John VanSickle wrote:

> You can nuke any of the pictures I posted; the same goes for
> p.b.animations.

It is really not a practical idea to go through and selectively cull
individual news group articles. Chris is the only person maintaining
the server and I doubt he has the time or patience to go through
26,000+ messages and determine their relative worth.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:49:26 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>This group became a victim of server overflow. We ran out of space on
>the server and Chris Cason had to remove many of the articles. I am
>working on him to restore some of them but I don't know how far I
>will get with this. Give me a few days and hopefully we will get some
>of them back - he sounded hopefull when I asked him about it.

Hello Ken,

I had been thinking of suggesting the this newsgroup be trimmed
anyway. My newsreaders were taking a LOT of extra time because of all
those messages. One of my readers stores all the headers it downloads
and even if I don't download the message bodies, just storing all
those headers was taking up a lot of space.

I was about to suggest creating a new group for the older messages -
sort of an archive group. That way, I'd be able to look at the latest
images and comments without having to wade through so much bloat.
Perhaps Chris might like this idea if he is considering restoring some
of the older messages?

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Thanks. I wish there had been some warning... ah well. I'm not going to
complain, just kind of surprised...
Josh

Ken wrote:

> Josh English wrote:
> >
> > Did the p.b.i newsgroup get cleared out? I have been going though the
> > older stuff and making lots of notes on the images of the past, and
> > there were over 20,000 posts. This morning there are only 5007 messages.
> > Did the newsgroup get cropped? I don't have any threads from November 99
> > or earlier.
>
> This group became a victim of server overflow. We ran out of space on
> the server and Chris Cason had to remove many of the articles. I am
> working on him to restore some of them but I don't know how far I
> will get with this. Give me a few days and hopefully we will get some
> of them back - he sounded hopefull when I asked him about it.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

I'd buy a CD of p.*.*  archives!

A lot of tricks and tips I had not dl'ed because I knew I could access them
later on p.*.*.

Josh English wrote:

> Did the p.b.i newsgroup get cleared out? I have been going though the
> older stuff and making lots of notes on the images of the past, and
> there were over 20,000 posts. This morning there are only 5007 messages.
> Did the newsgroup get cropped? I don't have any threads from November 99
> or earlier.
>
> --
> Josh English
> eng### [at] spiritonecom
> "May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

>I was about to suggest creating a new group for the older messages -
>sort of an archive group. That way, I'd be able to look at the latest
>images and comments without having to wade through so much bloat.

How about povray.binaries.images.XXXX, where XXXX is the year? That way, you
could get better organized, and the current group would be smaller.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:28:36 -0500, "TonyB"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

>How about povray.binaries.images.XXXX, where XXXX is the year? That way, you
>could get better organized, and the current group would be smaller.

Tony, do you realise that this would make offline readers re-download
350+ megabytes of attachments?


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:28:36 -0500, "TonyB"
> <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> 
> >How about povray.binaries.images.XXXX, where XXXX is the year? That way, you
> >could get better organized, and the current group would be smaller.
> 
> Tony, do you realise that this would make offline readers re-download
> 350+ megabytes of attachments?

Only if they choose to browse the archive group. No one would force
them to. I am not arguing that this is a good or bad suggestion only
that you need the anti-view inserted here for the sake of clarity.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:14:32 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>> Tony, do you realise that this would make offline readers re-download
>> 350+ megabytes of attachments?
>
>Only if they choose to browse the archive group. No one would force
>them to. I am not arguing that this is a good or bad suggestion only
>that you need the anti-view inserted here for the sake of clarity.

I have to agree with this. Even now there are groups on this server
that I have never even subscribed to, so a couple more wouldn't hurt
me the least.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Perhaps this is why it froze up NS... (to seperate thread)

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:28:36 -0500, "TonyB"
> <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
>
> >How about povray.binaries.images.XXXX, where XXXX is the year? That way, you
> >could get better organized, and the current group would be smaller.
>
> Tony, do you realise that this would make offline readers re-download
> 350+ megabytes of attachments?

Won't they have to anyway if Chris restores the old posts? I had to resubscribe
to the NG and get all the headers over again...

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:28:36 -0500, "TonyB"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

>How about povray.binaries.images.XXXX, where XXXX is the year? That way, you
>could get better organized, and the current group would be smaller.
>
I was thinking of this, but didn't mention it for some reason. It's
actually what I would like to see happen. As far as I'm concerned,
this could be done to some of the other groups on this server as well.
News readers weren't usually designed with the idea of immortal
postings in mind. It really bogs down the process when there are so
many old posts in a group.

For what it's worth, I have both online and offline readers. My
offline reader has the option to only download headers if I want. If
new groups were formed for the old posts, I would only download the
headers for reference. I wouldn't download the message bodies or
attachments, unless I saw something that really interested me. Odds
are, I wouldn't download much of anything that is over a year old. It
would be nice to have the ability to do so, if I wanted, of course.

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

I second the idea. What is a reasonable price?
Mr. Art

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> I'd buy a CD of p.*.*  archives!
> 
> A lot of tricks and tips I had not dl'ed because I knew I could access them
> later on p.*.*.
>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:05:45 +0200, Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet>
wrote:

>Tony, do you realise that this would make offline readers re-download
>350+ megabytes of attachments?

Don't most off-line readers have a provision for downloading only the
message headers? One could download all the headers, and then only
download the messages bodies and attachments that they really needed. 

You seem to assume that someone actually wants a complete archive of
POV-News on their local hard drive. I've found that I can live without
many of the old posts. Remember, some of those posts are only relavent
to someone running an outdated version of POV, for example. Some
others are snapshots of "works-in-progress." I don't really need to
keep 5 generations of the same basic image. My free disk space is more
important to me.

For those of use who have been regulars here for awhile, we should
already have the old attachments downloaded anyway - at least the
attachments that we decided we decided to keep. If Chris created the
archives sorted by year, I would only be downloading the headers for
my possible future reference. Who knows, maybe one day I might even
download an old message body or attachment.

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:04:23 -0900, "mr.art" <mr.### [at] gcinet> wrote:

>I second the idea. What is a reasonable price?
>Mr. Art

Hmm...  Is it ethical to sell old news posts? Maybe it is. It just
seems odd for some reason. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive to potential
copyright issues.

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

I didn't see them as old news posts, I saw them as a learning 
tool. Much of what can be done with povray can be found in the
posts and almost nowhere else. I, for one, would hate to loose 
that source. And I never thought that a profit had to be made,
just what was fair for the time and effort.

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:04:23 -0900, "mr.art" <mr.### [at] gcinet> wrote:
> 
> >I second the idea. What is a reasonable price?
> >Mr. Art
> 
> Hmm...  Is it ethical to sell old news posts? Maybe it is. It just
> seems odd for some reason. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive to potential
> copyright issues.
> 
> later,
> Glen Berry

-- 
We are the POVRay of Borg.
Your data has been assimilated into the POVRay
users List of Ages
Resistance is in Ohms.

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> If Chris created the archives sorted by year, I would only be downloading
> the headers for my possible future reference. Who knows, maybe one day I
> might even download an old message body or attachment.

 I passed on your earlier suggestion to Chris but I see some flaws in it
already. The biggest problem facing this server right now is available
space. If he simply moves the older messages to a different group there
is still the problem that the server does not have enough space to make
them available.

 What I think might work is an annual purge of older files. For example
once per year in the month of November we can announce that on Jan. 1
all message 1 year or older are about to go away. This will give everyone
a couple of months to decide if they want any of the resources from that
time period. Once Jan. 1 comes around they are gone. This will free up
server resources and keep groups sizes down to a managable level. It
is either that or Chris will impose automatic message expirations and
the group will continiously scroll. Each day a new batch of messages
will expire that are one year old.

  Then again it teaches us all a lesson that if there is a resource
posted here that we are interested in then we should take advantage
of it now instead of waiting for later time to do it. It does cause
me some problems because I often do search through older messages
trying to find answer or examples to new questions. Sometimes it
is just fun to go back through some of the earlier work posted here
for nostalgia's sake. I have seen a definate difference in the
quality of images posted here. While there was some good posts
in the early days of this server the posts in the last year have
improved consistantly since that time. I think it really proves
that peer support on news groups really works.

Comments ?

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

"mr.art" wrote:
> 
> I didn't see them as old news posts, I saw them as a learning
> tool. Much of what can be done with povray can be found in the
> posts and almost nowhere else. I, for one, would hate to loose
> that source. And I never thought that a profit had to be made,
> just what was fair for the time and effort.

Fortunately Chris is only targeting the binary groups at this time.
All of the text based discussion groups are still available back
to the beginning of this servers operation.

I mentioned the CD idea to Chris but he has not and may not reply
to that idea. It's up to him.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

I agree with you. The idea of selling people's conversations just
seemed a little odd at first.

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> I agree with you. The idea of selling people's conversations just
> seemed a little odd at first.

One benifit of a CD version of the server is that you would not have
to wait for large binary attachments to download over a slow assed
modem connection :)

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:20:46 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

> I passed on your earlier suggestion to Chris but I see some flaws in it
>already. The biggest problem facing this server right now is available
>space. 

I thought you might say that. If there isn't room, then I can live
with losing some of the older posts. In fact, I had already deleted
many of the older posts on my machine anyway. I had the same lack of
space problem myself. I had already moved my favorite attachments to
other directories for safe keeping.

I think that most of us could live with posts that expire after a
year's time. It sure beats typical usenet servers that sometimes
delete posts within the same week.   :)

>I have seen a definate difference in the
>quality of images posted here. While there was some good posts
>in the early days of this server the posts in the last year have
>improved consistantly since that time.

I have been thinking the same thing lately. I remember the images
before POV 2.2 came out. Things have come a very long way since then.
As you say, even in just the last year, there has been remarkable
progress in image quality. The two things creating this are the peer
support that you mention and the continuing improvement of POV-Ray
itself. 

Even the growth of POV-Ray itself has benefitted from the peer support
here, because many of the custom features have been suggested,
created, shared, and improved on here. Without this news server, the
Super Patch and Mega-POV might not have become what they are today.
I'm not forgetting the Official POV, because some of the features in
the Official POV were once found in custom patches, and no doubt, many
of the features in the current Mega-POV, and other patches,  will find
their way into a future Official POV version.

It would be nice to keep this history archived *somewhere*, but I'm
not sure where. Perhaps distributing CD-ROM's with news archives as
someone suggested is a possibility, but even if we don't have an
archive of news, we'll still get along fine. 

I know, because as interesting as the past might be, the best of
POV-Ray is yet to come.


later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:30:29 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>One benifit of a CD version of the server is that you would not have
>to wait for large binary attachments to download over a slow assed
>modem connection :)

Yes, it would certainly have some benefits.

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

>What I think might work is an annual purge of older files. For example
>once per year in the month of November we can announce that on Jan. 1
>all message 1 year or older are about to go away.

How about transferring the purged files to a web archive on one of the free 
webspace providers. For example like: http://members.xoom.com/altphotoprc/

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:

> How about transferring the purged files to a web archive on one of the free
> webspace providers. For example like: http://members.xoom.com/altphotoprc/

  I doubt Chris would ever go for this. Every one of us that use this
news server are protected from spam bots collecting our addresses and
bombarding us with spam. The second you move these articles to a public
web site we all become potential victims. Many of the people here use
non spam protected e-mail addresses because they know they are protected
on this closed news server. It would be a violation of that faith we
have put in Chris's efforts to provide us with a spam free environment
and I don't think he would intentionaly work against himself in that
regard.

Nope. I do not see this as an alternative nor do I think others would
be happy about it.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

>The second you move these articles to a public
>web site we all become potential victims.

You're right, for a moment I forgot about the dark side.

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 00:55:24 -0500, Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom>
wrote:

>It would be nice to keep this history archived *somewhere*, but I'm
>not sure where. Perhaps distributing CD-ROM's with news archives as
>someone suggested is a possibility, but even if we don't have an
>archive of news, we'll still get along fine. 

I archive them on CD every month. Everyone could do the same at will.
Selling this CDs though would violate the copyrights of maybe a
thousand people, and getting permission to do so would be an
unbearable if not impossible task, what with casual posters, obsolete
e-mails etc.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

I think it's good to have this archive here and accessible to all
people all the time.  There have been some really interesting 
threads since I've been here (June 1998), and I once d/l'd almost
all of the images, then a HD problem came and I lost everything
but it's all still here if I want it.  I havn't got access to 
a CD writer, and can't affort one now or in the forseeable future,
and also can't afford to d/l the whole of p.b.i, but I can go and 
get the bits that I want or need any time I like because they're 
here.

I remember as a new boy, going through this group looking at all
the previous images, it was a great inspiration to me, and probably
still is to other new commers.  

Just my 2p worth. Long Live POV and brother Mega.

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  3:04pm  up 5 days,  2:07,  6 users,  load average: 2.40, 1.73, 1.30

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> I archive them on CD every month. Everyone could do the same at will.

What about us poor online modem readers?

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> ingo wrote:
>
> > How about transferring the purged files to a web archive on one of the free
> > webspace providers. For example like: http://members.xoom.com/altphotoprc/
>
>   I doubt Chris would ever go for this. Every one of us that use this
> news server are protected from spam bots collecting our addresses and
> bombarding us with spam. The second you move these articles to a public
> web site we all become potential victims. Many of the people here use
> non spam protected e-mail addresses because they know they are protected
> on this closed news server. It would be a violation of that faith we
> have put in Chris's efforts to provide us with a spam free environment
> and I don't think he would intentionaly work against himself in that
> regard.

Could it be possible to find a secure/encrypted website for old posts?

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

How can there not be enough room on the server? I thought there was only
about two CDs worth of stuff in all the groups.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> How can there not be enough room on the server?

There is a finite amount of space set aside for this server and that
space has been consumed by 3 years of growing activity.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:24:23 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:

>Peter Popov wrote:
>
>> I archive them on CD every month. Everyone could do the same at will.
>
>What about us poor online modem readers?

I *am* a modem user too, just one with with a bit of a pessimistic
forecasting abilities.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:27:38 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:

>How can there not be enough room on the server? I thought there was only
>about two CDs worth of stuff in all the groups.

It's less than a CD's worth. There's the ftp server and web server and
all the resources they contain. This should sum up to about 512 MB
which seems a good round number for a chunk of rented space.

Of course these are all unofficial speculations of mine.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > How can there not be enough room on the server?
>
> There is a finite amount of space set aside for this server and that
> space has been consumed by 3 years of growing activity.

Sorry, I didn't know the space was rented.
Now let's see, if everyone in these NGs contributed a few hundred bucks you
could buy your own high-end server... maybe not a good plan :-)

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

IRTC overcomes copyright problems by making people submit to its
copyright procedure in writing in advance. P.b.* would have to warn
people a whole lot in advance first, probably.  (I actually thought for
months that p.*.* was also on the CD's; many others probably would NOT
have submitted if they knew it could be sold).

Glen Berry wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:30:29 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >One benifit of a CD version of the server is that you would not have
> >to wait for large binary attachments to download over a slow assed
> >modem connection :)
>
> Yes, it would certainly have some benefits.
>
> later,
> Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

>Now let's see, if everyone in these NGs contributed a few hundred bucks you
>could buy your own high-end server... maybe not a good plan :-)


That would be a huge ammount of money...

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> IRTC overcomes copyright problems by making people submit to its
> copyright procedure in writing in advance. P.b.* would have to warn
> people a whole lot in advance first, probably.  (I actually thought for
> months that p.*.* was also on the CD's; many others probably would NOT
> have submitted if they knew it could be sold).

If you look at the expanded message headers for the messages posted here
you will find the following statement -


X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news server
             and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.


I'm not sure that this gives the POV-Team any rights to further distribute
our work or the messages posted here but it seems possible that it might.


-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:51:38 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>If you look at the expanded message headers for the messages posted here
>you will find the following statement -
>
>X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news server
>             and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
>
>I'm not sure that this gives the POV-Team any rights to further distribute
>our work or the messages posted here but it seems possible that it might.

I don't get that impression from that statement at all. In fact, it
makes me wonder how the POV-Team could own the copyrights to mine and
other people's comments. I think they don't have the rights to
re-publish what I, or others, have said here without permission. 

For a moment, I considered that perhaps this is considered a public
forum and the comments part of some sort of public record, but they
claim in the above statement that this is a *private* forum, and seem
to claim ownership of the contents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset about anything here. I'm just not
sure how much ownership they might have over comments and concepts
expressed by myself or others. Under US law, I own the copyright to
anything I create, from the moment of it's creation, unless I decide
to transfer all or part of those rights to another party. However,
this is an international forum, and that is sure to complicate things
in ways I can't predict. Personally, I would never publish anything
here that I considered a valuable secret anyway.

I don't care too much at this point if we lose the older messages. It
might be nice to keep an eternal archive of old files, but eventually
the storage space would be an issue again, even if we were to solve it
for the moment.  Nothing lasts forever, and sometimes holding onto the
past gets in the way of one's future. 

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Glen,

undel any legislature one is the owher of one's intelectual product,
be it a post or a picture ot whatever. The Team know this pretty well
I am sure. Nowhere is it said nor implied that they or anyone else is
the owner of your or anyone else's posts and/or work posted here. This
statement is there for our own sake, to discourage people from feeding
articles from this server on the Usenet and vice versa, thus saving us
from the spammers out there. 

Besides, this *is* a private newsserver as it is not connected to the
Usenet public servers.

I dare say I am voicing my opinion as a TAG member here.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

So, what are the legal options of creating a  p.b.ptoc:
povray.binaries.povteamownscopyright ?  The owner, by posting, give the
Team right to distribute on pov server and to sell CD's!

Peter Popov wrote:

> Glen,
>
> undel any legislature one is the owher of one's intelectual product,
> be it a post or a picture ot whatever. The Team know this pretty well
> I am sure. Nowhere is it said nor implied that they or anyone else is
> the owner of your or anyone else's posts and/or work posted here. This
> statement is there for our own sake, to discourage people from feeding
> articles from this server on the Usenet and vice versa, thus saving us
> from the spammers out there.
>
> Besides, this *is* a private newsserver as it is not connected to the
> Usenet public servers.
>
> I dare say I am voicing my opinion as a TAG member here.
>
> Peter Popov
> pet### [at] usanet
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Glen,
> 
> undel any legislature one is the owher of one's intelectual product,
> be it a post or a picture ot whatever. The Team know this pretty well
> I am sure. Nowhere is it said nor implied that they or anyone else is
> the owner of your or anyone else's posts and/or work posted here. This
> statement is there for our own sake, to discourage people from feeding
> articles from this server on the Usenet and vice versa, thus saving us
> from the spammers out there.
> 
> Besides, this *is* a private newsserver as it is not connected to the
> Usenet public servers.

I admit that I know exactly what the intent of the server copyright warning
is. I just thought I would play the "word" lawyer or devils advocate so to
speak :)

Any statement like that is open to various interpertaions unless it is
clearly spelled out and the server copyright warning appended to each
message on this server is a clear case of this.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
be making huge amounts of money from something I've done.  I'd guess that would
be the sentiment of most anyone.
It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.

Bob

"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:02qwOFwCACVzmNuIIhFA93G01sNJ@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:51:38 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
|
| >I'm not sure that this gives the POV-Team any rights to further distribute
| >our work or the messages posted here but it seems possible that it might.
|
| I don't get that impression from that statement at all. In fact, it
| makes me wonder how the POV-Team could own the copyrights to mine and
| other people's comments. I think they don't have the rights to
| re-publish what I, or others, have said here without permission.
|
| For a moment, I considered that perhaps this is considered a public
| forum and the comments part of some sort of public record, but they
| claim in the above statement that this is a *private* forum, and seem
| to claim ownership of the contents.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset about anything here. I'm just not
| sure how much ownership they might have over comments and concepts
| expressed by myself or others. Under US law, I own the copyright to
| anything I create, from the moment of it's creation, unless I decide
| to transfer all or part of those rights to another party. However,
| this is an international forum, and that is sure to complicate things
| in ways I can't predict. Personally, I would never publish anything
| here that I considered a valuable secret anyway.
|
| I don't care too much at this point if we lose the older messages. It
| might be nice to keep an eternal archive of old files, but eventually
| the storage space would be an issue again, even if we were to solve it
| for the moment.  Nothing lasts forever, and sometimes holding onto the
| past gets in the way of one's future.
|
| later,
| Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:02:23 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>Any statement like that is open to various interpertaions unless it is
>clearly spelled out and the server copyright warning appended to each
>message on this server is a clear case of this.

A clear case of which?

   A:    "being clearly spelled out"

   B:    "open to various interpretations"


VBG,

Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

>I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
>be making huge amounts of money from something I've done.  I'd guess that would
>be the sentiment of most anyone.
>It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.
>

Like I said, I'm not upset, and I'm certainly not worried. I tried to
convey that in my post. I'm just curious as to exactly what the
POV-Team owns the copyright to, as expressed in that statement.
Perhaps it is the overall "structure" of the discussion group, but not
the content itself? 

I'm not worried, but it would be interesting to know exactly what the
legal status of messages posted here is. I believe I understood the
reason for the POV-Team issuing the statement, but so many times words
such as that have unforseen consequences, or sometimes because of poor
wording are unenforceable for their intended purpose.

Is there an international, intellectual property expert in the house?
:)

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:09:06 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
><omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>
>>I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
>>be making huge amounts of money from something I've done.  I'd guess that would
>>be the sentiment of most anyone.
>>It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.
>>
>
>Like I said, I'm not upset, and I'm certainly not worried. I tried to
>convey that in my post. I'm just curious as to exactly what the
>POV-Team owns the copyright to, as expressed in that statement.
>Perhaps it is the overall "structure" of the discussion group, but not
>the content itself? 

That statement doesn't say anything about the POV-Team owning the copyright.

To recap, the statement says:

|This copyrighted article comes from a private news server and may
|NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.

It doesn't say who owns the copyright, just that it's copyrighted.  It is
copyrighted, by the person who posted it.  The statement is there to remind
those who would redistribute the article that they may not do so without
the permission of the coypright holder, i.e. you or me or Ken or whoever.

By posting here, you implicitly gave the POV-Team permission to redistribute
your article to others who connect to this server to read news, but you did
so with the assumption that it would stay on this server and wouldn't go any
further, so distributing it in any other way would likely be in violation of
the implicit license you agreed to by posting it.

I am not, however, a lawyer, and I also do not presume to speak for the POV
Team here, so take what I've said above as the opinion of one plain ol' 
ordinary person.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:04:30 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:27:38 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
>wrote:
>
>>How can there not be enough room on the server? I thought there was only
>>about two CDs worth of stuff in all the groups.
>
>It's less than a CD's worth. There's the ftp server and web server and
>all the resources they contain. This should sum up to about 512 MB
>which seems a good round number for a chunk of rented space.

I was under the impression that this is a colocated server, not a chunk of 
rented space.  But as you mentioned, this news server is not the only thing 
running on this machine:

C:\WINDOWS>nslookup

> news.povray.org
Name:    news.povray.org
Address:  204.213.191.228

> www.povray.org
Name:    www.povray.org
Address:  204.213.191.228

> ftp.povray.org
Name:    ftp.povray.org
Address:  204.213.191.228

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

On 21 Feb 2000 09:34:17 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
wrote:

>I am not, however, a lawyer, and I also do not presume to speak for the POV
>Team here, so take what I've said above as the opinion of one plain ol' 
>ordinary person.

It sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. It seemed to me that
the copyright was *implied* to belong to the server owner, but as you
point out, it never explicitly states who actually owns the copyright.


I believe it is quite possible for the POV-Team to own copyrights for
the news forum, but not own the individual messages. Magazines state
that their contents are copyrighted in their name. At the same time,
many of the images used in the magazine belong to photographers that
have simply sold limited reproduction rights for their images. In a
situation like that, the magazine would be copyrighted by it's owner,
and the individual photos are owned and copyrighted by their
respective authors. Of course, there are detailed contracts involved
in such a situation to make it clear exactly what limited rights are
being granted to the magazine by the photographer.

I always thought it was silly to see a magazine state something like:
"No part of this publication may be reproduced in part or in whole
without the express written consent of the publisher." This is
nonsense for most magazines, because they don't own the copyrights to
everything in the magazine. (I'm thinking of things such as those
pictures licensed from outside sources.) In order to legally reproduce
an image from such a situation, one would contact the photographer or
his agent, and *not* the magazine, even though the magazine fine print
would lead you to believe otherwise.

Now that I've said all that, I realize that this should probably be
moved to povray.off-topic, if anyone wants to discuss it further.

later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

> I was under the impression that this is a colocated server, not a chunk of
> rented space.  But as you mentioned, this news server is not the only thing
> running on this machine:

That was my mistake for assuming that it was rented space. You are correct
in that it is a colocated server under the direct control of Chris Cason
(I was privately corrected on that mistake).

> C:\WINDOWS>nslookup
> > news.povray.org
> > www.povray.org
> > ftp.povray.org

You can add www.irtc.org to that list.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> I admit that I know exactly what the intent of the server copyright warning
> is. I just thought I would play the "word" lawyer or devils advocate so to
> speak :)
>
> Any statement like that is open to various interpertaions unless it is
> clearly spelled out and the server copyright warning appended to each
> message on this server is a clear case of this.

Any statement that is open to various interpertations is equivocation and it is
still the admin's legal responsibility if these images turn up somewhere
without the posters' consent.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, well, a nice shiny new server goes up to a hundred thousand or more. Of
course tis NG is probably not that demanding on a server so a low-end $30,000
one should suffice :-)

TonyB wrote:

> >Now let's see, if everyone in these NGs contributed a few hundred bucks you
> >could buy your own high-end server... maybe not a good plan :-)
>
> That would be a huge ammount of money...

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:35:15 -0800, Ken wrote:

>> C:\WINDOWS>nslookup
>> > news.povray.org
>> > www.povray.org
>> > ftp.povray.org
>
>You can add www.irtc.org to that list.

I don't have the inside information that you have (funny, that) but
I can tell that irtc.org doesn't have the same IP address:

> www.irtc.org
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    irtc.org
Address:  204.213.191.227
Aliases:  www.irtc.org

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message