Please see Barry Margolin's recent response . Just double-click on the "news:" URL and OE will open Barry's response in a seperate window. Barry has worded things very well, much better than I could. *Read* it, read it *carefully* and try to understand it.
And for > In news:437df90c$0$89138$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl,
Just one other attempt to address the main issue from a slightly different angle:
Galen wrote: [much deleted]
Just execute this URL:
That will show your article, i.e. the one I am responding to.
Now pretend that you are someone outside Microsoft's domain(s) (or ask someone who really *is* to execute the URL).
- Do you agree that "you are reading this [your article] in a browser"?
and
- Do you agree that "that browser is pointed to a domain now owned by Microsoft"?
If so, then why do you think "it's being used without permission"?
If you do not agree, then why the heck not?
Note that the Google Groups () example is just that, an *example*. There are lots of other sites which offer browser access to Newsgroups (Usenet and otherwise). Like Google Groups, they do not need your permission to offer such services.
When responding, please be precise and (somewhat) less long-winded and respond in an interleaved way, i.e. quote-response, quote-response, etc., instead of in your usual bottom-posting way.
In news:437f43c2$0$88568$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:
My reply is interspersed just for you:
I'm sorry but I have been busy today else I'd take more time but you asked for brief as well. So, well, just think... You get interspersed AND brief all in one go.
No, I said "not owned by Microsoft." I'll take it that was a typo.
Because it is? Did I at any point say "Hey, you can republish what I wrote. You can use my work and make money from it?" Contrary to what you seem to think - (a good search on copyright and I soooo didn't want this to turn into that) would likely reveal that if I had time, interest, and financial backing I could make such silly claims. (again) I do not make a single claim of copyright - simply one of permission.
Sure, I could use the no-archive tag and it would be removed. Why should I have to? Did I at any point express permission? Did I ever say to anyone at Google, "Okay, go ahead and copy what I wrote and publish it?" If I did (and I might have - but I'm pretty sure I didn't.)
Why you keep winding this up around copyright (consider now that Google, Microsoft, and I are all headquartered and located in the United States and subject to those laws) which would actually support my "copyright claim" (that I'm not really at all making and have made sure to say this time and time again) is beyond me. What do you not understand? Does Google have a right to copy all of my post and post it? I'm pretty sure that my posting to a newsgroup does not, by default, confer those rights. They do leave an alternative - I can use the no-archive tag in my header. What? Err.. That would mean I'd have to do something to stop them from stealing (yes it's stealing - taking without permission is just that) my posts. They are, simply, taking without permission, I'd give it if asked. It's not at all about me and that's where you seem to be hung up.
It's about getting information (again) to the user. Do you have some sort of issue with the end-user knowing how to access the Microsoft newsgroups? Did you not read the response(s) about the myths people seem to believe about copyright? Sad but yes - I could claim such things and yet I'm not. Instead my goal is to convey information. Yet, in this area, you seem inclined to censor that information. Have you ever made a website? How would you feel if someone copied the whole thing, rebranded it, and then either gave it away or made money from it? Me? I'd be flattered! I'd ask that they a) tell me how they did it and b) have asked ahead of time. Are those so unreasonable? Is this concept of something NOT being free beyond the scope of what you think the internet is made of? I truly DO want to know now. At first I thought you some sort of meaningless troll (sorry but that was my first impression) but now I see you're zealous and not at all just making silly remarks but rather are making statements on your beliefs. For what ever record you're keeping, I accept that. (I still have one more message to get out so I really MUST shortent this.) Your post is there - did Google ask you if it was okay if they included it on their site, made money from it, and rebranded it? No? Then it's WITHOUT permission unless you, for whatever reason, have opted to arbitrarily allow the copying of your work. And that's fine too, but what if I didn't? (Again) I do... I just think it fair to know the source of the information and as such opted to put that in my signature. This is so infuriating why? You've now spent how much time on this? I'm not above name calling but in this particular instance all you had to do is wait and I cycle out old signatures fairly regularly unless, for one reason or another, they're important in which case they stay for a while longer but it almost always reverts to a Sherlock Holmes quote.
Anyhow, just out of curiousity I'm going to leave the additional groups in this send. I'll look at the headers and see if maybe I can figure out how it made it there though I accept newsgroups crossposting because, well, that'd be HOW you access the drivel that I had to say in the first place??? Not through some site requiring registration, not for paying for ad impressions, but by a client of your choice in a fairly free system of information sharing. Taking it FROM the newsgroup and posting it in an ALTERNATE form is beyond what permissions were expressly given (and yes, I think I'd be an absolute idiot to say that they couldn't be crossposted by me or in response to me to another newsgroup) and as such my statements stand true. What part of the signature do you NOT like? Heck, wait a week, it will change surely.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Barry Margolin had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
I'll be short in this as I'm lacking on time - I'm sorry because this likely deserves more of a response. You and David Candy made excellent points. (I simply haven't had time.) Yes a work published to "public domain" is not something I can retain much control over and still claim is public domain. My vocabular is off more than anything though my point remains the same.
My signature implies just as it says. A browser. Not a newsreader. A browser. If a browser had NNTP capability (that'd be pretty neat) then the domain for where I posted would begin with news:// and not http://...
I accept, and know, that crossposting exists on newsgroups. It's a part of the beast and I actually like it. Otherwise I'd not have learned that there aren't any admins for the alt.*-type (new Galenism so I hope that makes sense) newsgroups. Thank you for that. This whole time I'd been under the impression that in order to get a group started you requested it in the right section, you then justified it, and then administrators saw to it?
I am saying that if the reader is reading the post here in a browser and the domain is not owned by Microsoft... (It's writen right down there.) Is there some provision that prevents Google Groups? Well there's the copyright but unless you're a lawyer who's willing to explain all of it in detail to me then please don't bother because it's not one bit about copyright. Not even a wee bit about it. It's about permission. When I send a message to NTTP I have expressly granted permission for the server that it was sent to to publish that content to it's servers to be read and retrieved. (And this is STILL not what it's about...) When I send a message that crossposts to one of the other newsgroup servers (via whatever method - I'm truly lost on how they go there in the first place - and just to see if there's a difference I'm going to delete the alternate groups in this one again unlike the last one because now I'm curious) I accept that I have then given that server permission to post it. I have not said that that server can then propagate it to a site. I have not said that someone can rebrand it, charge for it in either information or ad showings, or the likes. (There's a decent bit of information out there that shows that I do have this right I suppose but, again, this is not really at all about copyright.) So, even if it's crossposted to another group and that specific group non-admin or general consensus says that they want to publish it to the web - I have not been asked permission. That is a pretty simple fact? I have not at all said that someone can take the information I have given and repackage it and send it with ads (etc) out via HTTP. I have not and if asked I probably would say, "Heck yeah! Great idea, thanks for asking." I simply haven't said that and assumption or not - the sites do not have permission. Can you take a CD of your favorite artist and repackage it in MP3 format and sell it with your name on it legally? No? What's the difference between that and Google Groups? They don't sell it "directly" but rather make money on either an information exchange (you give them a password and username for instance) or via ad impressions.
Am I missing something or is this just not being understood? I'm at a loss on this one. I know - specifically - that my statement is true. I (for one and I doubt you expressed permission either) did not say they can do this.
The real reason - and this has been typed out far too many times to be productive - is to be able to share the method of accessing the newsgroups without need of rebranding, ads, etc... The user has a right to know this. They have the right to know that the site that they may be seeing this on (assuming it's not the one from Microsoft) is showing them my content without permission. If for no other reason than it's so that they can come blame me if I mess up or so that they don't blame me if the site messes up. But really, it's about sharing the method of accessing (this is getting dull to type) the newsgroups via a newsreader without need to remit personal information, pay for the site via being shown ads, or potentially much worse.
I'm sorry to be so short because, well, the ideas presented made me think. Thank you for that and for letting me know that the usenet hasn't any administrators other than in moderated groups.
Of course it's about copyright! Why do you think you have the right to give permission?? Because you own something, Right? You said so yourself:
"My Content" In other words, the thing that you created that is unique. If I am viewing words, typed by you, on my computer, what part do you own?? The screen? I'm pretty sure I paid for that, as well as the hard drive, the cpu, the ram, and every thing else that I am looking at, except the creative work that is displayed.
Before the advent of the printing press, there was no such thing as copyright. The legal concept had not been invented. But once you did not have to hire a scribe to copy a text, authors were unable to sell more than one copy of a book. A industrious printer would typeset the words, and print it. The printer would defend themselves saying: "I bought the ink, and the paper, and I paid the laborers to put this thing together, the law does not recognize any "property" other than the tangible things that can be held in hand. In other words there was no such thing as "content" that could be owned.
Fair minded people (and original publishers who wanted to make a buck, er... shilling) recognized that a book is more than paper with ink smeared on it. The value is the intangible something. In order to protect that "something" an new species of law was created called "copyright." It is the law of copyright that makes the "content" that you create into a protect able property interest.
"Copyright", by the way, is not just about making copies. It also covers restrictions on the use that can be made of copies. For example, rights to control exhibition, derivative works and republication are probably of interest to you.
All of this is a long way of saying that, regardless of whether you can assert the control you are attempting, you are certainly talking about copyright and the law of copyright. There is no other area of law that would apply once you first put your words out into the public realm.
Nonsense. Without "copyright" you do not own the content. In fact, without copyright, there is no "content" that anyone *can* own for the purpose of giving permission, denying permission, or for any other purpose.
I assume that you don't want to talk about copyright because you know that the law will be against you on this score?
JH
In article , Galen wrote: :My signature implies just as it says. A browser. Not a newsreader. A :browser. If a browser had NNTP capability (that'd be pretty neat) then the :domain for where I posted would begin with news:// and not http://...
:I am saying that if the reader is reading the post here in a browser and the :domain is not owned by Microsoft... (It's writen right down there.)
Huh?? It's okay for me to use my text-only newsreader to pull your message from a Usenet newsgroup server provided by my ISP, but if I fire up a GUI and point it at *exactly* the same Usenet server, then suddenly it isn't okay for me to read the message??
:If a browser had NNTP capability (that'd be pretty neat) then the :domain for where I posted would begin with news:// and not http://...
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Netscape series of browsers, and in particular with "Netscape Messenger" ? Edit -> Preferences -> Mail & Newsgroups ->
Newsgroups Servers -> Add and fill in the server name. After that, the newsgroups appear just like a mail folder, with no visible reference to news:// or http:// or whatever. But it's still definitely the Netscape browser. I could send you screenshots in private email if you need them.
The only basis in this case under which you could claim that permission is relevant at all is under copyright law. You might claim that I need permission from you to blow my nose. But there is no basis for that claim. Similarly you have no basis for your claim that anyone needs permission to do anything with your post is under copyright law. And you do not need to claim copyright it is automatic. You could of course renounce it, which it seeems like you are doing, in which case your claims about permission is irrelevant.
Yes, you did, implicitly. You knew or should have known that when you published your post on usenet, it would be distributed everywhere.
Yes. they do, unless you are claiming copyright.
No it is not. Just like my blowing my nose without your permission is not theft or assault.
Only under copyright law can you make a claim that others would need permission, and in this case I suspect that the courts would show you the door if youtried to claim it.
"If you are not in a car manufactured by GM, you do not have permission to read this book." Under what theory of law would you claim such a claim would have validity? Certainly not copyright. Your claim is equivalent.
Well, I got some interspersed response. I didn't get brief at all. For someone which says he is pressed on time, you sure are long-winded (and irrelevant). So next time, keep it *really* brief (and interspersed).
No, it was not. Please *read* what is written. The browser is pointed at google.com which is "not owned by Microsoft".
They, Google Groups, do not "republish" what you wrote. They just offer a web/GUI interface to *Usenet/News*. If you don't want what you wrote to be on Usenet/News, then don't *post* it to Usenet/News (at all).
[more of the same deleted]I don't. Where exactly did *I* refer to copyright? I only did it in my initial subject and put a question mark after it, because I didn't know if your claim was a claim on copyright. You responded that it wasn't, so I left it at that.
So again, *read* what is written and respond to what people *actually* wrote.
They don't "copy" your posting, they just make it available as any Usenet/News server does. Whether you (and I and anybody else) like it or not, Google Groups is (for this discussion) just another Usenet/News server which happens to have a web/GUI interface.
The main points I can derive from this and similar rants is that you think sites like Google Groups are "rebranding" your posts (whatever that means) and that (you think) they "make money" from your posts.
I think you will have to explain/prove those claims to this audience.
As to the latter point: Google Groups, which I have to (apparently) stress again is only an *example* of a provider which offers web access to Usenet/News, is a *free* service, so what money are we talking about? Also other Usenet/News providers ask money from their subscribers. Do they also not have your "permission" because they charge their users for their services? Is your ISP free of charge?
It is not infuriating, but, as I said, silly. Now that so many people have explained why it is silly, it's no longer just silly, it's stupid (as in being unable to learn).
If I were you, I would take out the claim or take out the "MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)" bit (and associated URL). No offense, but I wouldn't take a MVP which is clueless in these, related, matters serious. That you say you are a IE MVP only makes things worse, because, besides Usenet/News, you also have (too) little clue about the web.
And I was supposed to know that exactly how?
It again didn't work, because the list of Newsgroups still is:
alt.internet.wireless,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.privacy,comp.security.misc
Just check in your Sent folder. Open the sent article and do as I showed you (File -> Properties -> Details -> Message Source...) and you will see the above "Newsgroups:" line).
You keep on mentioning this "some site requiring registration" bit. That's another of your misconceptions: (For *example*) Google Groups does *not* require registration for *reading* postings (I even *showed* you that, see above), only for *posting*. There are millions of people who *read* postings with Google Groups, but never post via Google Groups. I am one of those people.
Again: *What* "paying"? Nobody, at least no *reader*, is paying anything (to Google Groups).
The silly and untrue bit, which is the whole bit.
Promises, promises.
In news:43806b92$0$27040$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
alt.internet.wireless,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.privacy,comp.security.misc
And here I go at the bottom again. Okay, I see you're just not paying much attention. Do you see the ads on the side of your Google Groups? Yes? That would be you paying them. They not only make money for click-throughs but they also make money per impression. Do you think they track your use of their site for "informational purposes" with their cookies? That would be paying them information in exchange of services. In this exchange they plop a Google logo on there and copy what I wrote without my permission. The statement in my signature is simple and true. You do not have to accept that it's the truth but it's pretty simple and has been explained to you enough times so that you should be able to understand it. If you can not understand it you could ask someone for help I suppose. Either way, this is a waste of my time and (I hope) your time as well. Enjoy your day.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com, John Hyde had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
Well, interesting views I suppose but according to all the information I was able to gather on the subject of copyright I'm well within any legal rights to make any claims or limits I'd like if I so choose? I'm not a lawyer but there's a nice page here on the subject:
"Google Inc today announced that it has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service. this acquision provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive (dating back to 1995) software domain names including deja.com and dejanews.com, company trademarks, and ohter intellectual property."
Some sees it that Google saved the Usenet archive :
-aljuhani
All of the above is seriously flawed thinking... *very* seriously flawed.
Not very shaky at all, given the circumstances. 1) They are indeed a "commercial" operation, but they are *not* selling copies, while others are indeed selling copies. 2) They may not have explicit permission, but the implied permission is so obvious and so strong that it may just as well be explicit.
To put it mildly, anyone is in for a disappointment if they post to Usenet and then claim a copyright violation when the article is copied for *any* reason. (And the OP's contention that this is not a copyright issue is ingenious indeed, because there is no other legal impediment to copying his articles.) Worse yet, since Google is *clearly* engaged in typical and traditional distribution of Usenet (granted they have set their expire time to infinity), there doesn't seem to be the slightest wiggle room for a valid complaint.
If there were, just think of all the many Usenet providers such as supernews.com, newsguy.com, etc. etc. who *are* selling access.
Google is nothing more than a normal server with extended expire times and providing a fancy online interactive newsreader which can do nifty things that rn (also) does in a crude way.
I thought he'd stated it well enough! :-) Everyone understands what he is saying; they just don't agree with him.
The problem is that his points are totally invalid. Start with the statement that it is not a copyright issue, and go from there...
No, it's like saying if you don't want people to *hear* your music, don't broadcast it on radio and television. Copying (many thousands of times) each and every article posted to Usenet is just as part and parcel of Usenet as listeners hearing music on AM radio. (Okay, used to be, before right wingnuts took it over).
I don't think the issue is about copyright at all, just the pointless and incorrect statement that says that if the post is being read in a browser and the domain isn't MS then it's used without permission.
A browser interface to usenet is not doing anything wrong, that's what you're failing to understand.
Of course what you cite supports exactly what I've said, if you read if very carefully. And also note that Templetons wrote that quite a few years ago, and *none* of the dire predictions for what might actually be the case have made it through a court of law yet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nobody has said that it places the article into the Public Domain. I've just said that it is clear enough that permission was granted to copy it virtually anywhere.
There can be *no* argument that permission has been granted to copy it everywhere that Usenet goes. After all, that is what posting an article to Usenet *does*.
Hence the only question is one of just what is Usenet, and as someone else has pointed out it is by definition virtually *any* form of distribution.
The only possible catch would be if one single article is copied and is not part of any gross distribution of all or at least many articles. That would, for example, happen if an author were to quote a single Usenet article into a book and publish the book. Generally it has not been decided if that is or is not a violation of copyright, but many authors insist on having written permission before using a Usenet article. Commonly however there have been many authors who did not get explicit permission; and if they use many articles, basically at random such as in a collection of everything posted on any given date, they are probably well within the norm for being defined as part of Usenet.
Which is to say, when an individual hits the "ENTER" key (or whatever) to cause an article to be posted... *that person* is the one doing the copying! That would be true even if it is days or months later that some far flung part of Usenet finally gets the command and make one more copy.
A vastly different issue. And note that while they have brought suit, they have not won. For all we know at this point they will end up paying damages to Google... ;-)
Damned right it's a different issue! They are selling the
*articles*, while Google isn't! They are profiting directly from commercial use of the copyrighted material, Google isn't!So? They still have nothing more than a rather typical news server...
Pretty much the case.
I would add one more caution too. Usenet has been around for over 25 years now, and Google/Dejanews has been here for a decade. Crackpots have been making similar claims to what the OP makes since nearly the beginning, but none of them have ever won in a court.
The advertiser is paying them, the user is not.
You have posted it *knowing* that it will automatically be shown by Google. This is like someone broadcasting on a frequency where a repeater will pick up and retransmit the signal (as my Father does) and then complaining that it has been retransmitted (which he does not).
Most people replying to you have seemed to understand what you have said perfectly. They are just pointing out how incorrect and stupid your statements are.
If you don't want your posts to show up on web interfaces to Usenet then don't post to Usenet, and that includes the microsoft.* groups because they are normal groups just like any other.
Nonetheless, Google is making money on copyrighted content it doesn't have explicit permission to copy, which I think is a shaky legal proposition, much like it's project to scan and search copyrighted books.
Bad analogy: Google is much more than a Usenet server, and knowledge of what Google is doing doesn't constitute any sort of implied consent.
He's not stating it well (IMHO), but I do think he basically has a point.
That's like saying: If you don't want people to copy your music or movies without permission, then don't broadcast them over radio or TV. In other words, it's not a valid argument.
Even if it was about copyright, the entire topic is just an exercise in mental masturbation until he actually files a law suit. There are hundreds on usenet who put these types of "restrictions" in their signature, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, no one ever actually sues. They just like thinking that they can.
/steve
Don't play the "copy" trick, like he is trying. On Usenet articles are "copied" thousands of times, so Google (Groups) isn't "copying" articles anymore than any other News server, offline reader, on-line reader, etc..
*If* he objected to the archive part, he would have *some* (but very weak) point, but he doesn't. He also objects to the normal newsreading part, which invalidates his (and your) point.Also, as I have repeatedly stressed but he 'conveniently' ignores, Google Groups is just an *example*. There are other sites/services which offer web access to Usenet/News *and* there are other 'archives'.
Apparently he objects to the commercial aspect of GG, the ads, etc.. So next time I write a letter to the editor, I'll sue my newspaper if they print any ads on the same page as my letter. After all, I didn't give them permission for ads, did I?
As has been said, consent isn't neccessary because nothing is done which could not be expected when he posted.
Face it, he is clueless about Usenet/News, *including* microsoft.* Newsgroups. That he is clueless does not mean that others need his consent.
Quite the opposite, as has been said (by many), his sentence is quite clear, but complete bollocks.
May I suggest another one which makes as much sense:
"Please note that if you're reading this while sitting on a wooden chair and you are not drinking a cup of Earl Grey tea then this work is being used without permission."
See, you are doing it again: Flash says "show [up]", but you translate is to "copy". In reality, the posting is not copied (any more than normal) but just "shown"/displayed (as it would with a normal newsreader).
But I'll take Galen's claim to heart and will shoot myself after executing the following URL:
Agreed.
Agreed.
They could even argue, and justifiably IMHO, upon these lines:
1) When you post to a news group you are requesting that your post be forwarded to all who request a copy of your post from that server. 2) You are further requesting that said server forward it to all servers with which there is a peering agreement from that server. 3) You are further requesting that they forward it on, etc, until it has reached all news server. 4) Google is well established and well known as a news server.They can back this up with this section from the RFC that defines how Usenet works
So the standard says it can leave the internet, and that once at the receiving system (a Usenet server) that system provides software for people to read the news. It just happens that in the cse of Google that software is sitting behind a web server to allow people to access it over the web, but the standard does not prohibit this.
Note also that they refer to rnews reading the message from standard input as a way of reading the article, since this is clearly not reading it over nntp from a news server it is obviously intended that using an nntp client should not be the only method of reading articles.
Agreed. See RFC above where it explicitly states that the internet is not the only transport mechanism and explicitly states that the list it provides is *not* exhaustive.
Agreed.
And one that provides another way of accessing it, and multiple ways of accessing Usenet seems to be blessed by the standard.
What is worse is that it is an international copyright issue, and this may well include countries with very lax or no copyright laws, since by posting you are requesting that it be sent to all Usenet servers.
Agreed. In other words, posting to Usenet is if anything explicitly requesting that the article be copied and distributed far and wide, and this includes posts to the microsoft.* hierarchy as Microsoft have chosen to peer that with other Usenet servers.
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.