), which pretty thoroughly >squashed that nonsense, since copyright violations carry real world >penalties. If you kill the shrink-wrap bit about your copyright attaching GPV-style to a compilation, then it will fly. Don't try to sound as silly as software publishers. There are a couple of other things that can be done in conjunction with copyrighting individual articles. We could use a technique commonly used (and abused) in other areas called a litigation corporation. Simply put, we form a corporation whose charter is to pursue litigation against copyright violators of the members. If even 1% of the estimated couple of million people on this net bought in for, say, $20, the corporation would be a power to be dealt with. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because as a commercial public access and Usenet redistribution site, dixie.com had to address the very same issue. In our case, once the issue was verbalized, the answer was so clear as to require no further thought. We have no right, morally or otherwise, to dictate what our customers do with the news and mail we forward. We are a common carrier just like the phone company. To see the absurdity of the PSI policy, contemplate the reaction if Ma Bell tried to tell us what we could do with the information (voice or otherwise) transmitted over their facilities. We are fully aware that people we feed redistribute to others who might otherwise be our customers. Indeed we encourage that architecture. We realize that the tighter the interconnect matrix, the more valuable our service is. We further realize that as people become reliant on the net, they will be willing to pay for the highly reliable and tightly coupled service we sell. This situation is analogous to the software shrink-wrap license debacle. Many publishers think that they can force people to pay money by blundgeoning them with so-called license agreements and threats of suits. We take the attitude that we will gain customers by offering a service of such high quality that they gladly pay for it. This is not a new concept; some call it the Boreland Principle when applied to software. PSI obviously has not yet learned that lesson. There are several other proactive options available to us to combat this problem. Among them: * Offer outbound-only connectivity to those who are fed by PSI. Thus, news from the branches under PSI-fed sites would have an alternative outlet. * Other companies like dixie.com can offer competative services for much cheaper prices. For example, we offer a full telebit slotted news feed for a flat rate of $29 a month. (slotted means that the fed site has to reserve a time slot each day to receive its feed. That lets us maximize our phone line usage. We'll probably have to increase this price as we gain more experience but not by much.) It does not cost that much to set up such a site, especially if you have extra CPU cycles laying around and only want the site to break even. * As the ultimate draconian weapon, the net could simply bit-bucket any article handled by PSInet. This is a severe option, one I hope we don't have to use but one I'm certainly prepared to use if it comes to that. My advice to PSI is this: Can the coercion crap. It has never worked very well in the past and is a dead concept in this world of instant communications. Learn something about customer service. Buy and study the book "Total Customer Service" by Davidow & Uttal if all else fails. Learn that the word "can't", especially as applies to customer service, is strictly verboden. Understand that you KEEP - as opposed to getting - customers by keeping them happy. People don't mind spending money if they are satisfied with what they get. Telling them that they cannot do something with something they've bought does not go far toward that happiness. Finally, realize what your purpose in the food chain is. You are a carrier and not an originator of data. To the rest of the net: This is just the tip of the iceberg. The comming horrors of NREN pale this issue in comparison. If you don't know what NREN is, find out. (Hint: It's the Internet with more government intereference and a large dollip of IBM-style marketing and user fees lathered on.) Get involved. We're gonna have to fight for this resource we now enjoy. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it