Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Google paid money for content that Deja didn't own or license.

Indeed, Usenet/News does not require the Internet or NNTP, for the simple reason that Usenet/News *predates* both the Internet and NNTP. That goes for both the server and client side.

So the 'It's not NNTP!' argument against Google Groups (and other sites which offer web/browser-access to Usenet/News) is invalid. Plain and simple.

The list is indeed *not* exhaustive. For example some of our Usenet/ News servers communicated via NFS (Network File System), and at some point in time I used diskettes as a transport, and there was/is SOUP (Simple Offline Usenet Packet), and ... ad infinitum.

[more, agreed upon stuff deleted]

But the problem is that Galen thinks that a particular newsgroup is only carried by *one* [1] server, so if the articles from that newsgroup appear in Google Groups, they must have been "copied" and "stolen". See the 'problem?

BTW, someth MS> Use Outlook Express: MS> While both Microsoft and Google can access these groups, it is MS> generally a slow way to do so and too difficult to bother with. MS> Built into your Operating System is Outlook Express (OE) which is as MS> good a newsreader as any other application I've come across.

[The word "Google" is actually a link to the Google Groups homepage.]

So apparently *Microsoft* is OK with Google carry G> Please note that if you're reading this in a browser and the domain is G> not owned by Microsoft then this work is being used without permission.

So Microsoft says that Google carrying these groups is OK, but Galen says that it's not OK for his postings. How silly/arrogant can you get?

[deleted]

Very well worded. Now if only Galen would *read* it, *understand* it and *accept* it.

But what are the odds that 10++ people are right and he is wrong? :-(

[1] From

G> It's about permission. When I send a message to NTTP I have expressly G> granted permission for the server that it was sent to to publish that G> content to it's servers to be read and retrieved. (And this is STILL not G> what it's about...) When I send a message that crossposts to one of the G> other newsgroup servers (via whatever method - I'm truly lost on how G> they go there in the first place - and just to see if there's a G> difference I'm going to delete the alternate groups in this one again G> unlike the last one because now I'm curious) I accept that I have then G> given that server permission to post it. I have not said that that G> server can then propagate it to a site.

Also note that his pointer

G> Access MS Newsgroups : G>

points to the *Microsoft* News server for the microsoft.* groups.

So? Are you feeling sorry for Google? They know what they were buying. They bought it. Or do you think they got cheated?

(...chop)

Perhaps some context would be helpful. Brad Templeton wrote that copyright document when he was running ClariNet Comm, which aggregated and organized usenet news postings into some semblance of order.

was some question at the time as to whether he could make money by charging for such a service when he didn't really "own" the original content. The document was the result of considerable legal research on the topic. It is quite accurate for 1989. Since then, there have been many changes in intellectual property law and a massive rewrite of the Copyright law, which has changed some details to comply with international agreements. I don't know the details.

Hmmm... Copyright Law FAQ is from 1994:

is MUCH better: covers the topic currently under apparently endless debate.

Incidentally, Brad was the instigator of the free VoIP phone at the

2004 Burning Man. It used 802.11 for the internet connection.

Disagreeing with that is just absurd. The *explicit intent* of anyone posting an article to Usenet is that it be distributed to all of Usenet. What other reason could there be for posting???

But that is *nothing* similar to Usenet. (And BTW, not every establishment has to pay a license fee for such use of broadcast material.)

So you are saying that every commercial Usenet server (which is every ISP etc that charges for access) is violating copyright law because the use is commercial and no fee is paid nor is there a license? You do realize that every one of those radio stations pays a fee too, right?

Nobody at Google is making copies as such. Any more than the bartender is making a copy by having a TV or a radio turned on (which does *not* necessarily require a fee!).

Well they don't seem to agree with you, since they filed suit on one issue and not on the other.

I'm amazed that you would make such a gross error. Usenet existed long before NNTP, and in *no* way does NNTP define what is or is not Usenet or correct use of Usenet. Google is not doing anything different than every other server that allows access to Usenet. They manage an archive (in their case they do not automatically expire articles), and they have an online server to provide articles on demand to a newsreader.

No different than supernews.com other than the interface.

I doubt that is a true statement. I don't know how many have tried it, but certainly they were laughed out of court.

The point is that you won't find a competent lawyer who will push such a case...

...

Jay Leno has better jokes, but I guess that one was worth the laugh. Did you notice though, that Leno doesn't repeat the same joke every day?

Correction ==========

Yesterday, I wrote (amongst other stuff):

I was apparently fooled by the Microsoft 'look' of the page or/and its blue color or/and the Windows logo or/and "Microsoft" being splattered all over the page:

Contrary to what I said/implied, this is not a page from Microsoft itself, so my statement "So apparently *Microsoft* is OK with Google carrying these groups" is baseless. They might be OK with it, and probably are OK with it, but this page does not prove that. Sorry about that.

OTOH, Galen's pointer is still funny/sad, because the page *does* point to Google (Groups).

[rest deleted]

Again, I respectfully disagree.

True -- it's "unsettled law" -- which makes debate a bit pointless.

Again, I respectfully disagree, just as radio and TV broadcasts don't grant further permission to copy, or even permission for commercial use -- a bar or restaurant providing the broadcast for customers still has to pay a license fee.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- the question is of the type of use, and there's a difference between (a) free broadcast over Usenet and (b) commercial use after the fact, just as there is between (a) free radio/TV broadcast and (b) commercial use of that broadcast.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- the persons doing the copy at (say) Google are [drum roll] the employees of Google.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- I think the fundamental issue of commercial use is quite similar.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- they are copying Usenet in the intended way, not making separate commercial use of the content.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- Google Groups is vastly different a standard NNTP service.

At least we agree on something! :)

None of them have lost either, so there's no point to be made.

I think it shows that Google is making commercial use of unlicensed content.

In news:43833fb6$0$89196$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

And did you miss the point where I stated that I personally didn't mind Google Groups? They're as guilty as the rest but at least they support the no-archive tag though I'm pretty sure I shouldn't need to put that in there. I realize you have difficulty admitting to being incorrect but, well, the truth is that my signature is correct in every way shape and form. Not to mention you've still not approached the point at which you justify the various other links which are more the point of my signature. Instead you revert to Google whom I've already stated I do not mind though they're surely just as guilty as the rest - the reason being is they at least will adhere to the standard of no-archive. I suspect they also could adhere to a no-index tag. Truth be told the forcing of me, or you, or anyone else to use those tags is still a violation. In their specific example I have accepted the service, I don't like it but I know a lot of people do, and thus I don't really mind that much. (Again, my personal choice to like or dislike the service which is leeching the posts without permission.)

...because copyright only protects the expression of an idea, and not the idea itself. Consequently, a retransmission of the ideas, facts, or even conjectures (which are not themselves copyrightable elements) in the retransmitter's own words does not constitute a copyright infringement, and is itself as protected by copyright as the original posting. From a legal standpoint, this is the preferred method for information to propagate across the net.

If this were not true, then you I would need your permission to quote your words from your previous posted message.

Now, things get sticky when someone posts material that someone else owns. The mess where someone posted Scientology documents deemed secret and copyright protected is a good example. I don't know the current status of the issue. Same with posting DMCA violations and uuencoded music, video, books, etc.

I agree with Floyd.

I agree with both of you.

I don't think the analogy with radio holds here. What Google is doing meets the definition of being part of Usenet as far as I can tell from the RFC (quoted in another post), so by posting you are requesting that it go to Google and all the other web interfaces as well as news servers.

Again, I disagree. Radio licensing defines commercial and non-commercial usage, the RFC for Usenet does not.

At the request of the person making the post.

I disagree. On Usenet the person making the post is requesting that it be copied and distributed by the act of posting, printing a book or CD does not request that others copy and distribute it.

They are not making a copy separate from Usenet, they are making a copy as part of Usenet.

The standard for Usenet does not specify NNTP or even TCP, it

*explicitly* states that there are multiple distribution and presentation methods. See my other post on this matter from a day or two back.

Indeed. Nothing wrong with reasoned argument or disagreeing :-)

It does not prove that it is acceptable, but the lack of a successful claim does support the proposition. Well, it does if you think it likely that some lawyer somewhere would have taken the money by now and gone all the way if there was a reasonable chance of winning.

It shows nothing of the sort. It might show that Deja used it for such, but it shows nothing about Google. They paid for it, they did not sell it, at least not under that new item.

Galen has also whined#######talked about that, but *exactly which* "commercial use after the fact" are you talking about? Yes, Google is a commercial company, but how do they use Usenet/News postings any more commercially than any other ISP/NSP? That they have "Sponsored Links" on the 'reader' page? And that those links are possibly derived from some keywords from some posting(s)? Other?

Again, nothing is copied any more (or less) than on 'normal' Usenet/ News servers/readers, so please don't try to pull the "copy" trick on us, because it doesn't fly.

[For the record, the *archive* part of GG is a slightly different story, but Galen has no excuse there, because he *knows* of the archive *and* of "X-No-Archive: Yes".] [more of the same deleted]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The broadcast of the messages is under copyright law. Exactly where usenet posts fall is unclear. One can argue that in releasing a post to usenet one is also accepting the posting of the message to everywhere that usenet posts are posted. They are sent around the world. They are stored on computers around the world, free, commercial, capitalist, communist, drug smuggling, military,.... And to put in a message into the post is absurd. The messages are NOT all read by anyone to see if they have hidden messages in them.

And how would he have been aware of it? Did Galen send them a copy of his copyright license? Or did he expect them to read his ( and thus everyone's) on the off chance they contained a copyright notice? Now, if he gets his lawyer to send Google a message listing each and every one of hte messages he objects to them saving I am sure they will remove them.

No they are NOT. None of them reads teh messages.

You don't seem to have replied to my point about Netscape Messenger, a browser with a built-in newsreader.

Galen, your "the domain" does not have sufficient context for your signature to be correct "in every way shape and form". "the" domain? What domain? The domain of my home network? The domain of my ISP? The domain of my workplace? The domain of the site that kindly allows my workplace to pull down Usenet News?

Try something closer to:

"Please note that if you are reading this message via a web page that is not owned by Microsoft or Google, then this message is being used without permission."

This isn't all that great either, considering that there are places which allow users to log in to them via a web page and read newsgroups via applets or web pages -- as a service to users who might travel around (and so not have a single machine on which to keep track of what has been read and what has not), or to users in situations where reading {numerous} newsgroups is not prohibitted but where direct nntp access is blocked in order to reduce security hazards.

It isn't exactly clear what a "browser" is. Is "lynx" a browser? Now if I do a minor modification of lynx to permit it to connect only to news:// then does it cease to be a browser?

I'm not going to respond to a rude message. Repost with common courtesy if you really want my response.

Whatever you say. Have the last word. I'm not going to put up with childish insults.