Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!jik From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet Keywords: The wholesale capturing of Usenet by GEnie Message-ID: <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> Date: 21 Dec 89 02:01:40 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 95 In article <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) >writes: >Your sense of moral outrage in this case seems to be unrelated to a >consistent view of reality. When you post something on usenet, it is in >the public domain. You cannot thereafter attempt to pick and choose >for whose eyes only it is destined. Further, since you recieve no >remuneration in any case, I can scarcely see how you can claim that harm >is being done to you or to anyone else. You're missing a few things. First of all, although there may not be any reason why GEnie cannot legally put news on their system, that is not the objection; the objection is that they are selling something that someone else put work into creating, without giving anything in return. I think it is quite justifiable to be "morally outraged" by that. Second, all it takes to make it impossible for GEnie legally to post one of your articles on their system is to put something to the effect of, "This article is copyright 1989 by . You may redistribute this article only if you do not charge a fee from the people to whom you redistribute it." If you don't want public-access Unix sites to have to filter your articles, and GEnie reserves redistribution rights on everything posted to it, then you can change the second sentence to "You may redistribute this article only if the people tho whom you redistribute it may do likewise." The point is that we DO have the legal ability to stop GEnie from gatewaying our posts, if they are selling them, and if we find that offensive. Several people on the net that I have seen already use copyright notices of this sort on their messages, although I don't do it myself. >All I see is that a few more people get to read your gems of wisdom. Since >there is no moral requirement for anyone else on usenet to "post" some >minimal amount of information, your demand for "two way" transfer is >patently arbitrary. No, it is not. The demand is for something in return for what GEnie is getting for nothing. I see nothing arbitrary about that. Let's assume that the Atari ST newsgroup is filled with posts from various Atari ST experts (I say "assume" not because I don't think it's true, but because I don't read the newsgroup and therefore don't know whether or not it's true.). In that case, those experts are voluntarily contributing information to the net, and GEnie is taking that information and selling it. I have a real problem with that, as do other people on the net. >I suspect your outrage is merely symbolic. After all, the telephone line >companies, modem companies, computer manufacturers and software firms all >make money AT THE COST OF USENET SITES!!! Yet I seriously doubt whether >you would find it in your moral code of ethics to condem them. If so, then >your condemnation of ANYONE (even beyond the GEnie case) is contradictory >and arbitrary on its face. This analogy is about a tenth of a gilly, I'd say; in other words, it's pretty bogus. I think it would seem obvious to anyone with half a brain that Usenet sites which use the phone lines, or which purchase modems, or which purchase computers, or which purchase computer software, all GET SOMETHING IN RETURN for their purchases. When you use the phone, or buy a modem, or buy a computer, or buy a program, you USE it. Furthermore, you voluntarily enter into an agreement with them when you make the purhase, or use the phone. How can you condemn someone when you have purchased something from them voluntarily and received (and taken advantage of) what you have purchased? However, GEnie's gatewaying of news postings is NOT voluntarily on the part of Usenet posters, and they have NOT received anything in return. The ONLY people profiting from the exchange are the GEnie people reading the postings and the GEnie adminstrators raking in the cash from the time they spend reading the postings. >In contrast to the lack of harm to you or anyone caused by GEnie access, >your suggestion to prohibit GEnie access DOES cause harm to potential >GEnie usenet readers. You, as we say, are the aggressor in this case! This is ridiculous. It is not "aggresive" to not want other people to make money off of work you have done without giving you anything in return. That's just common sense, and a sense of justice. Oh, and I hope you don't tell me, "Well, if you don't want GEnie to make money off of your postings, then don't post!" because that ruins the whole purpose of the Unsenet. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710