Live News & Professional Electronic Publications in USENET Format

221 views
Skip to first unread message

Brad Templeton

unread,
Jun 8, 1989, 11:42:30 PM6/8/89
to
Announcing ClariNet -- Professional Electronic Publishing to the
multiuser computer network community.

Read a professional "Electronic Newspaper" and electronic magazines and
columns with your USENET newsreader -- real netnews, not netnoise.

ClariNet provides electronic publications in the Usenet file format.
ClariNet is *NOT* Usenet, but a parallel network that uses the same
file format. You'll get newsgroups with real, professional information
in them, at a low fee.

ClariNet will provide scores of professionally produced newsgroups
for about the same price as the analogous paper publications, but without
conventional advertising. Instead of dialing up to an online service
like CompuServe to read online news, you can get it delivered right to
your machine, to read and search at your own convenience, with no meter
running.

Initial products include a live newswire (including technology groups)
and various sources of computer industry, telecommunications and online
industry news. Each product is described in detail in its own posting.

ClariNews -- gathered live from UPI, Reuters and other
international news and business newswires. Fully keyworded
by professional editors and distributed in 40 newsgroups.
Included are groups for technology and computers, plus the
usual news, weather, sports, business news and features. (500K/day)

With a live feed, get your news on your own computer well
before your local newspaper.

(The same NEWSGRID that's on CompuServe & Genie.)

TechWire -- technical subset of ClariNews. Computers, electronics,
biotechnology, nuclear energy, aerospace, telecom etc.

NewsBytes -- A weekly computer industry newsmagazine. From
8 USA and international bureaus, news on the IBM, Apple, Unix,
Telecom, Business and Government arenas, plus reviews and coverage
of trends. (The same NewsBytes that's on the Source & GEnie.)

Networker's Journal -- A digest of news about networks other than
USENET, including what's new on CompuServe, Genie etc.

ClariNet Information -- free group for any site (even non-subscribers)
containing ClariNet announcements and information. This group
will also exist in the 'biz' distribution.

Experimental Products:
The following products are being presented on a trial basis.

Fight Back with David Horowitz -- a consumer information column,
3 times a week.

Hollywood Hotline -- daily brief news about the entertainment
industry, movie reviews 3 times per week, daily soap opera
summaries and entertainment trivia quizzes. (We're deleting
the Horoscopes that come with this service unless people
really want them.)

Infomat -- An alternate computer industry weekly that specializes
in coverage of the BBS world and shareware.


Please read the full descriptions of these groups in upcoming postings.

Subscribers to ClariNews and Newsbytes get a no-charge licence to use
the NewsClip programming language (described elsewhere) to filter their
news. This is particularly useful with the heavily keyworded ClariNews
items. It might also seriously change your USENET reading. NewsClip
lets you easily code USENET into exactly the network you want it to be.
Some feel that NewsClip alone is worth more than the price of a ClariNews
subscription.

How it works:

ClariNet picks up electronic publications from various sources
and turns them into USENET form. We then feed them immediately
to UUNET and other sites. ClariNet has created a new hierarchy
of newsgroups that start with "clari." For example, the
group with all newswire stories on the computer industry is
"clari.news.computers".

You pay to get a group, based on the number of readers on
your machine. Each product has a base price for one or two readers.
(The 2nd reader is always free.) The more readers you have, the
less you pay for each new reader. You can count readers using
something like "arbitron" or just take a standard percentage
of your user community. Rates vary based on the type of site.
With enough readers, you can end up paying less than 1/4th the
regular subscription price per reader.

readers 3-6 - 60% of base price
readers 7-20 - 35% of base price
readers 21 & up - 20 % of base price

If you make special arrangements with ClariNet, you can feed other
sites, as you may do on USENET. In fact, we'll pay *you* to feed
them by reducing your subscription fee for each site you feed.
Feed enough similarly-sized sites and you get ClariNet publications
for free. We're looking for feed sites in each major dialing
area.

Clarinet subscriber sites must follow ClariNet network rules or
they may be subject to cutoff or more if they break the rules.
(This only governs behaviour within ClariNet. The same sites
can also exist within USENET and do as they please there.)

Future Products:
We're working on more products. Some of these include:

- A Unix industry news service.
- A Science News service.
- An online science fiction news magazine.
- Syndicated columnists and features.
- Academic Journals
- ClariNet generated publications
- Member written publications -- tell us about yours.

We're also open to suggestion from you. What publications
would you like to see? Tell us.

How to Subscribe:

Mail us at order%clarin...@uunet.uu.net (for orders) or
info%clarin...@uunet.uu.net (for info). You can pay
with Visa, Mastercard or Amex, or we can invoice you. You
can phone 1-800-265-2782 to talk in person or to send confidential
information like credit card numbers.

Subscriptions are to be prepaid. (EFT payment is in the works.)
[ Outside the USA call 1-519-884-7473 ] FAX: 519-886-9495

[ The clarinet.com domain is still being registered. For now, only
uunet knows about it. Use the above form for the time being, or
mail to in...@looking.on.ca ]

Or Write:
ClariNet Commmunications Corp.
124 King St. N.
Waterloo, ON
N2J 2X8

Subscriptions are billed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or
annually depending on the fee.

Or talk to me (Brad Templeton) at the Baltimore Unix conference.
I'll be at the USENET related BOFs and in the Holiday Inn.


Satisfaction Guaranteed -- Free Trial:

Sign up for a feed of any ClariNet product. If you're not
satisfied after a trial period (14 days of ClariNews, 2 weeks of
NewsBytes & other weekly pubs, 1 month of any monthly) send
back the invoice and you will be charged nothing. "Keep those
first issues as our gift." :-)

We'll also provide you with free sample back-issues at any time.

Special Introductory Offer:
Sign up in the first 2 weeks after this announcement (June 8-June 21)
and receive your first 2 weeks free. Some products are ready to
feed immediately, some are still in beta. Billing or the free period
won't start until a product is out the electronic door.

How to get a feed:

You can pick up all clari.groups by calling UUNET, the non-profit
USENET communications hub. If you are already a UUNET customer
we can instruct them to start feeding you right away. You can
also call ClariNet machines, or ClariNet customer sites that
are willing to feed. All ClariNet links must be approved by
ClariNet.

If you want to become a UUNET customer you can be signed up
quickly. UUNET provides communications at fairly low rates, and
offers Email and Usenet news feeds. They do have a $35/month
account fee, however. ClariNet is not associated with UUNET, we
simply buy their communications services.

(Yes, you can get a live feed over the internet! See below
if you thought that contradicts internet "policy.")

If there is no feed point suitable for you, we'll keep you on
file and inform you if one shows up.

If you're an individual, and you can't convince your site
admins to carry a ClariNet publication, it is possible that
a mail feed can be arranged. We can't feed all of ClariNews by
mail -- it's too big. Be sure you have the permission of the
sites that will forward the mail before requesting any high-volume
publication.

If you can't arrange subscription by your computer center, your
Library may have a standard system for subscriptions.

What does it cost?

The ClariNews base price is $10/month -- 33 cents/day -- less than
many daily advertising-filled newspapers. Subsets of the wire
can be had for less. NewsBytes is $49.95 per year -- less
than other computer industry news magazines. For other prices
consult the product fact sheet. Remember, the prices go down the
more readers you have. Readership is counted with an arbitron-like
program, or can be done on a 'site' basis, based on a preset
percentage of your newsreader community. (ie. You tell us how many
total users or readers on your site, and we might bill assuming 10%
of the readers read a given product -- the percentage varies by
product & machine type.)

What if I want to subscribe but my site doesn't?
We can arrange a feed of any low volume product by mail.
If your site is willing to create the clari groups and put
them in a private Unix 'group' for security, you can subscribe
in small numbers on a big site. We can bill individual customers
on a big site, but to get discounts, all discounted readers must
be on the same bill.

Do I really need more stuff to read?

No. But we do think you can use your time better when you read
professionally written information -- information worth paying for.
With NewsClip and the heavily keyworded ClariNews you can arrange
so that each article you see is important to you and worth reading.
Compare that to the time you spend on USENET -- it might actually
save you time.

Will you post more?

We believe that USENET should be used for commercial purposes,
but not abused. That's part of the reason why we're creating
ClariNet as a distinct network. Commercial traffic on USENET
is A-OK if it is desired by the recipients. So we'll post more
if it's clear to us that a lot of folks are interested. If
you indicate it's desired, we may provide some free samples in
appropriate places on USENET.

In the meantime, write to us for more information via e-mail or
regular postal mail.

Is this the end of USENET?

Hardly. This new network will exist in parallel with USENET
and both will thrive. We love the anarchy of USENET, but it
simply provides no avenue for the electronic publishing of
copyrighted information. That's why we've made ClariNet.


The Question of Internet & NNTP Feeding

Many potential customers will have access to the "Internet," a combination
of TCP/IP networks including those administered by the NSF, Nasa, DARPA and
other agencies. If you are on the internet, you might find it very
convenient to receive your information via this network. You can get
a feed from UUNET this way.

On the other hand, the issue of the transmission of commercial information
over certain large sections of the internet is uncertain. Contrary to
popular belief, there is currently no fixed policy on all networks other
than MILNET. Such a policy is under active consideration by network
authorities, and a proposal regarding ClariNet is before them. Forget
about what you heard about Internet rules. We talked to the folks at
the very top.

Until such time as a policy is decided, it is our belief that if you
are an authorized internet user, and *you* request that you receive
your subscription via internet, then this constitutes a legitimate use
of that network -- after all, it exists to give you easier access to the
information and facilities you desire.

Thus if you request that your subscription be transmitted via the internet,
this will be done. Should authorities for your section of the internet
decide that this is not acceptable at a later date, we may no longer be
able to honour your request. If you are unable to arrange any alternate
feed in these hypothetical circumstances, the unused portion of your
subscription will be refunded.
=====
ClariNet, ClariNews, TeleJoke, NewsClip, TechWire and the Clari prefix are
trademarks of Clarinet Communications Corp. Unix is a trademark of AT&T
Bell Labs. All other marks belong to their respective companies.

This article is not the complete subscription offer. The full terms of
subscription are available upon request.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

Matt Crawford

unread,
Jun 9, 1989, 2:47:47 PM6/9/89
to
This must be where all the mythical "jokes from GEnie" will go.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 9, 1989, 9:30:08 PM6/9/89
to
I don't believe it.

It's got to be a joke. Even Brad wouldn't pull this sort of shit after the
Genie affair.

It doesn't *look* like a joke. It *looks* real.

Well, everyone who thought I was a dope for supporting Brad last time... you
can say "I told you so".

Sigh.
--
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, pe...@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com.

Noel B. Del More Nashua

unread,
Jun 9, 1989, 10:52:34 PM6/9/89
to

I am finding it very difficult to find the words adequate to describe the
emotions I experianced while reading this article as well as the other
three that were posted by the infamous B.T. of Waterloo.

Despite his previous pleas and arguements to the contrary, this gentleman
has, is and will continue to use the network for his own personal gain
until such time as his access to the net is servered permanently.

B.T.'s previous modus operandi has alway been to shout the longest and
loudest until he gets his way. I doubt that he will change his tactics
this time around.

B.T. wants to change things, give away software etc, developed at his
expense no less, in order to make our lives better and easier. BS!

B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the
sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.

I strongly encourage each and every reader to refrain from subscribing to
this "service". Additionally, I strongly suggest that the management of
UUNET refrain from involving themselves in this scheme, as I for one will
immediately withdraw any current and/or future support the moment that
they become involved in the distribution this service.

Finally, I call on the gentleman in question to resign immediately from
his post as moderator, as he has, is and will continue to utilize the
group for his own personal gain. If their is any doubt in your mind
concerning this gentlemans commercialization of a newsgroup one only has
to read the postings he makes urging readers to buy his book, complete
with an 1-800 telephone number.

B.T. Go Away! (Permanently, please).

Noel

--
Noel B. Del More | decvax!ubbs-nh!noel
17 Meredith Drive | no...@ubbs-nh.mv.com
Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents

Steve Hayman

unread,
Jun 10, 1989, 4:23:59 PM6/10/89
to
In the referenced article, there's various ranting and raving
about Brad's new ClariNet scheme, including

>B.T. Go Away! (Permanently, please).

Do people stay awake at night thinking of ways to get mad at brad?
He's one of the few people on Usenet who's actually
thinking about the net, and trying to do something about it.
If you don't like the service he's offering, don't
subscribe to it, but there's no need to bad-mouth him
at every opportunity.

I for one am glad that someone like Brad is taking the time to
work out some actual alternatives to what we have now, I know
he may rub a lot of people the wrong way but at least he's trying
to do *something* instead of sitting back and complaining any time
anyone suggests something different, which is all we ever hear
from a lot of the net community.

I wish Brad well with ClariNet.

..Steve

Steve Hayman Workstation Manager Computer Science Department Indiana U.
saha...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (812) 855-6984

Amos Shapir

unread,
Jun 10, 1989, 5:02:58 PM6/10/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM writes:
>
>B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the
>sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.

So? I was under the impression that n the USA that's considered a Good
Thing - or had it gone socialist lately just to frustrate Gorby?

--
Amos Shapir am...@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522261 TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322
34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532)

Scott Barman

unread,
Jun 10, 1989, 10:49:57 PM6/10/89
to
In article <21...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> saha...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman) writes:
>In the referenced article, there's various ranting and raving
>about Brad's new ClariNet scheme, including
>>B.T. Go Away! (Permanently, please).
>
>Do people stay awake at night thinking of ways to get mad at brad?
>He's one of the few people on Usenet who's actually
>thinking about the net, and trying to do something about it.
>If you don't like the service he's offering, don't
>subscribe to it, but there's no need to bad-mouth him
>at every opportunity.

I Think the problems here is the cross posting to news.* newsgroups.
If he left it in comp.newprod I do not see any problem with his self
publicity. It is my understanding comp.newprod is for new products,
which this is, but I do think it is in bad taste to cross post it here.
(NOTE: I have not "bad mouthed" him in the past).

Brad, next time post it to comp.newprod and if you want to build an
audience, put a little blurb in the news.* groups to check comp.newprod
for more information. I think this is a *little* more appropriate and
would be a *little* more acceptable to net.reader (as well as us regular
readers of the news.* groups).
--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott

Robert J Woodhead

unread,
Jun 10, 1989, 10:50:25 PM6/10/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
>B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the
>sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.

Gee, lets see. BT is providing a feed of commercial news information using
net technology. He has to pay for that information, so he charges for it.
In order to make the information more valuable, he provides, for free, some
software that lets you filter it out in a much more sophisticated and subtle
manner than, say, ``rn'', and, as a subscriber, you get to use that software
on the rest of your newsfeed.

BT's company mainly feeds through UUNET. UUNET gets $ when the company
sends on the mail, and when a subscriber downloads it. Nobody else on the
net is inconvenienced in any way. All BT is doing is using the technology
of the net (as opposed to the net as a whole) in an unique and clever manner
in order to provide a service that otherwise would not exist. Hell, many
people may subscribe just to get the filter, and BT may, after a while,
consider selling that seperately.

In fact, one might make the argument that BT's company, by supporting UUNET
in the way it does, helps to pay some of the costs of UUNET, and thus
helps support USENET somewhat.

BT is an ENTREPRANEUR. He has expended effort to provide an interesting
service in the hopes that people will subscribe and thus reward his vision.
If you are not interested, fine, don't subscribe; you are not inconvenienced
in any way. No part of this service impacts you, or your site, in any manner
unless someone at your site subscribes.

Basically, your attitude is analagous to, say, a cable subscriber bitching
about the nasty extra info placed in the vertical blank portion of his TV
signal for the benefit of X*PRESS subscribers.

I, for one, might be interested in trying out the service for a month to
see if it is of value to me. I've yet to make that decision. But I'll
be damned if I'll let net.puritans like you make it for me. If BT was
taking net traffic and reselling it for his benefit (as was nebulously
the case with the rhf compilations) that's one thing. But this is a
totally different situation.

Let BT and his grand scheme live or die on it's merits. If nobody
subscribes, he'll lose his shirt and you'll be able to snicker at him.--
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | tre...@biar.UUCP
``The worst thing about being a vampire is that you can't go to matinees
and save money anymore.''

Erik Murrey

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 8:17:17 AM6/11/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
>
>
>B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the
>sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.
>

This is what fuels our American economy. Without the instinct and
drive to make money, we wouldn't have the funds to invent these
wonderful things we call computers.

So, I ask, is this wrong?

... Erik
--
Erik Murrey /| // /~~~~/ | /
MPX Data Systems, Inc. / | / / /____/ |/
er...@mpx.com / / / / /| Data Systems, Inc.
{vu-vlsi, bpa, cbmvax}!mpx1!erik / / / / |====================

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 10:49:54 AM6/11/89
to
My original message, which was basically posted in a state of mild shock
after reading Brad's ClariNet announcement, has been flamed (in mail...
thanks guys) by Jef Poskanzer and (of course) Brad himself. It was a little
harsh and lacking in details, but I'm not about to apologise for it. I
consider ClariNet to be a basically good idea, but with an abominable
implementation.

My first objection, which Jef dismisses as ludicrous, is that it will siphon
resources away from Usenet... which is a pretty shabby way to treat the net.
I'll not spend any time on it.

Secondly, Brad has pointed out that I recommended he implement his own
hierarchy. I plead guilty to that, but I was thinking in terms of the existing
parallel hierarchies such as '3b2', 'unixpc', and 'bionet'. Hierarchies
controlled by the co-operation of the systems carrying them... not by a central
authority. This is a significant difference... I'll get back to this later.

In article <34...@looking.on.ca>, br...@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
> Read a professional "Electronic Newspaper" and electronic magazines and
> columns with your USENET newsreader -- real netnews, not netnoise.

Starting off with a mild slam at UseNet is a real good way to win friends and
influence people, by the way.

> You pay to get a group, based on the number of readers on
> your machine. Each product has a base price for one or two readers.

This is completely unenforcable. Either you will have to play net.policeman,
expect your suppliers to, or abandon it. Do you intend to copy-protect your
product?

> If you make special arrangements with ClariNet, you can feed other
> sites, as you may do on USENET.

And here's another implied policy... you can't feed ClariNet to another site
unless you make arrangements with Brad. He goes on to say that he'll cut
your subscription fee for each site you feed. Unless he cuts it in half
it'd pay you to just pass your feed on to another site and split the costs.
How are you going to enforce this?

> Clarinet subscriber sites must follow ClariNet network rules or
> they may be subject to cutoff or more if they break the rules.

This says Brad's willing to play net.police.

> Is this the end of USENET?

No, but the litigation that's likely to follow is sure not going to do Usenet
any good.

Basically, I don't believe that any sort of central administration is possible
given the nature of the medium. Any attempt to enforce such an administration
is going to eventually cause grief.

Tell me, Brad... are you going to cross-feed the IN MODERATION people?

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 11:05:38 AM6/11/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
> Despite his previous pleas and arguements to the contrary, this gentleman
> has, is and will continue to use the network for his own personal gain
> until such time as his access to the net is servered permanently.

And there's NOTHING wrong with using the network for your personal gain.
Telebit, AT&T, and so on do it all the time without being flamed.

See my previous posting for more details.

Gregory G. Petersen

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 1:14:20 PM6/11/89
to
In article <44...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I don't believe it.
>
>It's got to be a joke. Even Brad wouldn't pull this sort of shit after the
>Genie affair.
>
>It doesn't *look* like a joke. It *looks* real.
>
>Well, everyone who thought I was a dope for supporting Brad last time... you
>can say "I told you so".
>
Why would anyone want to pay for this anyway -- also since when does a news
wire license the redistribution of their services via USENET. I would be
very surprized if they allowed the sale of their products.
--
Gregory G. Petersen, Esq. gr...@lawnet.LawNet.Com
Petersen & Trott, A Law Corporation (714) 971-1441
770 The City Drive South, Suite 2100
Orange, California 92668

Bill Wisner

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 3:19:44 PM6/11/89
to
ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it
uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet?

Peter da Silva goes on for a bit about how unenforcable Brad's policies are
and how Brad is setting himself up to play net.policeman.

If anything, Brad's setting himself up to play clarinet.policeman. Which
is fine. Because ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Subscribers to ClariNet
will probably have to sign CONTRACTS. If the contract is WORDED well, it
will be ILLEGAL for subscribers to pass their FEED on to OTHERS. I have
no reason to BELIEVE that the contract will not be WORDED well. Do we
UNDERSTAND yet?

Put simply, a ClariNet subscriber that passes his ClariNet feed on is breaking
the law. Perhaps, Mr da Silva, your jaundiced world view won't permit you
to believe that there are people that would choose to abide by the law, and
the ClariNet contract, but we do exist.

w

Noel B. Del More Nashua

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 9:11:35 PM6/11/89
to
In article <44...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>And there's NOTHING wrong with using the network for your personal gain.
>Telebit, AT&T, and so on do it all the time without being flamed.

I find nothing wrong with making an announcement concerning a new
commercial product in the appropriate group(s). What I do find
distasteful is continuous postings of a commercial nature promoting one
product, ie. "buy my book", or in another case, "buy my BBS software"
(not B.T.).

Yes, I agree, most of us do use the net for "personal gain", but not in a
direct manner, and that IS the difference.

If the consensus of the net is that it is OK to use the net for
commercial purposes, then fine, just let me know. I'd personally love to
take advantage of the "free advertising".

You will note however, that I have never done so, because my
understanding of the "rules" dictates that it is improper to do so.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 11, 1989, 9:12:09 PM6/11/89
to
In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu>, wis...@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes a bunch of stuff with lots of capital letters:

> Put simply, a ClariNet subscriber that passes his ClariNet feed on is breaking
> the law. Perhaps, Mr da Silva, your jaundiced world view won't permit you
> to believe that there are people that would choose to abide by the law, and
> the ClariNet contract, but we do exist.

Oh, I believe that such people exist. I'm one of them.

But there are, on the other hand, people who are willing to break the law. In
fact, there are a lot of them. In the past I've even worked for them. If you
don't think this is significant, I think I can leave out a lot of discussion
and just give you two words: "Software Piracy". The analogy should be obvious.

Wayne Schlitt

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 12:02:14 AM6/12/89
to

In article <37...@tank.uchicago.edu> ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes:
> This must be where all the mythical "jokes from GEnie" will go.


i dont know about you, but i have at least one joke from compuserve
sitting on my system right now. are you sure there has _never_ been a
joke from genie? have you checked? or would that just rune your good
bitching section?


-wayne

Jamie Andrews

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 6:41:19 AM6/12/89
to
I'm SorryBrad, but I'm NotGoing to read ClariNet until you
put the HoroScopes back in.

--JaMie.

Norman S. Soley

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 8:21:48 AM6/12/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
> Despite his previous pleas and arguements to the contrary, this gentleman
> has, is and will continue to use the network for his own personal gain
> until such time as his access to the net is servered permanently.

Brad is establishing a commercial service. It uses the same technology as
USENET but it is NOT USENET. I repeat, it is a commercial service just like
Genie or CompuServe, he has announced it according to protocol in comp.newprod.
He will not be using non-subscribers systems and resources to transmit his
service nor does he plan to redistribute material originating on USENET. I
wish some of the Brad bashers would think a little before they post. ClariNET
is a great opportunity for them, from now on every time Brad tries to do
something they object to he can now be told, "you have you own network now,
use it". With the amount of time that will ahve to be spent running the thing
I doubt he'll have much time to irritate you anyway.

Frankly with all the pitfalls inherent in using something as open and
insecure as the netnews software as the foundation for a commerical service,
I think Brad has just opened himself a very large can of worms. However I
recoginize that it's Brad's own personal can of worms, and neither I or anyone
else on USENET has any business trying to stop him from getting into it.
Only if he tries to steal either resources or material from USENET will it
become a concern of ours. I may subsribe to CLARINET for while just to see
how it turn's out, it's cheap and for me Waterloo is a local call. I wish
Brad luck in this new commerical venture, I think he's going to need it.
--
Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
so...@moegate.UUCP or if you roll your own: uunet!attcan!ncrcan!moegate!soley
The Minister speaks for the Ministry, I speak for myself. Got that! Good.
Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 11:25:33 AM6/12/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
> In article <44...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >And there's NOTHING wrong with using the network for your personal gain.
> >Telebit, AT&T, and so on do it all the time without being flamed.

> I find nothing wrong with making an announcement concerning a new

> commercial product in the appropriate group(s)...

I interpreted your message as being about ClariNet, not about the advertising
thereof. Yes, advertising outside of comp.newprod is wrong, since it violates
the legal niceties for ham radio links, as well as for some of the internet
carriers. But that's a seperate issue.

Edward Vielmetti

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 11:56:23 AM6/12/89
to
Would it be legit for me to read clarinet-news via nntp from a machine
far far away on the internet? Then all you need is one internet site
(with a few extra cycles...) and an unrestricted agreement and you're
all set.

Watch for a forthcoming annoucement of tuba-net news, every month you
get a package in the mail of pre-digested 100% grade a number one
netnews all squashed together into a handy container. Just squeeze
and enjoy.

Gregory G. Petersen

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 12:51:33 PM6/12/89
to
In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu> wis...@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
>ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it
>uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet?
No -- WE don't understand yet. If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet
paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS
VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't
particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the
BUSINESS VENTURE.

>Peter da Silva goes on for a bit about how unenforcable Brad's policies are
>and how Brad is setting himself up to play net.policeman.
>If anything, Brad's setting himself up to play clarinet.policeman.

Great -- will he read the mail and make sure none of it goes via USENET?

Which is fine. Because ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Subscribers to ClariNet
>will probably have to sign CONTRACTS.

That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding
and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches.
Contracts are nice but as any lawyer will tell you they are only as good
as the parties thereto will allow.
If the contract is WORDED well, itwill be ILLEGAL for subscribers to pass their FEED on to OTHERS. I have


>no reason to BELIEVE that the contract will not be WORDED well. Do we
>UNDERSTAND yet?

That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice
and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET. How a
contract will be draftedwith this in mind is also interesting since any
contract written will be required to offer VALID access and responses without
using USENET AT ALL!>


>Put simply, a ClariNet subscriber that passes his ClariNet feed on is breaking
>the law. Perhaps, Mr da Silva, your jaundiced world view won't permit you
>to believe that there are people that would choose to abide by the law, and
>the ClariNet contract, but we do exist.

Yes, we do exist. The law however, regardless of who exists, does not allow
others to benefit from the deeds of a third party without giving that third
party compensation for the expenses incurred, i.e., USENET may seek
compensation for the use that the BUSINESS VENTURE is obtaining. To take
my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in
my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do
not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE.

If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine
but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and
postings.

T. William Wells

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 2:11:52 PM6/12/89
to
In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
: I am finding it very difficult to find the words adequate to describe the

: emotions I experianced while reading this article as well as the other
: three that were posted by the infamous B.T. of Waterloo.

Well, it is too bad that you were ruled by your emotions. Had you used
your _reason_ instead, you would have realized that Brad's latest
venture is only distantly related to Usenet.

In fact, there are exactly two relationships:

1) Brad announced his product on Usenet.
2) Brad's product will make use of software that is also used for
Usenet.

Neither of those are at all unusual.

: Despite his previous pleas and arguements to the contrary, this gentleman


: has, is and will continue to use the network for his own personal gain

You mean you don't? Then WHY IN HELL DO YOU READ IT?

: B.T.'s previous modus operandi has alway been to shout the longest and


: loudest until he gets his way. I doubt that he will change his tactics
: this time around.

In response to people like you, the only possible response is to
shout louder.

: B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the


: sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.

If you hate money so much, why don't you sign over your bank account
and your paychecks? I'm quite sure that I could make better use of
them than you can. No? Well, SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU HYPOCRITE!

: I strongly encourage each and every reader to refrain from subscribing to


: this "service". Additionally, I strongly suggest that the management of
: UUNET refrain from involving themselves in this scheme, as I for one will
: immediately withdraw any current and/or future support the moment that
: they become involved in the distribution this service.

Fortunately, the rest of us won't be listening to assholes like you.

: B.T. Go Away! (Permanently, please).

Noel B. Del More, Go Away! (Permanently, please).

---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bi...@twwells.com

Matt Crawford

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 3:32:45 PM6/12/89
to
People may think it very odd of me to say this, but the Clarinet schtick
is the first Brad-plot to which I see no valid objection. At least not
on the surface. Brad, being Brad, may very well be going to steal
material from Usenet again, but this time he doesn't say so up front.

Well, OK here's an objection -- this new project is going to take away a
lot of attention from his ongoing atrocities relating to r.h.f.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu

Bill Wisner

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 4:54:37 PM6/12/89
to
In article <3...@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Gregory Petersen does an exceptionally
good job of being exceptionally obtuse:

>If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet
>paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS
>VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't
>particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the
>BUSINESS VENTURE.

ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is
not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or
USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software,
and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is
seperate. Got it?

ClariNet will not be a two-way network; it will consist entirely of news feeds
originating at ClariNet headquarters, wherever that may be.

>That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding
>and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches.

Brad pointed out to me that he won't really need a contract to make
redistribution of a ClariNet feed illegal, as the newswires carried by
ClariNet are already copyrighted by their originators (UPI, etc).
Copyrights are internationally binding, no?

>That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice
>and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET.

Brad's use of USENET consists of advertising and that's about all. He posted
his plug to comp.newprod, which I'm sure everyone agrees is an appropriate
place, and to news.admin because he thought his venture would be of interest
to USENET administrators. The response leads me to judge that USENET
administrators are, indeed, interested.

Are you a lawyer, Mr Petersen? If so that could explain much.

>To take
>my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in
>my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do
>not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE.

Wake up! Take a strong stimulant and re-read Brad's announcement very, very
carefully. Your telephone time and expense will never be used to move ClariNet
traffic around. You, in fact, WILL NEVER SEE CLARINET, unless you pay for it.
Or break the law. The only machines that receive -- and transmit -- ClariNet
will be ClariNet's customers.

>If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine
>but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and
>postings.

What reply mail? Letters to the editor? Did you even BOTHER to read the
ClariNet announcement, or are you flaming for the hell of it?

Duh.

w

Norman R. Gall

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 8:26:55 PM6/12/89
to

I am certain that this has occurred to some, but obviously not to
those that bitch but:

This sort of 'one-shot' advertising, specifically the advertisment of
a USENet-type news service, helps not only 'big-bad-Brad' but us too!!
I for one would love it if my institution subscribed. I'd be far
better off than now, and I don't care if someone makes money off
it--somebody has to! If not Ma Bell in her many guises then one of us...

Forget it! Templeton used the nets for a very specific advertisement
aimed only at those that would be best informed of it.

nrg
--
York University Department of Philosophy Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"It's only by thinking even more crazily than philosophers do that you
can solve their problems." -- L. Wittgenstein
_____________________________________________________________________________

Mark Nagel

unread,
Jun 12, 1989, 8:51:53 PM6/12/89
to
In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu>, wisner@mica (Bill Wisner) writes:

|ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is
|not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or
|USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software,
|and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is
|seperate. Got it?

I completely agree with this and thought of the same things while
reading the referenced article, _but_ then I remembered a little
thing:

/*
* This software is Copyright (c) 1986 by Rick Adams.
*
* Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
* otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary
* profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this
* software, it is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and
* this copyright notice is included prominently in any copy
* made.
*
* The author make no claims as to the fitness or correctness of
* this software for any use whatsoever, and it is provided as is.
* Any use of this software is at the user's own risk.
*
* inews - insert, receive, and transmit news articles.
*
*/

I'm curious what Mr. Adams has to say about Clarinet if indeed Brad
will be using Usenet software (i.e., B News) as the logical transport
system. Do all other news systems (e.g., C News, TMNN) have similar
constraints?

In any event, I think this is what most people have been upset with
even if they haven't quite said it. No one is against anyone making
money (I hope). What they are upset about is someone making money
from something that has _traditionally_ been a cooperative, shared
system. For example, when I read that Brad will sell or license his
nifty newsreading software, the first thought I had was, "Gee, many
other people have written a lot of software for the general well-being
of the net and not asked anything for their efforts." It isn't
_wrong_ to do so, it is just not in the so-called spirit of Usenet
(something I dare not try to define). But the net has been built on
the generous contributions of time and effort made by hundreds of
individuals. I believe people are a little perturbed that Brad will
be among the first to use that collective effort as a commercial
platform. Now, if he wrote _all_ of his own software (i.e., a
complete news system functionally equivalent to the current system),
then there'd be absolutely no reason to complain.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science
+----------------------------------------+
ARPA: na...@ics.uci.edu | If you improve something long enough |
UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | eventually you will throw it away. |

T. William Wells

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 12:03:46 AM6/13/89
to
In article <3...@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes:

: In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu> wis...@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
: >ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it
: >uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet?
: No -- WE don't understand yet. If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet
: paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS
: VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't
: particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the
: BUSINESS VENTURE.

Can you READ?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!

Brad rather clearly said that Clarinet links are agreed upon by the
parties involved. None of the material is even *allowed* to go
through links that are not approved by Clarinet.

Moreover, you are confusing Clarinet with IN MODERATION. The former
is material that is externally generated, nothing from Usenet. Only
IN MODERATION is taking stuff from Usenet and redistributing it.

Why is it that almost all the anti-Brad's are illiterate?

: That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice


: and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET.

Firstly, you are absolutely wrong. Usenet is very much used
commercially. Go as Sun or Telebit. Or Microport. Or....

Secondly, from the original posting:

: ClariNet provides electronic publications in the Usenet file format.
: ClariNet is *NOT* Usenet, but a parallel network that uses the same
: file format.

And, in case you are going to nitpick:

: You can pick up all clari.groups by calling UUNET, the non-profit
: USENET communications hub. If you are already a UUNET customer
: we can instruct them to start feeding you right away. You can
: also call ClariNet machines, or ClariNet customer sites that
: are willing to feed. All ClariNet links must be approved by
: ClariNet.

Get it? NOT USENET! NOT THROUGH USENET LINKS! AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
NETWORK!

I had more to say, but disgust at your ignorance and stupidity is
making me want to vomit.

Robert J Woodhead

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 12:56:48 AM6/13/89
to
In article <37...@tank.uchicago.edu> ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes:
>Brad, being Brad, may very well be going to steal
>material from Usenet again, but this time he doesn't say so up front.

If one is going to steal, it is considered somewhat
sporting to inform the victims beforehand; for examples
see any episodes of the BATMAN TV series.

Thus, if Brad is intending to Destroy The Net As We Know
It, I'm sure we would all prefer if he said so up front,
as has been his alleged pattern in the past.

Therefore, Brad, if it is your intention to pillage the
net, I for one feel that you owe it to everyone to place
a gloating announcement of the aforementioned rapine in
the news.* groups.

Which brings up the interesting postulation; is Brad the
descendant of one of Gotham City's famed Arch-fiends,
and if so, which one? My money is on ``The Joker.''

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 6:58:13 AM6/13/89
to
In article <3...@lawnet.LawNet.Com>, gr...@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes:
> If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine
> but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and
> postings.

Brad intends to do that. In fact, anything that leaked over would be seen as
a violation of ClariNet policy. Brad would be pretty much forced to take
action to stop any such leak. And that's where I can see a clear danger.

What was the name of that Toronto newspaper that made such a fuss last time?

Jeff Voskamp

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 9:37:12 AM6/13/89
to
In article <3...@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes:
>In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu> wis...@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
>>ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Its ONLY similarity to USENET is that it
>>uses the SAME SOFTWARE. Do we UNDERSTAND yet?
>No -- WE don't understand yet. If this BUSINESS VENTURE going to use the usenet
>paths for mail and to otherwise respond to the PURIFIED news that the BUSINESS
>VENTURE is going to generate then KEEP IT THE HELL OF MY SYSTEMS since I don't
>particularly want to pay for either the front end or the rear end of the
>BUSINESS VENTURE.

If you don't subscribe to Clarinet you won't be in Clarinet. From what I've
heard so far anyone who passes on a feed to someone who isn't subscribing to
Clarinet will be breaking their contract. Clarinet will probably contain a
subset of the current Usenet paths. All connections will have to be negotiated.

...


>>Which is fine. Because ClariNet is a BUSINESS VENTURE. Subscribers to ClariNet
>>will probably have to sign CONTRACTS.
>
>That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding
>and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches.

Probably no more difficult than the current licensing and distribution
contracts that are set up for equipment and software.

>>If the contract is WORDED well, it will be ILLEGAL for subscribers to pass


>>their FEED on to OTHERS. I have no reason to BELIEVE that the contract will
>>not be WORDED well. Do we UNDERSTAND yet?
>
>That is an interesting "IF"! There is a legally enforcable custom, practice
>and usage on USENET that disallows BUSINESS VENTURE usage of USENET. How a

>contract will be drafted with this in mind is also interesting since any

>contract written will be required to offer VALID access and responses without
>using USENET AT ALL!>

Usenet is a collections of systems talking together by mutual consent.
The non-business agreement is not binding to any great degree. If, for
example, the company that I'm working for agrees with another company
to set up a mail/news link to facilitate our respective businesses
there's nothing that any one else could do about it. It would also be
within our rights to dis- allow other companies to use this link for
business related communications without our permission. After all,
we're paying for the link. For the most part the net uses a "you carry
my mail/news and I'll carry yours" attitude. As long as nobody abuses
the priviledge people are happy.

...


>Yes, we do exist. The law however, regardless of who exists, does not allow
>others to benefit from the deeds of a third party without giving that third
>party compensation for the expenses incurred, i.e., USENET may seek
>compensation for the use that the BUSINESS VENTURE is obtaining. To take
>my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in
>my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do
>not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE.

What third party expenses? As has been said above, if you don't want
to be part of Clarinet you aren't. It may in fact be illegal for you
to carry clarinet groups if you don't subscribe. A couple of lines in
the L.sys files of your neighbouring nodes (this is the right file, isn't
it?) and you'll never have to see a single clarinet article. The same
goes for any soc, comp, talk, etc. groups that you don't like. The
main difference is that clarinet sites have a legal obligation to keep
articles from slipping out.

>If that BUSINESS VENTURE wants to use public domain software that is fine
>but keep its use out of the USENET paths, including the reply mail and
>postings.

That's up to the subscribers, otherwise you can end up with a bad case of
"you-can't-get-there-from-here". Don't ask me about cross-posting, but
I suspect that there'd be something in the contract to cover that. Personal
opinion is that you couldn't do it legally.

Jeff Voskamp
It looks like we're in Trouble.
No, I'm in trouble - you're invincible. - My Secret Identity
bang path: ...{!uunet}!watmath!watmum!javoskamp
domain : javo...@watmum.uwaterloo.ca or javo...@watmum.waterloo.cdn

Michael R. Johnston

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 12:21:04 PM6/13/89
to
In article <1989Jun12.1...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>them than you can. No? Well, SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU HYPOCRITE!


C'mon Bill, can't you MAIL this to him? Must we all read this?
--
Michael R. Johnston
System Administrator rutgers!lilink!mikej
LILINK Public Access Xenix (516) 872-2137/2138/2349 1200/2400 Login: new

Gregory G. Petersen

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 12:21:26 PM6/13/89
to
does an exceptionallygood job of being exceptionally obnoxious:

>
>
>ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is
>not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or
>USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software,
>and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is
>seperate. Got it?

Is it? Gee - - "separate"? Does that mean that all data will go from a
central hub to the subscriber system? Does that include mail? Will there
be a machine that links Clarinet to usenet? How are the pathing problems
going to be solved?

If all Clarinet is doing is sending to other systems, without any intervention
into USENET by way of mail paths OF ANY KIND then it is separate. But that
still does not solve the offense posited here to which I and others have
responded. Nor, regardless of
your claims, and Clarinet has not seen fit to respond (and since you
apparently have no authority to speak for them your speculation does not
allay my concerns) I doubt very much that Clarinet can control the forwarding
of the materials via USENET by subscribers and that WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL
traffic. I have no problem with independent networks but frankly this does
not sound all that independent to me.>

>>That should be an interesting contract to read - internationally binding
>>and sufficent to be lawful in all jurisdictions that USENET touches.
>
>Brad pointed out to me that he won't really need a contract to make
>redistribution of a ClariNet feed illegal, as the newswires carried by
>ClariNet are already copyrighted by their originators (UPI, etc).
>Copyrights are internationally binding, no?


Actually, the correct answer is "NO" - they are only binding in certain
country's and usually only by the terms of a treaty, i.e., that why we
have piracy from overseas. Obviously you are not a lawyer!


>
>Are you a lawyer, Mr Petersen?

Yup.

>If so that could explain much.

Yup - whats you excuse?


>
>>To take
>>my telephone time and expense for the BUSINESS VENTURE is unconscionable in
>>my opinion. While I may handle mail and even news for others I certainly do
>>not do so in order to support another BUSINESS VENTURE.
>
>Wake up! Take a strong stimulant and re-read Brad's announcement very, very
>carefully. Your telephone time and expense will never be used to move ClariNet
>traffic around. You, in fact, WILL NEVER SEE CLARINET, unless you pay for it.
>Or break the law. The only machines that receive -- and transmit -- ClariNet
>will be ClariNet's customers.

Are you sure? Are you Brad or Clarinet, or a stalking horse for them? Your
promise is wholly unenforceable and disingenious at best. Having had 2 strong
cups of coffee (which is all the stimulation I can handle when reading such
blithe promises) I have reread the article. Yes, it is not as laughable as
the In Moderation concept, but that the amount of data that you say will never
cross my system (or any other non subscribers system) leads me to believe
that you are a very naive person.

Simply put the commentary that others have posted is appropriate when one
considers human nature. Money talks a different language to different people.
If you seriously believe that no one on the net is going to forward this
"product" to others on the net you have no understanding of human nature. NO
ONE WILL ADMIT IT but it will certainly happen. The question is HOW MUCH will
happen? I certainly do not see you or anyone else being the "NET - POLICE"
or having anyway of investigating this problem, much less solving it. On the
other hand if you, as an apparent alter ego for Brad and/or Clarinet, have
solved the "NET-POLICE" problem please let us all know since I am sure
we are all curious about this solution.--

Jay you ignorant splut! Maynard

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 1:08:20 PM6/13/89
to
In article <37...@tank.uchicago.edu> ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes:
>Well, OK here's an objection -- this new project is going to take away a
>lot of attention from his ongoing atrocities relating to r.h.f.

Actually, it'll just take away a lot of attention from your continuing
vendetta against Brad. The net has decided: Brad is committing no
atrocities with r.h.f. They only exist in your obsessed little mind.

Personally, I'll subscribe to Brad's service just as soon as I can find
a way to do so without having to subscribe to uunet.


--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{killer,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
internet: j...@splut.conmicro.com | Just say NO to misc.headlines.unitex.

D. W. James

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 1:45:30 PM6/13/89
to
This looks like an interesting and viable idea. I think it is unfortunate
that Brad felt it nessicary to 'sell' it with broad slams to USENET, but
hey, Brad and I don't have the same sense of humor. I wish him luck with it.


--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vn...@phoenix.princeton.edu or vn...@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vn...@ms.uky.edu
"The plot thicks..."

Tom Neff

unread,
Jun 13, 1989, 9:49:56 PM6/13/89
to
In article <17...@paris.ics.uci.edu> na...@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) writes:
> * This software is Copyright (c) 1986 by Rick Adams.
> *
> * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
> * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary
> * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this
> * software...
...
> ...Now, if he wrote _all_ of his own software (i.e., a

>complete news system functionally equivalent to the current system),
>then there'd be absolutely no reason to complain.

Even if Brad didn't use B news software to post the ClariNet material,
B news would probably still be used by intermediate forwarding sites
as well as the subscriber's receiving site. Since the provision of the
ClariNet service (and hence the profits derived) depends on forwarding
AND receiving as well as his initial posting, then you could say the
terms of the B news copyright were being violated.

However, since the holder of the copyright, Rick Adams, is implicitly
supporting the ClariNet venture by accepting it as a UUNET feed, one
assumes the objection is moot.
--
You may not redistribute this article for profit.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tn...@bfmny0.UU.NET

Noel B. Del More Nashua

unread,
Jun 14, 1989, 4:14:19 AM6/14/89
to
In article <1989Jun13.0...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>
>Why is it that almost all the anti-Brad's are illiterate?

<disgusting verbage deleted>

And why are you such a foul mouthed beastie?

John Woods

unread,
Jun 14, 1989, 7:53:00 PM6/14/89
to
Could someone explain to me why news.admin has suddenly become choked with
multi-hundred line advertising screeds? Though I am "replying" to Brad's
offense, it's the second one I've seen today (while catching up, I admit)
(and at least he had the good sense to use comp.newprod; if only he had NOT
used news.admin).

Imminent Death of USENET Predicted. Film at 11. But it will cost you...
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, jo...@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, j...@eddie.mit.edu
People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

John Woods

unread,
Jun 14, 1989, 8:06:00 PM6/14/89
to
In article <10...@mpx2.mpx.com>, er...@mpx2.mpx.com (Erik Murrey) writes:
> In article <3...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> no...@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes:
> >B.T. is out to make a buck, ladies and gentleman, and that is about the
> >sum of it. In every instance, he has shown this to be the case.
> So, I ask, is this wrong?

Making self-serving claims that one is only working for the good of the
net, while in fact working only for one's own self-interest, is in poor taste
(it is a lie).

Offering the refutation one's self so quickly is also stoopid(TM).

But my prediction: once again, the criticism of Brad and "Looking Out For
Number One Software" is going to be so extreme that he will look reasonable
by comparison. Happens every time...

T. William Wells

unread,
Jun 14, 1989, 10:36:16 PM6/14/89
to
In article <7...@lilink.UUCP> mi...@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) writes:
: C'mon Bill, can't you MAIL this to him? Must we all read this?

The obscenity of someone displaying their cesspool of a mind while
having the gall to flame another on wholly specious and libelous
grounds is a sufficient reason to flame that someone.

That person didn't READ the original articles, or did and decided to
LIE about them. He took his prejudices and displayed them for all of
us to see and attempted to damage the reputation of another. His is
the kind of evil that gives us secret police and torture chambers.

Tolerance of such monstrousness is not a reasonable response.

Mere obscenity is hardly an adequate reply, but it is the most that
may be done on the net.

John Sparks

unread,
Jun 15, 1989, 7:16:11 AM6/15/89
to
<WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu> <3...@lawnet.LawNet.Com>
<10...@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Sender:
Reply-To: spa...@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords:

As a known Brad-Basher I just wanted to say:

Brad,

From what I read of your proposal, I have absolutely no objections to ClariNet,
in fact it sounds like a great idea. Have fun and good luck.

--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
||||||||||||||| spa...@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Stuart Lynne

unread,
Jun 15, 1989, 6:22:37 PM6/15/89
to
In article <17...@paris.ics.uci.edu> na...@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) writes:
>In article <WISNER.89J...@anableps.berkeley.edu>, wisner@mica (Bill Wisner) writes:
}
}|ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is
}|not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or
}|USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software,
}|and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is
}|seperate. Got it?
}
}I completely agree with this and thought of the same things while
}reading the referenced article, _but_ then I remembered a little
}thing:
}
}/*
} * This software is Copyright (c) 1986 by Rick Adams.
} *

First of all Brad won't be using the news software but his customers will.

Second I seem to remember that you will be able to get a clarinet feed from
uunet. Rick Adams works (organized,founded etc) uunet. I guess he's aware of
what's going on.

Why don't you let Rick protect his own interests. I'm sure he will speak up
if he thinks it's worth commenting on.

--
Stuart...@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)

Ted Timar

unread,
Jun 15, 1989, 10:43:19 PM6/15/89
to
I am trying to correct misinformation spread on the net.
This is not a flame. This is a public message.

In article <1989Jun15....@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
> In article <7...@lilink.UUCP> mi...@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) writes:
> : C'mon Bill, can't you MAIL this to him? Must we all read this?
>
> The obscenity of someone displaying their cesspool of a mind while
> having the gall to flame another on wholly specious and libelous
> grounds is a sufficient reason to flame that someone.

There is no such thing as "sufficient reason to flame" where a flame
is a message posted to the net. If you feel it is required, MAIL the
flame. There is no reason that others should have to see a flame.
If you absolutely must flame, because you feel that you cannot control
yourself, please, at least control yourself enough to keep it out of
news.admin, or any information newsgroup. Flames are in no way information.
They don't belong in the news, or comp heirarchies. Someone somewhere,
feeling that flame postings are inevitable created a group called alt.flame.
That is the only place on the net that welcomes flames.

> Mere obscenity is hardly an adequate reply, but it is the most that
> may be done on the net.

Obscenity may or may not be an adequate reply, but if "done on the net"
means posting, please consider that it does offend people on the net
who had no association with the initial issue. I am not overly offended
by obscenities, but I know many who are. Please don't post them.

Please don't followup without reading what follows.

--
Some related comments here.
1) I have, on different occasions, sided with and against Brad. I know
him personally, but unlike others, judge the deeds, not the person.
This article could be about any topic, its relationship to Brad's
posting is irrelevant. I'm not taking sides in the dispute in this
article.

2) It is a sad day for the net when I find myself posting an article to
news.admin, "a newsgroup for discussion of topics relating to
administration of news" (quotation is more or less accurate), when
the topic is completely covered in news.announce.newusers.

3) I have directed followups to news.admin. This is meant for those
who would like to discuss the topic of what is appropriate for
postings, which actually is a news.admin issue. Please remember
that the issue has previously been discussed at length, and hardly
deserves more net bandwidth, but that is probably an opinion call.

4) For those who feel like flaming me, by mail only please, it is
important to note that the gateway into Japan is not fully
bi-directional. Replies to this address will not reach me.
I can be reached at the addresses listed in my .signature.

5) These opinions are derived, mainly from the articles in
news.announce.newusers and from personal experience.

6) By posting these comments, I am not making any statements on behalf
of my employer. Nor am I a spokesman for those who run the net, as
there are no such people.
--
Ted Timar
tmatimar@watmath{,.waterloo.{edu,cdn,cs.net},.uwaterloo.ca,.uucp}
uunet!watmath!tmatimar uunet!hamlet!ted

Mark Nagel

unread,
Jun 16, 1989, 6:32:17 PM6/16/89
to
In article <1...@unifax.UUCP>, sl@unifax (Stuart Lynne) writes:

|Second I seem to remember that you will be able to get a clarinet feed from
|uunet. Rick Adams works (organized,founded etc) uunet. I guess he's aware of
|what's going on.

Yes, I've been made aware of this. Obviously he doesn't mind.

|Why don't you let Rick protect his own interests. I'm sure he will speak up
|if he thinks it's worth commenting on.

I wasn't trying to protect Rick; I'm sure he is quite capable. I was
trying more to point out that Brad will be earning money due to the
combined efforts of many people over the years, all of whom
volunteered their time and/or software for the good of the net. (Brad
included, of course, for his enormous investment in r.h.f). I do not
think that Brad is wrong to do what he is doing. I classify his
actions similarly to the way in which I view most shareware.

If it works out, then great for Brad and all his subscribers. But
it's too bad he doesn't feel that doing something for the net just for
that reason is good enough.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science
+----------------------------------------+

ARPA: na...@ics.uci.edu | radiation: smog with an attitude |
UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | |

M.R.Murphy

unread,
Jun 16, 1989, 9:01:19 PM6/16/89
to
In article <34...@looking.on.ca> clar...@looking.on.ca writes:
+Announcing ClariNet -- Professional Electronic Publishing to the
+ multiuser computer network community.
+
[stuff deleted...]
+On the other hand, the issue of the transmission of commercial information
+over certain large sections of the internet is uncertain. Contrary to
+popular belief, there is currently no fixed policy on all networks other
+than MILNET. Such a policy is under active consideration by network
+authorities, and a proposal regarding ClariNet is before them. Forget
+about what you heard about Internet rules. We talked to the folks at
+the very top.
+
+Until such time as a policy is decided, it is our belief that if you
+are an authorized internet user, and *you* request that you receive
+your subscription via internet, then this constitutes a legitimate use
+of that network -- after all, it exists to give you easier access to the
+information and facilities you desire.
+
+Thus if you request that your subscription be transmitted via the internet,
+this will be done. Should authorities for your section of the internet
+decide that this is not acceptable at a later date, we may no longer be
+able to honour your request. If you are unable to arrange any alternate
+feed in these hypothetical circumstances, the unused portion of your
+subscription will be refunded.

Though the offer of refund seems reasonable enough, the remainder of the
three paragraphs above seem just a bit off the wall. Especially so is the
suggestion to "Forget about what you heard about Internet rules." BTW,
who are the "folks at the very top" ? The commercial use of the Internet
may well be in question, but such suggestions as that above don't seem to
be well thought.

The folks at uunet seem to have been somewhat careful by marking Internet
links as terminal. Will ClariNet (tm?) do the same?

---
Mike Murphy Sceard Systems, Inc. 544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA 92069
m...@Sceard.COM {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm +1 619 471 0655

Wolf Paul

unread,
Jun 17, 1989, 8:55:07 AM6/17/89
to

From na...@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel):

>I wasn't trying to protect Rick; I'm sure he is quite capable. I was
>trying more to point out that Brad will be earning money due to the
>combined efforts of many people over the years, all of whom
>volunteered their time and/or software for the good of the net. (Brad
>included, of course, for his enormous investment in r.h.f). I do not
>think that Brad is wrong to do what he is doing. I classify his
>actions similarly to the way in which I view most shareware.
>
>If it works out, then great for Brad and all his subscribers. But
>it's too bad he doesn't feel that doing something for the net just for
>that reason is good enough.

So maybe he has to make a living somehow? The gratitude of the net just
doesn't put bread on the table, or pay the phone bill, etc.

And why is it o.k. for UUNET to charge for its services without being
flamed as being contrary to the "spirit of the net", while Clarinet
is being bashed for the same thing?

--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP: {texbell, killer, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp
DOMAIN: w...@killer.dallas.tx.us or wnp%d...@texbell.swbt.com

Mark Nagel

unread,
Jun 17, 1989, 2:35:27 PM6/17/89
to
In article <83...@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, wnp@killer (Wolf Paul) writes:

| >If it works out, then great for Brad and all his subscribers. But
| >it's too bad he doesn't feel that doing something for the net just for
| >that reason is good enough.
|
|So maybe he has to make a living somehow? The gratitude of the net just
|doesn't put bread on the table, or pay the phone bill, etc.

As I recently answered in private mail, I have been talking about what
I originally said in a referenced article. That is, Brad has a right
to do anything he likes and he is entitled to charge for the service
he is providing, especially that which he must pay for himself, i.e.,
the news articles he will transmit. What I originally mentioned was
the software for article filtering he will only give to ClariNet users
and people who licence it from him, presumably for a price. I never
implied he should not be allowed to do this, merely that so many
others have contributed to the net for no monetary gain, while Brad
feels it necessary to make money off it. Not wrong, just
untraditional. Nobody is forcing anyone to be traditional; it is just
sad that it is happening.

|And why is it o.k. for UUNET to charge for its services without being
|flamed as being contrary to the "spirit of the net", while Clarinet
|is being bashed for the same thing?

Bashing? I wasn't bashing, at least I never meant to be. I think the
prime difference between UUNET and ClariNet is that UUNET is
non-profit. I don't think that ClariNet is. If I have misread yet
another article, I apologize. Once again, Brad is entitled to make a
profit. He will if enough people on the net think that his service is
worth it.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science
+----------------------------------------+

ARPA: na...@ics.uci.edu | Charisma doesn't have jelly in the |
UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | middle. -- Jim Ignatowski |

Rick Adams

unread,
Jun 18, 1989, 11:38:09 PM6/18/89
to
If you read the news copyright, it prohibits selling or renting the
news software itself.

I fail to see how anyone can interpret it to prohibit from using the
software for any legal purpose as long as the software itself is
freely used.

Henry Spencer

unread,
Jun 19, 1989, 3:22:18 PM6/19/89
to
In article <17...@paris.ics.uci.edu> na...@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) writes:
>... Do all other news systems (e.g., C News, TMNN) have similar
>constraints?

I can't speak for TMNN. C News does not. The only requirements we impose
are essentially that proper credit be given, both for the original software
and for any changes made after it left our hands.
--
You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry he...@zoo.toronto.edu

Chris Lewis

unread,
Jun 19, 1989, 5:29:49 PM6/19/89
to
In article <14...@bfmny0.UUCP> tn...@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
|In article <17...@paris.ics.uci.edu> na...@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) writes:
|> * This software is Copyright (c) 1986 by Rick Adams.

|> * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
|> * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary
|> * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this
|> * software...

|Even if Brad didn't use B news software to post the ClariNet material,

|B news would probably still be used by intermediate forwarding sites
|as well as the subscriber's receiving site.

By definition, all intermediate forwarding sites are subscribers (or
providers).

|Since the provision of the
|ClariNet service (and hence the profits derived) depends on forwarding
|AND receiving as well as his initial posting, then you could say the
|terms of the B news copyright were being violated.

Presumably not quite - Clarinet isn't charging for the *use* of B-news,
it's charging for the contents that B-news has just happened to be carrying
(possibly amongst other things). On the other hand, a public access site
that was charging directly for the use of news (instead of connect time
or disk space) would be in violation.

It's been my understanding that most of the USENET software can be bundled
into a for-sale package, provided that you're not charging for that software.
Eg: using "rn" as an interface to a custom database, where you charge for
the database, and give away "rn" free. Even copyleft doesn't prohibit this
sort of thing.

|However, since the holder of the copyright, Rick Adams, is implicitly
|supporting the ClariNet venture by accepting it as a UUNET feed, one
|assumes the objection is moot.

Precisely.
--
Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc.
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis
Phone: (416)-595-5425

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jun 20, 1989, 7:40:10 AM6/20/89
to
The copyleft/copyright issue is a red herring.

I think ClariNet has some serious problems which Brad refuses to address and
which are IMO likely to cause grief for Usenet down the road, but this isn't
one of them.

Wake up and smell the coffee. I, of all people, certainly don't have anything
to gain from Brad's venture. I'm not a dupe of the Evil Capitalist(tm).

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages