NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/config/7107

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!balrog!ctron.com
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: alt.binaries.pics.nudge&wink (important message, flame war to start)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:21:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.
Lines: 69
Nntp-Posting-Host: glinda

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eeyore's Evil Twin) writes:

>newsfeed are the alt.sex.nudge&wink picture groups, and a large percentage
>(at least 50%) are clearly pirated works that are being distributed in
>violation of copyright.

This has been a long time coming, Chuq, but it _has_ to be done.  Despite the
brain-damaged attempts by MBA's to expand copyright to the distant horizons,
the _basic_ provisions that we have had for many years _are_ needed and _must_
be respected - _especially_ if we have any kvetch with the new rulings.

>The reason I expect this to case a flamewar is the obvious censorship issue.

Many people will cast it so, but I (and I expect many others) believe free
speech does not include disseminating material copyrighted by people who
have not given permission.  Any media channel that wishes to transmit material
_must_ provide such filtering, or the access to that media will have to go
for everyone.  Even then, I still don't think that's a violation of free
speech, the _speech_ is protected, the _media_ is not, nor can we afford to
confuse them at this point.  Our grandchildren may live in a world where
newsprint is no longer legal because we haven't enough trees to make any,
but the lack of newspapers will not be "censorship" either, so long as alter-
natives - such as your moderated newsgroup - can be invented.

>My position is simple: if there were picture groups that were moderated and
>filtered to remove copyrighted material being illegally posted, I'd fight
>like the devil to keep them available.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, and I'd support any CFV for such
newsgroups preparatory to rmgrouping the guilty parties.

>                                        Since copyright violations are
>endemic in these groups and the users of the group have traditionally been
>unwilling to self-police, it's my position that we have no choice but to
>firewall ourselves from those groups to protect ourselves

And this is a perfectly reasonable response to the current situation.

>I'm confident that if I took this to Apple Legal for an opinion, once we
>splashed cold water on their faces to wake them up it'd be a no-brainer how
>they'd react.

God, let's keep the liars out of it for now.  "Wake them up?"  Apple's
lawyers are entirely _too_ awake already, Chuq.

>The reality is we can't pretend that this stuff doesn't exist, or that the
>powers that be are going to ignore our violations as harmless or
>insignificant.

And about time, too.

>Remember this: even ignoring the possible bad PR of Apple being caught in a
>'on-line porn ring' lawsuit (there goes the K-12 market) and even ignoring
>possible legal costs defending a suit or legal judgements to be paid (we
>didn't need profit sharing, anyway), every corporate lawyer I've ever dealt
>with on USENET has agreed on one thing: that it lives on the sufference of
>not causing problems in the company. If a lawsuit ever does get filed over
>USENET, there's a very strong possibility (make that probability) that the
>first response would be to shut down access to usenet, or at best the vast
>majority of the network.

It's one thing when it's a university that can kvetch and posture over the
first amendment, they _live_ for such nonsense.  Corporations have no stake
in that sort of thing.

Larry Smith ([e-mail])  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.