Xref: utzoo misc.misc:7434 misc.forsale:7153 news.admin:6533
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!rex!uflorida!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,misc.forsale,news.admin
Subject: Re: Franchise Opportunity
Summary: You have misunderstood my posting; an ad is an ad.  Post them in BIZ.
Keywords: Commerce, commercial, business, etc
Message-ID: <1989Aug10.151622.871@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 10 Aug 89 15:16:22 GMT
References:  <434@tp2.Waterloo.NCR.COM> <1989Aug9.140945.5371@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <937@utoday.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 89

In article <937@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>Karl:  thar ya go again!

Start with ad hominen; that's in the spirit of the net ;-)

>The flap was about whether or not what came off the net, could be used
>for profit by the person responsible for putting it on the net in the
>first place.

Actually, the first flap (there were many) was about someone posting
advertisements for a compilation, in print, some of which came off the net
(and some of which did not).  That was, if you remember, the commercial use 
which started all the shouting and noise.

After this was tolerated we were witness to service bureau ads (Clarinet &
IMM), a business franchise ad, and an ad for computer fax products.  All in
general distribution groups.

>Of course, 'n' thousand people seem to enjoy the postings in questions. So,
>the idea of merely using that for a profit-making situation didn't add
>to net.overhead at all.
>
>Placing an ad on the net, though, is a bit different.  First, it uses net
>resources for the sole profit of one person.  And it is specifically against
>the charter of UseNet (or so it seems to me).

There is no charter of Usenet, just some general agreements among the
participants.  This is not Fidonet; you cannot be "excommunicated" per-se.

Why is it ok if one person puts an ad on the net, but not ok if a different
person does it?  Is it ok if a moderator of a group does it, but not ok if a
normal user makes the posting?  If I bury my advertisement in another
posting so that it is not the only thing that is contained in that "message"
is it ok?  I fail to understand the fundamental difference between these
activities, unless the "correctness" of the action is related to the person
rather than the content!

Please explain why it is ok for someone to sell a compilation of jokes using
the net as a primary advertising medium, but it's not ok for me to sell 
computer equipment using the net as a primary advertising medium.

>Not so slight a difference.

No difference IMHO.  I've already said that I don't mind the "IMM" and 
"Clarinet" ideas as such -- it's the increase in bandwidth through our
machine to subsidize them, if any, that I would object to, and the posting 
of ads for the services to a dozen newsgroups.  If there is no increase in 
our costs as a result of the operations, then I have no continuing objection.  
So far I can't see any increase in our costs related to these ventures -- thus 
I have no objection.

I do object to a double standard when it comes to advertisements on the net.

If it's ok to post commercial advertisements for things on the net, then it 
is.  Otherwise, it's not.  To suggest that it is ok to advertise pay-for 
jokebooks or Clarinet/IMM services, but not franchises to some business or 
computer equipment is absurd.  Both generate profit only for the poster, 
contain no information of general worth to the net at large, are commercial, 
and add to the volume to the net traffic stream.

If it's not ok to do these things, and I think the consensus at this point
is that it is not, then those items should be posted to the "biz" groups, so
that only those sites which consent to the traffic have to bear it.  

MCS does exactly that -- yes, we post commercial ads all the time.  They go 
to the "biz" groups -- anyone who doesn't want to pay to receive them has no 
need to do so, and those who DO want this material specifically have to 
arrange for a feed -- by doing so consenting to the material contained inside.
Rather than blast advertisements at the entire net, I did something
constructive about the problem.  "Biz" doesn't get a lot of traffic at
present, but if it did that would be fine by me.  In short, I don't object 
to commercialism on the net -- but I would like to see it in a place where 
people who DO object can avoid paying for its transmission.

If the net as a whole allows jokebook ads, Clarinet ads, and IMM ads to be 
posted to rec, comp, misc, and alt groups without complaint then we have 
little room to holler when people post advertisements for their pet business 
projects, franchises, software or equipment in comp, misc, rec & alt.

>Ross M. Greenberg
>UNIX TODAY!             594 Third Avenue   New York   New York  10016
>Review Editor           Voice:(212)-889-6431  BBS:(212)-889-6438
>uunet!utoday!greenber   BIX: greenber  MCI: greenber   CIS: 72461,3212

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"