Actually the idea of the Internet is internetworking (hence the name), the
*transfer* of information, and most transport is now commercial. "Sharing" has nothing to do with it.
DNS actually works by accessing authorized DNS servers. The "upstream provider" isn't involved. The.DNS server you query obtains the information first from root servers (on which DNS is based) and then from the authoritative servers for the given domain. Again, sharing has nothing to do with it.
Has nothing to do with either the Internet or copyright.
The amount of traffic won't be considered abusive nowadays - if you pay per used bandwidth, your ISP will be quite happy about you. If you pay a flat fee, it's your right to use the full bandwidth of your connection.
Plus, you'll have a hard time getting the court to believe "Oh, I kept my WLAN open for my neighbours, it must have been one of them". "In dubio pro reo" is a nice concept, but I wouldn't count on it if the jury has just been shown that a load of kiddieporn was downloaded via your connection...
Indeed, and depending on where you live this would instantly mean that you're legally treated like an ISP. Including all kinds of requirements to keep logfiles, provide wiretap access for the police, etc...
Forgive me for not going into detail about securing one's network. Of course, with security measures the risk of someone snooping around on your network or on your individual PC will be greatly reduced. Still, there are users out there whose systems are wide open to attacks / snooping and many of them are just learning about wireless networking. For example: John Doe purchases a brand new laptop with built in wireless networking and takes it home. He has yet to purchase a wireless router or a dedicated access point, but is dying to surf the internet wirelessly with his new notebook pc. Lo and behold, his wireless client picks up a signal from a neighbor's unsecured wireless network and connects to it automatically. John Doe surfs the internet wirelessly at his neighbor's expense. But wait, his neighbor is evil. He has used the unsecured AP to attract unsuspecting wireless users like John Doe. He knows that many users have file and print sharing enabled by default and that their shares are not secured........... Anyway, my answer stands at yes. Unless, of course, the proper security measures have been taken.
then do (in the new window) File -> Properties -> Details -> Message Source...
now you will see (in the Newsgroups: line) that your article *was* crossposted (by *you*) to all the mentioned groups. (And please no excuse "Thus I did not post there - it propagated there." because that is impossible. One can not crosspost, i.e. post to multiple groups at the same time, after the fact. One can only do that at the original posting time, i.e. when *you* posted your article.)
[Partial repeat:]
You did *not* take the "address" (Newsgroup name) out of your "address bar" (OE "Newsgroups:" line). Perhaps you *wanted* to but you *didn't* (see above proof).
You seem to think that because you (say/think) your server does not carry the alt.* and comp.* groups that you did/could not post to them. That is incorrect. The groups were in your "Newsgroups:" line, so the article will be visible in those groups on any server which carries them. So it does not matter if *your* server does not carry them, if there is one or more other server which carries them (and there are actually thousands), it will be visible in those groups on those servers, because *you* told so (whether you realize(d) or want(ed) it nor not).
So in future *do* remove any unwanted Newsgroups: from the OE "Newsgroups:" list if you do not want your article to appear in those groups.
But, as I said before, even if you only post to microsoft.* groups, you claim [1] is meaningless, because *Microsoft* propagates the microsoft.* groups to other News servers outside the Microsoft domain(s). The concept is called a "feed", i.e. *Microsoft* feeds/sends the groups to non-Microsoft News servers.
That depends on what country you live in. In Germany, for example, you might be covered by the same law that covers ISPs simply because you provide a telecommunications service - however, you won't be forced to install the wiretap gear because you don't have enough customers :-)
Actually, in a switched network, anyone with a sniffer will find it pretty hard to monitor activity on a wired network.
People give up far more privacy in day to day activities like discarding envelopes and other such paperwork than is likely to be gleaned by a casual sniffer on a WLAN.
Usenet is not "speaking" It is a print medium. Whether it is a permanant medium or not may be a bit open to debate, but Google saving means it is at least a permanant as books.
The content of the article is such that you would have copyright if you had put it into a letter. Now, If you posted a poster onto telephone poles around the city, I believe that the communication, although public, would still enjoy copyright.
No, just a poster or an advertiser, putting their message on a telephone pole or an advertising billboard, are releasing the statement to the public, they are not releasing it to the public domain. Is that what usenet is like?
He is trying to control use under the guise of copyright law. I agree with you that hte courts would likely dismiss his case, but...
Being human? What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
Under what law are you granting permission? Once you have placed it in th epublic domain you have granted all the permission anyone needs. And that is permission to copy. Do I have to get permission from you to breathe the air you may have breathed?
Dream on. I pay a flat fee, and I'm entitled to download as fast as the connection can handle. But once I hit 150MB, I'm subject to FAP (I think it's "Fair Access Policy") and they'll throttle me - and the terms of the FAP are (a) mostly secret, (b) arbitrary and (c) changeable at the ISP's whim. I'd go somewhere else if there was _any_ other option.
I was that "one person". Remember I was the one that *started* this subthread (with this ne Subject:).
To keep it short: As I said, *Microsoft**does propagate the microsoft.* groups outside the Micosoft domain. The proof is in de headers ("Path:") which I showed you. And, as I said, you did *not* remove the "alternate addresses" (other (than microsoft.*) Newsgroup names). The proof is again in the headers. This time also in the headers which *you* can see with *your* newsreader (OE) by using the method which I *showed* you.
Exactly: *You* responded to a crossposted article, so *you* crossposted to the groups in the Newsgroups: line, which, as shown and
*proven* to *you*, included the alt.* and comp.* Usenet groups.
Face it: You don't know how News/Usenet works, and more or less admit it. So why won't you accept *facts* given by people who are much more knowledgeable in this field?
So please remove your claim [1] from your signature, because it only makes you look very silly and it does not accomplisch anything.
In news:437df90c$0$89138$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
*yawns* Well, this is just too early in my day for this sort of stuff but...
I'd show you a screen shot of my sent message process but, well, that could just be faked and wouldn't prove anything. Propagation to alternative newsgroup servers relates exactly how to my signature? I suppose, if you wanted to relate it, then maybe someone could be taking the alt.* groups and posting those to the web automatically and had asked the admins of the group for permission to do so (I'd like an example of this though) though that's really stretching the point of the signature. I have provided specific references to at least a couple of sites - one of which I pointed to and said that they were at least acknowledging the posts came from within this newsgroup - and the other which made silly claims of copyright on mine (and other people's) work. If you are reading this in a browser and that browser is pointed to a domain now owned by Microsoft then it's being used without permission. A method to access the information via newsreader is given via the link so that the end-user can get their information without the need to remit a real username, password, email, or support a site by showing their ads.
That being said, I appreciate your opinion and your decision to voice it. You are certainly free to do so. As for removal of the alt.* groups - I truly and freely admit I have no idea why or how it propagates - the removal of the additional is something I do, have always done, and is being done because the majority of the alt.* groups lack value to me. If you took a few minutes of your time to review some of my posts you'd see that I have been wrong in the past and when I am I will freely admit to it. The how or why is a step beyond (even several perhaps) the knowledge that I have. I can and will certainly admit that my assumption that removing the addresses from the "newsgroups:" field would prevent the propagation to the other newsgroups is (obviously) incorrect. What that has to do with my signature is pretty much beyond me.
Your signature implies that you don't expect your messages to be on non-Microsoft servers without permission. But Microsoft *does* send the microsoft.public.* newsgroups outside of Microsoft, via the normal Usenet news propagation mechanism.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by qualifying it with "in a browser", though. Are you saying that it's OK to be reading your message in a newsreader, but not in a web browser? Is there some special provision that prohibits web interfaces to Usenet, like the extremely popular Google Groups?
Except for moderated newsgroups, there are no "admins of the group" in Usenet. And the groups are not being "posted to the web". The web servers are merely providing access to them, analogously to the way NNTP servers do for newsreaders. It's just an alternate way to get at the same messages, and doesn't require any special permission.
No it is not. You posted it to a group that is propagated around the world. It is like you putting up a billboard on Times square and putting a note saying that if you are not a resident of Brooklyn, you do not have permission to read the billboard. It is ludicrous.
"I did not think that anyone not from Brooklyn would read the sign."
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.