Wednesday, April 1, 1998

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:01:50 PM moderator_jack_l:Welcome to tonight's seminar! I'm Jack, the moderator for this seminar. Today we're discussing the issues raised by this week's module on linking, framing, and metatagging. Feel free to just jump in the discussion using the chat bar and "send" button on the bottom of your chat screen. I'll be listening and contributing throughout the hour. Standard chat etiquette applies.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:03:34 PM moderator_jack_l:Let's discuss John McNeill's proposed copyright-and-royalty regime laid out in the discussion groups. (

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:03:47 PM niels_j:Hi Jack. I confess I have never used chat before so I'm ignorant of the etiquette, but I hope that my English up bringing will be sufficient on the subject of manners

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:05:02 PM david_s:It seems cumbersome to me and too easily circumvented.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:05:46 PM moderator_jack_l:Hi Niels. To summarize briefly, Mr. McNeill proposed a not-for-profit administrative organization that would warehouse the copyrighted material on the net, and a royalty system for copyrighted material. The relevant question tonight is, how does it affect LINKING?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:07:45 PM david_s:What is the course of action for someone who discovers their copyright has been infringed?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:09:30 PM moderator_jack_l:Usually they send a "cease-and-desist letter" to the offender, then file suit. Then copyright law comes into play, asking questions such as whether or not the material was copyrightable, whether infringement occured, etc.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:10:04 PM niels_j:John McNeill proposal is interesting, but my question is, why can't the individual authors control their on material via the Net ?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:10:36 PM moderator_jack_l:I guess the relevant question is, how could the linking practices in the Hypo about the travel agent infringe copyright?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:10:54 PM cgabrielle_t:Individual authors rarely have the resources to successfully fight this kind of "theft"

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:11:20 PM mark_r:Niels: The control of the contents in the net is very time consuming and expensive. A "small" author will not be able to control all that

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:11:48 PM david_s:Given the traffic monitoring capabilities of the Internet wouldn't the ability to discover "thefts" and initiate action explode?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:12:27 PM david_s:Who will ajudicate the cases?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:12:55 PM moderator_jack_l:Enforcement notwithstanding, the protection provided by a legal regime is almost certainly necessary. What I'm trying to get at is, how might linking or framing infringe on copyright?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:14:09 PM cgabrielle_t:The net is much based off linking, so I object to any system that interferes unduly with that. At the same time, we need protection against those who would misappropriate/mislead...

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:14:26 PM niels_j:Mark: I agreed with what you are saying, but how would a online CCC (Copyright clearance center) deal with these problems and more importantly the vast storage capacity they would need

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:14:35 PM mark_r:When suing for copyright infringement, you need to find a "forum", this is a place where you can sue a person (residence, place of business etc.) The conflict of law rules of this place will decide which (national) copyright law will then apply

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:16:06 PM mark_r:Niels: You have similar systems already in the music industry. The centers take average uses and the distribute the royalties they collected

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:16:55 PM cgabrielle_t:How can "average uses" be tracked, and more importantly, how does that prevent the material from being misused anyhow?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:18:03 PM niels_j:Mark: Agreed, but isn't this idea trying to fix a New World (the net) problem with an Old World (real life) solution ?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:18:11 PM mark_r:In the music scene, you are allowed certain uses in general. Thus you cannot prevent misuses, but get at least some money for the uses

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:18:45 PM loseph_l:but doesn't a royalty scheme presume that the person collecting the money has a right to prevent copying?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:18:58 PM loseph_l:here, it seems the rights are very much still up in the air

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:20:22 PM moderator_jack_l:Good point Niels. The Net is perhaps too transitory for traditional copyright, and if a clearinghouse is too cumbersome, what's the point? Does anyone have any idea how to enforce copyrights on Web material (whatever the rights are)?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:20:25 PM mark_r:Gabrielle (second part of my answer). The clearance centers try to collect data such as marketing researchers and many others do.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:20:36 PM david_s:The CCC model is only a partial solution. I see it as a means to pacify content creators who are willing to receive something for their work and are willing to overlook some misappropriation in return. In other words, CCC does not prevent "thefts" nor does it provide much of a disincentive to "thefts". (as mark_r said above)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:21:33 PM moderator_jack_l:Let's get back to linking and framing. (...)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:21:54 PM cgabrielle_t:But if you buy something from the CCC, what is the stance of the CCC toward someone wh links to what you bought?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:22:31 PM moderator_jack_l:Can anyone suggest why we shouldn't just have a disclosure rule for deep linking, and a baseline right to have links only to one's Home Page?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:23:03 PM david_s:On Enforsing Copyrights - My log analysis software tells me who looked at my sight and how long they looked at it. From that I could go back and visit their sites and see if they have included some of my material. It is cumbersome to do now but if I were paranoid I could do it. Also, It will not be long before I will be able to search the web for objects I created

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:23:05 PM robert_y:Isn't there a way for sites to prevent direct (non home page) links?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:23:40 PM cgabrielle_t:As a web content author, I want to be able to direct link to, say, a page on a movie, I don't want my readers to have to wade through the whole site to find it

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:24:14 PM robert_y:But as a web page ad seller, you want the people to wade as much as possible! :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:24:16 PM niels_j:Jack: To enforce copyrights of digital information, I think we would need to separate the concepts of "copy" and "use". Perhaps strong encryption which the user has to pay to use the "copy" ?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:24:24 PM Kent_P:Personal bookmarking is presumably a fair use of a deep link one wants to allow.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:24:30 PM cgabrielle_t:That's the problem, Robert :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:24:30 PM moderator_jack_l:Cgabrielle: How cumbersome would it be to get permission to do that? Maybe that's better than all the misappropriation that comes with deep linking?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:05 PM cgabrielle_t:I would find it acceptable to have to take a 'fair usage' agreement with other sites, a standard disclaimer

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:11 PM mark_r:There are other voices stating that whoever posts something on the Web agrees to free use of this material by other users as long as he does not prevent with technical means the use

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:35 PM cgabrielle_t:And within that, have exemptions for particular pages that they don't want deep linked to

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:39 PM moderator_jack_l:Kent: Good point (Fair use is a type of educational, etc. exception to copyright.)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:40 PM robert_y:Again though, isn;t there a way to enforce it? Isn't that what TicketMaster did?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:25:52 PM david_s:The notion of old-world solutions to new world problems applies to deep linking. It seems the reason people object to deep linking is that it reduces advertising base. Perhaps advertisers should place their ads on every page within the site, or have different rates for the possibility of deep linked ads.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:26:02 PM cgabrielle_t:So, say, if you have a news site, you could prohibit deep links to thlatest week's worth of stories

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:26:26 PM mark_r:David: Ticketmaster was framing, not linking. I will explain the difference in my next contribution

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:26:52 PM robert_y:I'm familiar with the difference. I thought the case had to do with non-home page linking

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:27:45 PM niels_j:Mark, Robert: Yes and Yes. Microsoft had a link to Ticketmaster which framed a Ticketmaster page.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:27:49 PM moderator_jack_l:Actually, we could have a similar regime for framing. Mandatory disclosure to the site for "framed links," and all Webmasters get the right to object to Framed links?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:28:19 PM cgabrielle_t:Yes, that seems like a very workable solution

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:28:52 PM mark_r:Legal significances linking / framing: To put it in simple words, you do not take anything and not copy anything when linking (most people asy so). However, when framing, you use contens another has created for your own page. That is quite a difference from a legal viewpoint.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:29:02 PM cgabrielle_t:The bookkeeping could get ugly, but I expect it'd only need to be enforced in aggressive cases

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:29:28 PM moderator_jack_l:Okay -- we're almost halfway through the seminar, and I want to change the subject. (writing...)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:30:02 PM moderator_jack_l:We have all seen the explosive growth of the Internet. Most of the students in this class know that it started out as a government-funded data-transfer system, and quickly became an open, public informational exchange system. Now the Internet has become commercialized to a significant degree and various legislative proposals are floating about ranging from the CDA to commercial taxation to modification of existing copyright law. (more to come...)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:31:08 PM moderator_jack_l:We have been discussing litigation around linking and framing, and their application to current intellectual property law. My question is: how would regulation hurt or help companies that invest in the Web? More importantly, where do the commercial interests conflict with the "Web culture" that has developed thus far, especially with respect to linking and framing?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:31:20 PM robert_y:Re: Not taking anything by linking, unfortunately one of the current income schemes for the net is by eyeballs-per-page, so by bypassing a specific page you are taking away that revenue...

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:32:28 PM mark_r:Robert: I agree. in a commercial sense you are right. But you do not take away or modify intellectual property.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:32:48 PM moderator_jack_l:Would the linking and framing regimes I (briefly) suggested above impinge on the "Net Culture" that has developed over the last few years?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:33:13 PM robert_y:True, but you may unitentionally misrepresent it's origin

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:33:42 PM robert_y:moderator: heck yes! :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:34:29 PM david_s:When the horseless carraige first started to be taken seriously many people assumed that roads for automobiles would naturally follow the railroads. Land speculation was rampant, regualtions were proposed, yet the automobile went different directions and left many old-world thinkers scratching their heads. I believe we are heading there again 100 year later.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:35:06 PM moderator_jack_l:Robert: You may be right: How? Companies would love the regime, but with a "fair use" exception for personal bookmarking and search engines, what's the problem?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:35:22 PM david_s:To try to make it fit into the old cookie cutter simply won't work. There will be rebellion.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:35:50 PM cgabrielle_t:Yes, but if everyone was going to "play nice" we wouldn't be confronting these issues now

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:36:05 PM moderator_jack_l:David: That's what this course is about. What would a new cookie cutter look like?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:36:12 PM moderator_jack_l:writing...

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:36:25 PM cgabrielle_t:The problem is really making sure that the laws keep up with the technology

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:36:59 PM robert_y:The problem is the freedom that exists today. Anyone can create their own "Elvis Worship" page by making a small original contribution but documenting (and maybe commenting on) all the links known to exist to other sites...

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:37:36 PM mark_r:Gabrielle: You are right. But the lawmakers mostly are slow, do not understand technology and are influenced too much by lobbying.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:37:46 PM david_s:Perhaps some lawlessness is in the offing. The great outlaw gangs thrived in the turmoil wreaked on society by the advent of the automobile. I do not believe we have progressed so much to head off such turmoil this time round.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:38:14 PM Kent_P:The problem is making laws that don't infringe new ideas and technology. Business doesn't care if technology progresses--it has an incentive for it not to. It just wants things stable for money-making. The medium is too young for regulation.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:38:24 PM cgabrielle_t:I've long felt that the only way that appropriate regulation of the net can be made is with a goning body that actually is involved with the tech

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:38:30 PM cgabrielle_t:governing, pardon

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:39:13 PM cgabrielle_t:Though that can run into the same "old-boy" problems we see often in other fields

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:39:43 PM mark_r:cgabrielle: as you will see next week, there are already some attempts for onlin-dispute resolution for lawsuits on web issues

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:39:51 PM moderator_jack_l:Does anyone agree with David? Is rebellion and lawlessness a foregone conclusion?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:40:35 PM cgabrielle_t:Unless the people who know the tech start talking profitably with those who don't, yes, there's some ugly schism coming

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:40:51 PM moderator_jack_l:Exactly. How can we try to chart what the interests and incentives are for the "Net Culture" and still make the Net safe for companies who will pay for fat bandwidths?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:41:14 PM niels_j:Mark: Then isn't it the responsibility of the netizens to educate the lawmakers

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:42:19 PM david_s:Perhaps the alternative would be openness and generosity.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:42:19 PM Kent_P:Big companies have an incentive to make money in whatever environment. The bias should be in favor of small companies and individuals, that they not be bowled over.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:42:24 PM cgabrielle_t:Lawmakers only listen to significant percentage of their constituents, and high tech people haven't gotten theirtugh for that yet

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:42:40 PM mark_r:Niels: It is their responsibility - but the netizens are not a homogenius group that is well equipped for lobbying

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:43:13 PM loseph_l:Niels: and the shape of netizenship is changing rapidly as more and more people get on the net

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:43:30 PM moderator_jack_l:One way to "bridge the gap," so to speak, may be to approach the problem topic-by-topic. So, back to linking and framing: where do the interests diverge?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:43:58 PM cgabrielle_t:Corporations have an interest in prohibiting link/frame from their sites, but in wanting to outlink without penalty

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:44:10 PM david_s:Fat Bandwidth - I save hundreds of dollars each year because I no longer take the paper in print. I have access to more information, better depth of info. they save money on ink, paper, transportation

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:44:31 PM Kent_P:I favor strong intellectual property control by the owner because that favors the little guy. When in doubt, the content creator should be the one to say how his/her creation is to be used. In that way, they have a stake in the game even against the big players.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:44:58 PM cgabrielle_t:Heck, maybe it's as simple as a new kind of meta tag

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:45:15 PM robert_y:Webheads want to link to everything, People who invest in content want to protect that investment.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:45:32 PM cgabrielle_t:Mark the page as to whether or not it's acceptable to access it from out of site

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:45:32 PM david_s:Kent - and if the creator objects to the way something of his is being used, pointed to or whatever, he has the right to prevent it.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:45:50 PM loseph_l:Kent: but is it clear whether the little guys will benefit more or the big guys? the big guys are more likely to use litigation as a club

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:46:29 PM cgabrielle_t:which is why we need a governing body made of techies, not lawyers/politicos :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:46:33 PM david_s:gabrielle - great idea, but some people may object to the disclaimer for aesthetic reasons.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:46:46 PM Kent_P:Ultimately, when I put up my own work, IP law still protects me. How can the big places use that as a club?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:46:54 PM cgabrielle_t:No, I mean embedded in the page source, like metas are

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:47:13 PM cgabrielle_t:big guys with lots of lawyers can find all the clubs they want :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:47:43 PM robert_y:gabrielle: But how would you enforce the tag?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:48:02 PM loseph_l:Kent: yes, but it may prevent you from linking to relevant content owned by a big corporation (e.g. Disney) and they are more likely to sue you than vice versa

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:48:12 PM cgabrielle_t:Have to get Netscape and IE to integrate a "bounce" when it encounters that tag coming from offsite

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:48:29 PM cgabrielle_t:or more flexibly, a list of accepted sites to link from

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:48:49 PM Kent_P:The law is ultimately all about intimidation. Nothing will change that. It's not special to this domain.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:48:58 PM cgabrielle_t:that would discourage rogue offlinking, they wouldn't want readers to see the bounce message

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:05 PM niels_j:Cgabrielle: Do you mean a web-style firewall ?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:19 PM cgabrielle_t:More or less, but part of the actual page

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:22 PM david_s:she's right. Get the techies to develop the ability to bounce unwanted links or frames.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:24 PM loseph_l:Kent: i certainly agree with that.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:36 PM cgabrielle_t:Obviously there would be ways to get around it, if you were a jerk, but it'd give a lot of basic protection

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:38 PM robert_y:But what I asked earlier: Can't you do that now? For example if every page was examined by the server before releasing it, couldn't the server enforce the restriction?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:49:50 PM Kent_P:As to framing/linking, the only real problem that comes up is heavy investment by one is undermined if someone else just uses the info too fast. Wasn't there a case in newspapers around 1916 about this very issue and isn't it solved by case law in conventional IP law (not special to the internet)?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:50:31 PM cgabrielle_t:This is a lower-tech, more accessible way to do that

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:50:51 PM cgabrielle_t:Wouldn't require interference from the sysadmins, put it in the hands of the authors direct

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:51:02 PM moderator_jack_l:Regarding government-by-techie. That's a lot of what administrative law is all about -- deferring to expertise. But should it be up to the techies to decide what role the Internet will have?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:51:03 PM loseph_l:Kent: yes, INS v. AP. INS (or AP, i forget which) took newsfeeds from the other, and used the info. in their own news stories

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:51:30 PM cgabrielle_t:Not exclusively, definitely not, but they need a much more major voice

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:51:35 PM Kent_P:Fscts are not normally copyrightable, but there was something about a potential "catastrophic failure of the industry" if one newspaper just copied another's stories with no protection. And so the law stepped in. But ordinarily, facts are not copyrightable. By analogy, the right to link will probably be resolved by case law. Mostly it will be allowed, except where it causes a likely castastrophic failure of some kind of investment.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:51:39 PM robert_y:But in many cases, author=sysadmin, or at least for the same company/business interest...

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:52:31 PM david_s:How long between INS discovered they were being infringed and action concluded? would that be an eternity under current circumstances

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:52:35 PM cgabrielle_t:That's changing a lot as more places offer free web space -- I know at least 20 already

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:52:39 PM loseph_l:Kent: yes, the doctrine was "misappropriation," not copyright. this seems the most fertile possibility for a suit (b/c the law is so incredibly fuzzy)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:53:27 PM loseph_l:David: i don't know, but your point is well taken.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:54:30 PM Kent_P:Ah, ok. But my real question is--for a complex issue where two interests are at stake, doesn't the case law system tend to balance such thigns well by waiting for actual situations and then analyzing them in detail? In this case, using existing IP law--not even something new would probably work.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:55:41 PM moderator_jack_l:One great thing about cyberspace is that technology can solve a lot of problems without the costly judicial system getting involved. The problem I see is, as technology gets more and more sophisticated and complex, the richer commercial interests may become able to manufacture far greater protection for themselves.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:55:42 PM david_s:How bad would it be for the law to say that greed was less acceptable than openness and generosity>

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:56:03 PM loseph_l:Kent: there are certain benefits to case-by-case adjudication. as you suggest, it is incremental, less subject to interest group pressure. at the same time, though, it moves without much direction and can be very inefficient. choice of evils.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:56:42 PM cgabrielle_t:and still doesn't protect the little guy much, who is the most vulnerable on the net

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:56:46 PM moderator_jack_l:Okay, I'm about to wrap up the seminar, but of course the chat room will stay open, and I'll probably stick around for a while. (...)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:57:17 PM robert_y:gabreielle: true, I just wanted to show that it might be possible to enforce TODAY. I assume someone could come up with a way to make it easy and user-administratable... :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:57:35 PM moderator_jack_l:What did you all think of tonight's seminar? Was it helpful? Were the issues elucidated for you at all?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:58:24 PM robert_y:I had some crashes causing me to get bounced out of the seminar for a while. Will there be transcripts available

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:58:27 PM cgabrielle_t:It was definitely interesting, and got me thinking in some different directions

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:58:41 PM david_s:I'm not sure the issues are open to elucidation yet.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:59:03 PM Kent_P:Interesting, but enormously painful interfacewise.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 09:59:43 PM loseph_l:yes, this chat interface can be a bit frustrating.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:00:23 PM Kent_P:I think a problem is that there is much ongoing discussion but it's not winding up in a centralized place for the nation to read and consider.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:00:33 PM niels_j:Joe: Yes, I have the same feeling about the chat room

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:00:38 PM moderator_jack_l:We are probably stuck with it for the course, but soon we will have a Chat FAQ that may help.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:00:46 PM robert_y:Actually, the software seems so slow it allows threads of conversations to be a lot easier than I've seen with other chat techniques! :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:01:25 PM david_s:robert - I agree. At least the text doesn't fly by before you can read it.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:01:31 PM robert_y:3

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:01:40 PM robert_y:Oops.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:01:40 PM Kent_P:The ichat interface used in the Privacy course (from a different vendor) was much more flexible, allowing people with only telnet to join in.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:02:38 PM loseph_l:Kent: we consciously decided to use another vendor as an experiment. any thoughts you have on comparisons would be great, especially at the end of the course.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:02:52 PM robert_y:I particularly disliked being booted off just for listening... (i.e., inactive)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:03:17 PM niels_j:I would prefer the user name and their text to appear in columns. At the moment following the beginning of each line is disorientating

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:04:22 PM cgabrielle_t:I just wish everything ddn't have to go through web browsers

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:04:33 PM Kent_P:Robert, booting for inactivity happened to me, too. Bad for a class trying to listen. Yuck.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:04:37 PM cgabrielle_t:My telnet client is a lot more stable and uses about 5% of the resources

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:05:36 PM loseph_l:Robert: I got booted too. You might be able to keep from getting booted by clicking on various items sporadically. (e.g. on the "rooms" tab, etc.)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:05:45 PM cgabrielle_t:Oh well, it'll all be obsolete in five years anyway :)

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:06:01 PM moderator_jack_l:Ouch! I didn't know the software did that. We may be able to fix that for future seminars.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:06:09 PM Kent_P:So when is the plenary discussion? Or have I missed it?

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:06:30 PM loseph_l:Kent: still being scheduled. possibly Friday or Monday.

Wed Apr 01, 1998 10:07:30 PM moderator_jack_l:Thanks for the input everyone, and thanks for participating! Tomorrow's seminar will be held at 10:00 am Eastern Standard Time. See you next week!