NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/2873

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-02 | 4.8 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2873 comp.org.eff.talk:5633 comp.unix.bsd:5010 comp.os.mach:1138 news.groups:17470
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!park.uvcc.edu!ns.novell.com!gateway.novell.com!thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM!terry
From: [e-mail] (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NetNews)
Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:19:51 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William J. Vajk) writes:
>>>First, it does not affect "all of us."
>>I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
>>intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
>>of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.
>
>An article about voting for a particular presidential candidate affects all of
>us too.  Even if you're not a US citizen or resident, the US has enough
>world-wide influence that which president is elected is probably going to have
>some indirect on you.  Should such an article be posted to a thousand-odd
>newsgroups?
>
>Anyone can get heart disease.  Should I post articles about cholesterol in
>gnu.misc.discuss because it affects "all of us" and so can go to every
>newsgroup on the net?

    I think we are all aware of the failings of usenet as a political
organizational tool, or as an organizational tool in general.  People will
read only the topic categories in which they are interested in, and it is
this categorization (and the [mostly academic] pressure to keep it) that
prevents it from being used this way.

    This is the issue of which I believe Mr. Vajk has now been made
painfully aware, with regards to using it as an announcement mechanism.
He is not incorrect, however, in his assumptions about the much greater
bredth of distribution (and potential consideration) his ideas would
recevive, if posted in such a fashion, and that was his stated intent.

    He did not proceed to *act* on this idea, and many people are
treating him as if he did.  The newsgroups included (even in this posting)
are quite germane to the topic of the AT&T suit.

    Some people have argued that the AT&T vs. BSDI issue is not germane
to them because UNIX is not germane to them.  I submit that it is, in that
the majority of the machines used to propagate usenet are, in fact, UNIX
machines, and usenet, in fact, could not exist without them.  This means
that it is likely, in the very worst case scenario, that what is decided
in the suit, with regard to intellectual property, will impact not only
UNIX users and usenet users, but computer users in general.  You would
not be reading this satatement were you not a computer user in some form.
This is, I believe, the concern that Mr. Vajk is stating.

    The fact is that usenet, by it's formulation, is not an appropriate
venue for organization of a boycott, despite the fact that the people most
likely to participate in such an endeavor are most easily reached this way.
This is doubly true of the Internet, which is the primary mechanism used
in the distribution of usenet, since the funding body is the NSF, a federally
funded agency, and organisation of a boycott in this manner violates several
federal statues regarding restraing of trade.

    All this is no reason to jump down Mr. Vajk's throat over his idea;
it's reason to dismiss the idea as unfeasable, and allow him to go on to
something else (besides answering hate mail).

    I support his idea of a boycott, but am not participating in it
for the same reason I believe others are not, and the same reason I believe
others did not participate in the effort to keep CSRG alive:  lack of motive
organization.  You can not simply state "act this way because..." and expect
a groundswell of support because your idea is "right and just".

    I certainly am not jumping on Mr. Arromdee for his post; it's just
that I got pissed off at what was going on, and happened to pick his article,
out of the many, many articles thrashing Mr. Vajk to post my followup.  If
anything, he has been more succinct than most in his explanation of why it's
a bad idea to post something everywhere without regard to the imaginary
boundris we have agreed to as a whole.


                    Terry Lambert
                    [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.