Okay, so forums using gateways as portal clients to Usenet isn't the problem. Do you have an actual example of a forum that is doing what you claim they are? I'd be interested in seeing how they are purloining Usenet content and claiming it as their own work rather than declaring it public information. Not everything you release into a public domain can be copyrighted. I've yet to read about lawsuits where the defendant can successfully claim that their communications which they knowingly released into the public domain and without copyright notification (which may not even apply to public speaking) can be copyrighted. There's a big difference between what YOU think you can copyright and what the courts will acknowledge. If you cannot sue regarding copyright infringement, you look damn silly trying to claim a copyright that you really don't have.
Since you release your statements into a public domain, and especially since you released it to a venue under which YOU have no control over how those statements are divulged or distributed, anyone can copy them. Anyone with a newsreader or using a webmail interface, like Microsoft's CDO or a forum, is copying your posts. However, they should not be claiming your words as their work, so I'd like to see an example of what you are claiming.
"Doug Jamal" wrote in news:dqQef.3302$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
[snip]
That's what we commonly call "FUD".
It doesn't take much to secure a computer against this, and if you haven't then it doesn't really matter much whether you're using someone else's connection or not - pretty much anyone would be able to do this anyway.
Of course, if you setup your system correctly, taking fairly simple steps to secure your system, the correct answer is *NO*, they _can't_ snoop on your HDD.
John Navas wrote in news:QUQef.113646$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Ah, nope - in fact, if they're behind NAT then they're actually *less* likely to get attacked! :)
Installing protective measures (e.g. firewall) are fairly basic steps that should be taken *regardless* of whether they're sharing someone else's connection or not.
These steps should reduce/eliminate the risk of being "hacked".
*Potentially* yes, though if both the original poster, and the person that owns the connection are light users, this is unlikely to be a problem.
If they're both downloading several DVDs per day of course - this may raise some attention due to bandwith sucking!
Debatable - but I'd agree that it would be a pain, even thought it
*would* be up to a prosecution to prove their case.
That would certainly remove any ambiguity, though I suspect most people in this situation would be better off treating it as if they were lending their neighbour a chainsaw - if you accidently amputate your arms, don't come whining to me...
Of course, if you live in a litigious country like the US, make sure your lawyers are on standby... ;)
Not if the same basic steps are taken to prevent it (i.e. treat the shared connection as untrusted).
You have posted to alt.internet.wireless. This is not a Microsoft forum, server, or anything Microsoft. This is a Usenet newsgroup, on which postings are propogated by numerous servers. Since copying is inherent in usenet postings, you have defacto surrendered your ownership of your own posting; it is in the public domain.
You are posting from Gmail and you should review the TOS for using Gmail. It is entirely likely that you have no copyright available, having given it up to Gmail for their archiving puposes.
Permission for what. The only law under which you could possibly be talking about permission is copyright and copyright, as its name implies, only covers copying.
Taken? from where? And this is usenet. It had nothing to do with "sites". What "actual source"?
You posted to usenet of your own free will. At that point you gave permission.
This is usenet. This has nothing to do with sites.
Fine. You have just given up any legal basis for restricting anything.
And you are free to continue to live in ignorance, even if it is highly verbose ignorance.
Not so. The average Internet user does not have access to your transmissions. When you're using somebody else's Wireless, they are in the position of being your ISP, and have access to all the traffic you place on the link. That gives them a significantly higher _possibility_ of hacking your computers (especially if you ever let cleartext passwords across the link _and_ don't have unique passwords for all accounts).
It's a violation of many ISP's Terms of Use, but I agree it's practically impossible for them to do anything about it unless the terms actually restrict you to having no more than ONE machine connected at any time (they can tell from the embedded MAC addresses how many machines are using the link).
Legally, you _might_ be. Certainly if you make no attempt to prevent illegal use, you're at risk.
Hardly silly. Many people consider their router (especially if it claims to have a firewall) to be their protection from the Internet. If you're on the wireless side of their router, you're already inside their firewall.
Wrong. Copyright covers "use" all the time. That's why there even exists a "Fair Use" clause in copyright law. It's illegal for a store to play CDs to its customers without paying license fees (enforced & upheld in Canada). It is, otoh, _legal_ for me to make CD copies of vinyl albums for my own use (in Canada - certainly NOT in the US), so sometimes copyright even permits copying.
When I write something, even a usenet post, copyright inherently resides with me. I _do_ have the right to specify how it may be used. I just have no way to prevent its propagation across the Internet.
Are you guys missing the fact that Usenet is PUBLIC and has nothing to do with the Microsoft server?
I can post here on my Usenet server, replicate it around the world, all without Microsoft Usenet server being involved - in fact, if MS were to close their Usenet server the world would still have all of the MS groups on their own Usenet servers.
Usenet, by definition, is OPEN, anything you post here is free game for anyone.
Exactly! "Galen" seems to be unaware that the non-microsoft.* groups have *nothing* to do with Microsoft. By cross-posting to non-microsoft.* groups he gives up the right to make the claim he makes [1].
*And*, as you say, *Microsoft**freely* propagates the microsoft.* groups to the rest of the world, so even if he only posts to microsoft.* groups, his claim is invalid.
Apparently "Galen" is unaware of what News/Usenet is and how microsoft.* groups are propagated outside the Microsoft domain.
Bottom line: Remove the claim from your sig because, in News, it is
*always* invalid (unless you are posting to groups which are purely Microsoft-internal, i.e. not accessible to the general public).
[1]
[Most deleted. See my response to Barry's response.]
Addressing only your major misconception:
Yes, "this" *is* Usenet. What *you* are using, may not be Usenet in
*your* (incorrect) view, but I am reading this in the comp.security.misc
*Usenet* Newsgroup to which *you* crossposted (by responding to a crossposted article). And yes, besides comp.*, your article was also crossposted to the alt.* groups. So I'm afraid your view and reality do not match at all!
BTW, the "Path:" for my copy of your article was (read from end to beginning):
In news:d-SdnX79vIkDEOHenZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com, Quaoar had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
No, that wasn't in my newsgroup list when I posted. Thus I did not post there - it propagated there. 'Snot my fault you got it, I took the address out of my address bar though it wouldn't work anyhow (it's propagated by your ISP I *think??? I don't really know actually how it gets to the other groups but the address isn't in my list when I hit the send button because it would only throw errors back at me saying the group could not be found and then at the end it'd ask if I'd like to send to just the ones listed in the newserver that I'm subscribed to.)
No, I am not posting from Gmail. I am using Outlook Express. The Gmail is the reply to address so that I needn't use a munged address and can actually get replies via mail if needed. I'm posting TO the msnews.microsoft.com server and I am posting FROM home using Outlook Express and my ISP's connection.
No, I didn't make any claim of copyright - only stated that the posts were being used without permission and gave the end-user a choice to use the newsgroups if they wanted. The claim is not me making any claim of copyright in any particular sense but rather the site(s) in question (there's actually quite a few of them) that make claim of copyright of the works that we contribute and the right of the end user to know the source and how to access the groups without submission of username, password, real email address, etc....
Whenever you use wireless on an unknown network, you should be using VPN, and be certain that your system's firewall is turned on. This applies whether it's a friendly neighbor, a paid hot spot, or a business that provides free access.
Unfortunately you'll have to pay for VPN access, as Google's free VPN service is now limited to Google Hot Spots, but you can find VPN service for as little as $40 per year if your ISP doesn't include it for free,
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of. ...
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
The actual point is that *you* are more vulnerable to them (and vice versa) because you're both behind the same NAT.
Indeed, but that would be *your* firewall, and given the likely use of a Wi-Fi adapter, it would have to be software firewall on your own computer, which must be configured properly to be effective (and even then is less effective than a separate hardware firewall).
Another risk is from pirating; e.g., you downloading copyrighted music or video, and enforcement by the RIAA or MPAA.
The cost of legal defense is prohibitive -- you might well be forced to settle for thousands of dollars.
It is nonetheless "easier" (much easier) when you're both behind the same NAT (and/or firewall).
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of. ...
Usenet material *isn't* automatically "public" information -- much of it is copyrighted -- only permission to copy on Usenet has been granted.
"Public domain" and "copyright" are mutually exclusive -- it's either one or the other -- and Usenet *isn't* automatically public domain.
That's not a valid argument -- see my other response to those thread on Usenet copyright. Usenet isn't automatically "public domain" any more than a radio or TV broadcast is automatically public domain.
In news:%23b% snipped-for-privacy@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl, Vanguard had this to say:
My reply is in the middle somewhere:
Since I release... What??? Surely you jest... If I write an application and distribute it into public domain I'm still free to place restrictions on use, decompiling, etc... It's not really about my claim to copyright (to me at any rate) it's about being human. More on that in a moment but, again, it's about permission and the end-user's right to know. My paltry sum total of contribution is neglegable and if asked I'd happily grant permission.
formatting link
Anyhow, follow the link above. Then read their "Terms of Use" page (there's a link at the bottom of the page). They don't even go so far as to point out the source of the information.
Here's a nice one:
formatting link
That's you? Now - read their page - and this is kinda sorta funny... Well it is to me at any rate... First they grant a limited license to use the work - fair use and all that stuff...
"WindowsKB.com grants you a limited license to access and use the Website via Web browsers only."
And while that's funny the true humor is in that they then turn around and claim they don't own anything?
"WindowsKB.com does not claim ownership of the Content you place on the Website and shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such Content." Except, well, I didn't place the content there. Yeah, that whole permission stuff? That's needed - just because I put it on the 'net doesn't mean that it's free to use in any way they want. Can we copy and distribute televisions shows? Why not? They were put on the airwaves free, they were meant for public consumption, no? Because they're protected works - just as anything original you make or anything that you make a substantial change to is protected by default. The same applies for music, artistic work, etc...
Ah well... Just ironic really and not fair to the end user. It's not fair to you - even if you don't mind - and it's certainly nothing more than piracy albeit in a rather minimal form in my opinion.
Here's a good example of a site that I don't mind doing it:
formatting link
You should like that one - it's this thread. I don't really mind that one site for example - they don't go so far as to make claims restricting the content for instance and they tend to grab only a couple of the groups. I suppose I'm impressed more because they clearly identify it as the newsgroups. The first link you'll see makes no mention of it and goes so far as to put a false copyright on the page. I suppose they could be a little bit more clear on the source of the content but as far as I'm concerned the acknowledgement that it's from the Microsoft Public Newsgroups is close enough.
Would this hold up in a copyright case in court? Actually it probably would. Is this about my making a copyright claim? Nope. It's about them restricting the use of what I did, of what you did, and about deception. I don't care about MY copyright - I care about someone claiming the ability to restrict the use of the work that I created. I care about the end user thinking that in order to access the answers given here they must sign up for something, pay the provider of the service, and relinquish information such as a username, password, and real email address. The end-user has the right to know, if they're reading this in a browser and it's not on a domain owned by Microsoft that they're using this post without permission and that if they want they're free to access the newsgroups with their newsreader client of choice without needing to do such things. They have a right to know, say one of us was rude to them, that the site owner wasn't responsible for the poor behavior. In reverse they have the right to know that the source of help that they got was not the work of the site.
One person - I'm only going to have time to respond to this one before I have to head out I think - made a claim further down (or was it up) that Microsoft was propagating this to the alt.* groups. No, that's their ISP doing that I'm pretty sure? I'm not really sure how that all works but I do know that the posting of information to a public forum doesn't grant any license to use it beyond fair use. Fair use surely isn't disemination in it's entirety. Removing the alternate addresses in the field is long since already done. I only post to the Microsoft groups because, well, because it's easier. I don't use the ISP provided service so they'd just flash errors and I'd have to click more so on my way through I automatically delete them and any non-English speaking groups because I wouldn't be able to answer in another language well enough to warrant further discussions in those groups. (I have a hard enough time with just this language.) The posting of the content (from me at least) to other newsgroups via NNTP is assumed, cross-posting is part of the nature of the beast. How that ties in with someone automatically taking the posts, publishing them to their site, requiring the end-user sign up and be subjected to ads for help, deceiving the user into thinking the site (or their visitors) are the people who submit content, and then placing restrictions on the use of the content (that they don't own, didn't create, nor have modified in any way to enable them to claim derivative work beyond copyright) is beyond me... If you want to draw a line between that and NNTP then it's going to be pretty fuzzy unless you explain that better. (Sorry to include that here but I am lacking on time right at the moment.)
The honoring of X-No-Archive notwithstanding, Google and other websites that make money (e.g., on ads) from showing Usenet articles would seem to be on shaky legal ground (much like Google's project to scan and display books). Implicit authorization to broadcast material over Usenet doesn't automatically extend to commercial reuse of that material, any more than broadcasting of audio/video extends to commercial use of that audio/video.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.