Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!utoday!wagner
From: wagner@utoday.UUCP (wagner)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet
Keywords: The wholesale capturing of Usenet by GEnie
Message-ID: <1107@utoday.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 89 17:40:01 GMT
References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com>
Reply-To: wagner@.UUCP (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY
Lines: 88

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:
>>I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information.  Dave talks about the 
>>*exchange* of information.  This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way 
>>transfer of Usenet information.  I object to the rape and plunder 
>>(*for profit*) of Usenet!  A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the 
>>latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale 
>>plunder of Usenet is not.
>
>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.
>
>
>Unless you can demonstrate some smidgen of harm (and a harm that specifically
>is unique to GEnie access) there is no moral significance to your outrage.
>
>
>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!
>
>>Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link?
>
>There may be something legal -- but it could never be moral --
>since you are the aggressor and the GEnie user is the victim!

No, I don't like the idea of anybody charging for access to Usenet, either.
I'll tell you why:

I am a professional writer. I get paid for what I write. I write mainly for
a trade journal. Sometimes, I send out freelance articles to other publications.

When I post to usenet (and usually I post to the soc. or alt. newsgroups), I 
am voluntarily choosing to give away my wares. I don't like the idea of 
someone taking what I've given away, and selling it, and -- though this is 
just a secondary point -- not giving me a dime. If I wanted people to have
to pay for what I wrote, I would recast it in some publishable form, and send
it out to an editor, who would then (if he liked it), charge people to 
read it and give me a cut of the money.

Similar arguments could be made for other netters, I'm sure. The people who 
post to comp groups, for instance, are largely people who are paid for their
computer knowledge. When they post to the net, they are choosing to give their
wares away. If Joe Smith posts to newsgroups saying, "I am having such-and-such
a problem with my CompuBelch 800, can anybody help," and Jane Jones, consultant,
reads it and knows the answer, she has two options if she wants to help:
(a) She can sit down and write a letter saying, "Hi, I'm Jane Jones, consultant,
and I know how to solve your problem, and if you send me $100 I'll tell you 
what the answer is." Nothing wrong with that. That's how Jane earns her 
living---by solving other people's computer problems for them. Or, (b) she
can just sit down and bang out a response, and post it or e-mail it, with
no thought of monetary compensation.

Now, let's say Mr. Smith missed Jane's posting and some third guy comes along
and says, "I'll solve your problem for you Mr. Smith," and takes Jane's
posting and charges Mr. Smith $100 to read it. How's Jane going to feel?
Ripped off. She's going to think, "If I wanted Smith to have to pay for this,
I'd'a charged him for it myself." 

Another analogy: Let's say you give someone a cheap bureau for his bedroom. 
Happens all the time, right, kid goes out and gets his first apartment, the
relatives look 'round at what junky furniture is sitting in the basement, 
and pass it along. I've got a perfectly nice coffee table and nightstand
that way.

Now, let's say that the recipient of the cheap bureau looks at it and sees
that it is, in fact, a valuable antique. So, the day after you give it to 
him, he turns around and sells it for $10,000, and doesn't give you a dime.
How you gonna feel? Ripped off, right.

Now, I know there are some who would say that the recipient of that bureau
legally and morally owned it as soon as the gift changed hands, and I suppose
they may be right on a theoretical level, but I'm sure that ANYONE would 
feel ripped off if they were in the situation of the giver of the bureau.

Enough analogizing. The point I'm trying to make is this: Many of the 
people who post to the net, and the corporations which own the computers
which carry net messages, are choosing to give away that which they could,
in other circumstances, be selling. I'm sure that few or none of these 
people like the idea of having their gifts abused.


Mitch
wagner@utoday.UUCP