Xref: utzoo rec.humor.d:1234 news.misc:2173 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: rec.humor.d,news.misc Subject: USENET and Internet (was: Re: Yes, I can sell a jokebook via USENET. Message-ID: <79319@sun.uucp> Date: 30 Nov 88 00:11:36 GMT References: <2391@looking.UUCP> <79090@sun.uucp> <1057@ncar.ucar.edu> <376@eda.com> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Fictional Reality Lines: 61 >| >On the other hand -- on the Internet, commercial activity is explicitly >| >against the rules and CAN get you in trouble. Add that to the large number >| >of Internet-based NNTP links and Brad's all-too-true statement above about >| >it happening all the time, and ask yourself if USENET is violating Internet >| >rules.... >| Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand. >What does it matter if USENET violates Internet rules? Or are we to follow >other networks in complying with Internet rules because it is easier >than not complying? Here's the (potential) problem. A large amount of USENET data is slogged from place to place via NNTP over the Internet. Because of that, it's reasonable to assume that the Internet would require that data to conform to it's rules -- which, in a number of cases, it doesn't. That being taken as true, it then can be assumed that if the Internet chooses to notice (I'm sure they already know. Whether they choose to recognize NNTP links officially is up to them and politics), they can require that the sites passing NNTP data from place to place either limit said data to to conforming material (practically speaking, impossible) or turn off the links. You could turn off the NNTP links without killing USENET, but it would significantly impact connectivity and possibly segment some regions. That's why you have to worry about Internet restrictions. You're not on the net, but the data you're reading here very likely spent at least part of it's time borrowing Internet bandwidth, and is therefore subject to Internet rules and regulations. I think. >Brad specifically asked that those messages not be gatewayed onto >the Internet. And I'm *sure* the Automatic Gatewaying Software >complied. 8^) You can actually do that, if what you're doing is gatewaying to a mailing list (as I do with comp.sys.mac.hypercard). NNTP links are different. They're just like the uucp links from site to site, but use the Internet instead. Faster and cheaper. >We're always running into this "not allowed on the Internet" argument >and I would really like someone to intelligently define to me why >I should care. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It basically comes down to this. It's practically speaking impossible for a USENET message to propogate without propogating through the Internet at some point or another. This means that every message you read or post was on the Internet at some time -- which implies that even though you and your machine aren't on the Internet or accrue it's benefits, the message was and did, and is subject to the Internet regulations. It's not *your* responsibility, though -- it's the responsibility of the sites that are on the Internet who use NNTP. Of course, if they're told to shut down, you'll be affected as well. That's why you should care. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. For Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all, all honorable men.