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

In news:4384b3a3$0$53059$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Now there's something I agree with.

In news:43849a54$0$98355$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

See? Now that would be one such site where I'd happily give permission. Regardless - it's being done without it. Even if the chore is tedious, bothersome, etc... If the anticipate the right to make money from my posts then they should undertake the responsibility to ask. You've not disproved my signature - in fact you've helped to prove it. You could sit there and scream until you're blue in the face and say I have no basis for saying the statements that I say but the fact (and yes it IS factual) is that it's being done without permission. Pfft.. Again, NOT about copyright. It's about MY personal opinions and about MY belief that the end-user has the right to know who to blame or thank and how to access these groups for free. To cite similar examples I can say, "You may not blow your nose on the South side of the street without having asked me first and if you do so then you have done so without my permission." I can say that all day long and such is a true statement. It might not be important to you to have my permission, you might not need my permission, but the point is true - you did not have it if you opted to do so without my permission. That's the exact base of the statement. I can't dig it any lower though I think we're reaching an agreement here kinda sorta.

(And yes I'm trying to be brief...)

You seem to, in part, actually agree with the premise now though wish the verbiage to be different. Well, it's simple, short, and exact. Perhaps not all inclusive but if I'd gone ahead and typed out 20 kb worth of legalese it never would have been read and surely would have annoyed far more people than this. Simply put, I have not given a single person permission to alter the deliver method/protocol of my posts. I probably would - I'd likely be happy to so long as I was asked - but if you scroll through some of the various URLs that you can find by searching your newsgroup email address you'll likely see what I'm bothered by. They happily leech posts and pretend the content is from them, by them doing this I appear to be affiliated with that site. I did not give them permission to do this. It's not about legality, it was other people who tried to bring that into the statement. It's simple, it's about humanity and honesty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's NOT that hard to understand...

By the way - JUST for the record - your verbiage is probably better than mine. Now if we could find a way to shorten it and make it all inclusive it'd probably satisfy you but then it'd annoy someone else.

Pretty short for me.

In news:dm2c7n$f1n$ snipped-for-privacy@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, Walter Roberson had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Well, feel free to ignore it then... If you open a news server in Netscape the point is that the article is being fetched by your client from the news:\\\\ protocol and not being parsed by a script and the site claiming ownership. The point is that the statement is correct, you may not think it valid or even like it but it IS correct. In this particular case I'd highly recommend ignoring it (there's filters for this sort of stuff if you're into that) or coming to terms that your views aren't accepted by everyone. I know mine aren't but when they're given pause to think I do take people at face value and strive to ensure that I made my mind up accurately according to the facts. Citing an old version of Netscape to prove a point that isn't really a point as the domain is STILL using the news:// protocol and STILL pointed to the news server service is not helping your claims.

Finally it does NOT depend on jurisdiction. Regardless of the law (heck the law could happily state anyone can do anything they want with usenet posts) it is still being done without my permission. I make posts, I didn't give the site owner's permission to do ANYTHING with them other than (implied) permission to read them with their newsreader client. I could be completely out to lunch as far as any legal views go - and this is NOT about copyright though I strongly suspect it'd be upheld there or, if not, via DMCA in the USA maybe??? - but the truth is that it was done without my permission. That it's being done without my permission is, in my opinion, and injustice and potentially a dis-service to the reader who is the real target of the signature. This is not really that complex folks? I appreciate the insight and views but no matter what you say the point is the same - it's being done without permission and there's an alternative that's freely available.

And motor vehicles are the most widely used means of transporting people but bicycles and horses have been around longer and are still in use.

You now seem to realize that people, News service providers, etc., do not *need* your permission, but that you just want to make clear that you haven't *given* them your permission. If that interpretation is correct, then I suggest to make one small change, i.e. add the word "my" to your text, i.e.

becomes

"Please note that if you're reading this in a browser and the domain is not owned by Microsoft then this work is being used without my permission."

As mentioned earlier, it probably is also wise to specifically say that "the domain" refers to the domain of the web-server, not to that of the browser, and to mention that "browser" means "web-browser" (because there are other (than web) browsers), and change "it" to "with".

So something like:

"Please note that if you're reading this with a web-browser and the domain of the web-server is not owned by Microsoft then this work is being used without my permission."

I still think that such a sentence is *meaningless* and hence should not be used, but I agree that with the word "my" (and the other changes) the sentence is *correct*.

That about that part.

Finally a question:

Suppose user A is reading a posting of yours and has your implied permission (because he does not 'violate' the (new) sentence in your signature). Does user A have your implied permission (i.e. as far as you are concerned, he does not have to ask your permission) to e-mail a copy of your posting (complete with headers, i.e. like Outlook Express would do) to user B? (Also assume that user B will not distribute/quote/ change/ the received posting. He will just read it.)

Answer with "yes" or no".

If the answer is "no" then (tersely) explain why not.

And what is HTTP? An aeroplane? :-)

But seriously, the point is indeed that we are not only talking about

BTW, what shall I do with my USB memory-stick? According to John it's not a "defined mechanism transport (copying) of Usenet articles". Guess I can't use it for e-mail either. After all, "SMTP/POP/IMAP has clearly become the defined mechanism for transport (copying) of e-mail messages". Damn waste of 50 perfectly good bucks! :-) (Just kidding John, but I hope you get the point.)

In news:43858e5b$0$21824$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Yes. (Took me a while to figure that one out, but I haven't any issues with that at all as it's likely not being done for profit though they should at least ignore the signature at that point.)

Err, that's as brief as I can be I suppose. (I'll even change the signature for this one.)

Can you find an RFC on the transport protocols for USB Memory stick?

I can find ones on Avian Carriers but not sticks.

:)

David.

Well, to be [fF]rank, it was a trick question: Suppose user B uses webmail (instead of POP/IMAP/MS mail) and now check the situation against your signature:

User B is using a web browser and the domain (of the web(mail) server) is not owned by Microsoft, but, despite what it says in your signature, (you say) he has your implied permission.

In other words, this is yet another scenario where the sentence in your signature is still incorrect, despite the changes.

Yes, you were brief. Keep up the good work! :-)

BTW, you forgot the web-server part which I mentioned, so, I think, it should be:

"Please note that if you're reading this with a web-browser and the domain of the web-server is not owned by Microsoft then this work is being used without MY permission."

Having "MY" in uppercase for emphasis is indeed a good idea.

I think everything has been said (many times :-), so I think we are about done.

In news:BO3hf.85354$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, John Navas had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In short... And I'm not prone to short... You are LIKELY correct. It is not labled as either an archive nor a library so DMCA should not take hold. If you opted to state that your statements weren't allowed to be propogated further than the NNTP protocol you'd likely win by default. The people who claim that you can't do so are simply wrong. Sorry, but they're wrong. To me it's not about legality but rather about the HUMANITY of having been asked. It's not that hard to say "can I?" and not that hard to allow an opt out method.

Galen

In news:4384cfe2$0$57359$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Sorry but copyright is in place so we do not need to place any extra defense in place. I'm sure (from reading) that you can look and find the same information. Book authors do not need to write special code into the pages they've sent so that it can't be photocopied, it is law that prevents it. The fact is that you have no evidence to support your claim but he has all sorts to present his. My suggestion is, to you, that you spend some time researching law instead of thinking that you opinion is the law by default. The fact is - and there's NO way you can try to prove this wrong in ANY court of law accepted internationally - that my posts are NOT being given permission to be reprinted or are authorized to be popogated automatically to the web.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com, Floyd L. Davidson had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Actually the converation is legitimate on both MY points and the rest of them. Until such is decided in a court of law it's not too important - I admit - but the fact is that his views are likely accurate and he's not willing to stand for ingorance of the legal views.

on 11/23/2005 9:11 PM Galen said the following:

Without the law, the concept of "owning" anything is meaningless. Without the law, I can take whatever I want limited only by your ability to stop me.

Yeah, and I have not given you MY permission to fart on even numbered days.

Well, yeah.

Once more, with feeling: Without the law . . .. AND, The name of the species of law that covers your claim: = Copyright.

Well, if this is a moral issue, and you recognize that your claim is wholly unenforceable, then feel free to wallow in the injustice of it all.

So you have a sig that is for the benefit of the end readers? And yet you tell them that they, the end reader, is doing something without permission? All your sig says is "used" By whom? The person reading the sig? (Yes, yes, I have read the thread. I know what you intended. But you could easily confuse and concern the poor slob you are trying to help.

How about a sig that reads: If you pay for usenet access, you should know that there are free alternatives.

Cheers JH

on 11/24/2005 9:00 PM Galen said the following:

I thought you said earlier in the thread that you are not a lawyer either. At best (from your point of view), your claim might survive summary judgement against. Win by default? Never.

If you go back and read the subthread on transport protocols, you will see that there are any number of protocols and viewing methods that are properly considered a part of "Usenet". If you post to "Usenet", you give your consent to the normal operations of that system. The fact that you are factually mistaken about what "Usenet" is, does not change anything.

"It's falling, it's bursting into flames, Oh the Humanity, this is the worst tragedy . . ."

JH

You get copyright by default, true.

In the UK at least, that is not entirely true. It is legal for you to go to the library, read a reference book, and photocopy a few pages from it (the libraries even have photocopies for this purpose). You can even republish excerpts for the purpose of commenting on them.

Here is where it breaks down. The web sites that are automatically displaying posts to Usenet groups are _part_of_ Usenet. They are part of Usenet simply *because* the posts are being propagated to them. Therefor, by posting to Usenet *you* are requesting that the servers automatically show them. Neither NNTP nor what you consider to be News servers defines what Usenet is because the RFC defining Usenet

If, on the other hand, some web site author specifically extracts your message and is *not* relaying the entire group, *then* they have breached your copyright.

In news:43848c13$0$61807$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wanadoo.nl, Frank Slootweg had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Actually, all told, even with all the aggression I am under the impression that anyone following this has been able to see various views and see that while my verbiage isn't satisfactory to everyone (and I agree there's some merit in that realm) that I have a point and that you too have a point. I suppose some might not think this as having been very civil but after the years in this group (the windowsxp.general group) I thought it pretty tame actually. Unfortunately as it winds to a close it's nearing the time where I pick a new topic for my signature so the point reaches that where's it's moot beyond an academic point. I, for one, have enjoyed listening. There are a few people who seem to think that posting it automatically confers rights beyond those that I have given - no matter the view of what the source is those are mistaken views - we/you/I have ownership of the content we post. There are those who are surely willing to argue the other side and say things like emailing one of the responses I give to another person could be conflicting with laws and I suppose technically they might be correct but to me that's more than needs to be protected. Either way we've hopefully all at least seen alternate views and some of us have listened to the views of other people. We don't have to agree, but I suppose we do have to live on the same planet. Anyhow, I'd like to take a short moment (as brief as a Galen is capable of being) to thank you for a) sharing b) taking the time to explain your views c) mostly remaining respectful of my views d) remaining consistent in your views e) for eventually at least reaching a level of understanding where you seem to be at least capable of acknowledging where I come from with my view points. (And for pointing out the alternative verbiage.)

Thank you. And thank you for your part of the discussion. As you say, our views have not changed, at least not much, but we have shared our views and mostly remained rather civil. That's what Usenet/News is, or at least should be, all about.

Best regards,

Frank

I'm Canadian myself, but my understanding of American law is that it's legal to make copies for your own personal use -- For conversion from one format to another, for example.

OK, here's a simplified explanation of how it works.

Normally, servers simply pass on all the messages they have to all their peers. So when you post a message to your local news server, it will automatically flood out to the rest of Usenet.

However, each server contains a list of groups it subscribes to and a list of groups that are public. A message will only be forwarded if there's an intersection between the sending server's public groups listed in the message and the receiving server's subscription list. So if a message is cross-posted to both public and private groups, it will go out to the rest of Usenet, it will not stay private.

Perhaps this was the wrong design -- you apparently assumed that if any private groups were listed, the message would be restricted to the Microsoft servers (but users of those servers would also see the message if they read one of the other groups you cross-posted to). But it's the design we have, and nothing in your signature changes that.

Web servers are just a way to access information, just like NNTP servers. Google Groups is just a web server that provides an interface to a news service. So either you allow the information to propagate to other servers (which is considered implicit in posting to Usenet) or you don't. What difference does it make to you whether the reader accesses it via NNTP or HTTP, those are minor technical details?

Your message isn't "branded" in the first place, so I don't see how anyone else is rebranding it. Giganews is a commercial NNTP provider, do you have a problem with them making your messages available? Or is it just Google that you have an issue with?