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?
You can make all the claims and limits you want, but I don't see how you expect anyone to conform to them. Usenet is a totally automated system, the servers can't understand what's written in your signature. You post a message, it gets sent automatically to every server that subscribes to the groups you listed. Google's servers are not special in any way, and their web site is just a GUI gateway to their news servers.
I remember a time when the most used transport was a little thing called UUCP. Transmissions arranged in batched sessions several times per day, usually via dialup at 300bps. Not only that, but I can also remember what it stands for. "Unix to Unix Copy Program"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
That depends on the server. Some servers won't handle posts where there is any group that isn't in its public list.
We?
They are considerably different from NNTP servers.
It's actually a unique archiving, search, and advertising service based on free use of valuable Usenet content.
The difference is anything but minor -- an HTTPNNTP gateway is anything but trivial.
Google is quite different from Giganews in that it's a business based on the particular value of particular content, not simply on access to content in general.
The problem is that he thinks he's *made* a point. He's stuck in this delivery method brain spiral and can't wrap his head around the idea that it makes no difference. Sigh.
The point is moot anyway, because the microsoft.* groups are not private groups anyway. Private groups are groups which are available to a limited audience, often only *within* a company/organization. The microsoft.* groups are available to everybody.
Yes, we.
Yes, they are. And your *point* is?
Let me give a simple analogy which show that your, implied, 'point' isn't one: webmail.
OK. Can we now put this silly 'Web access to Usenet/News isn't Usenet/News!' (non-)'argument' to rest?
Yes. And it's a American company, while I am a Dutch citizen. Translation: And your *point* is?
Yes it *is* trivial. BTW, it's not a "gateway". That's probably yet another attempt to imply that something special/untoward is going on.
And yet again: That is *relevant*, exactly why?
Bottom line: Quit the 'HHTP versus NNTP' non-sense, because nobody is buying it. *If* you have a point on the business model of Google Groups (et al) versus 'normal' Usenet/News providers, the *make* it. Don't keep
That's a red herring and you (should) know it! "the filesharing folks" shouldn't be "sharing" in the first place, so the fact that it's automatic is irrelevant. For Usenet/News OTOH, the "copying"/"copies"
*are* legit.
Yes, you keep saying that, but you keep failing to point out why that is *relevant* (or 'wrong' or 'illegal' or ...). So please stop repeating yourself. We heard you the first time.
That's a separate issue. If you don't want your posts to be archived, you put "X-Noarchive: yes" in the header. They'll still be available for a couple of weeks, just like any other ordinary news server.
What does this mean? Google Groups makes all Usenet newsgroups available via HTTP, while Giganews makes all Usenet newsgroups available via NNTP. I don't see a difference in the "value of particular content".
Google also provides some nice searching functions, and by default archives messages for a long time. You can disable this for your own posts, though -- you have to use a special notation ("X-noarchive: true"), not an English demand in your signature.
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I th The key issue is that the value of the ads (as reflected in the price that Google charges) is tied to the value of the content -- without "Googlesense" (ads appearing based on accompanying content) the price would be much lower. So Google is making money from [the value of] copyrighted content that it hasn't licensed.
That Google Groups is on shaky legal ground (much like Google Print) is reflected in the fact that Google will remove material on request, and won't archive material when so flagged. Part of the problem [for Google] is that copyright law has been based on "opt in" whereas Google is using "opt out". Hence the lawsuits.
In news:s9tkf.119959$ 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:
John,
Hey, even the person who first jumped on my post and I have both come to the realization that when we reach this subject there's likely to be alternate views. For instance there's people who don't read what I wrote and still think I was referring to Google Groups when, in fact, I accept that they do that and know that there IS at least a method to be removed from the index if I want to. What I don't like, and is really a legal issue, is that I would have to when it's not the JOB of the copyright owner to put protection in place but rather because some things can't be protected that is the point of the law.
You know, I know, that it is NOT likely legal to take someone else's work and alter it. I don't care what they say about "usenet" or the likes. Express permission is the control of the author and such hadn't been given. Odd that very few people opted to respond to the idea that forums (which were the point) could leech the posts and charge for access. Charging for access to THE SAME protocol isn't a violation - that's long since a dead horse in my opinion so I didn't justify the silliness there - so sites who provide that service for a fee are doing an exchange of bandwidth for a cost with acknowledgement of the source and not altering the format with an effort to appear to be the authors of the content or the owners of the content.
The reality is that it's probably illegal. A decent lawyer and a wad of cash would likely bring a stop to this. My point has been, and is still, awareness and education. I don't really care if the end-user get the info via any format including print. What I do care about is they know to blame me when I mess up and they know where to find me without expense and, to me, expense includes dissemination of personal information. Legal issues aside that is true, stands true, and will remain true for eternity unless I've given consent to repost my work. The same applies for you, the same applies for anyone, the same applies (though not as important to some naysayer's) regardless of legal backing. The truth is that a simple message saying that it can't be replicated to servers providing it in any hyper text transfer protocol format would then make it covered under the province of the DMCA in America. At that point there would be no problems. (The WayBack machine - spelling - has been used successfully in court already so it would no longer be a matter of 'if' but a matter of when it was cleared in the courts - I spent a LONG time researching this since I was shown an alternate and LIKELY correct view.)
Before the people you're responding to got involved it was pretty simple. I admit that my verbiage should have been altered to state more exactly my intentions. My views and ideas aren't incorrect - as you know and seem to be more adept at stating than I could ever be - but rather at the fringe area of the law and as such are subject to debate but only at that level. I can, for instance, correctly say that if you pick your nose on Tuesday then you've done so without my permission. Do you need it? Not at all, that takes away from your nose picking rights. However the issue, and they insisted it be a legal issue so I'm sorry but I REALLY think this would be a winning case, is that when it's reposted it's taking away from MY rights. Do you really want to be "affiliated" with the forums that are leeching this post? Check your favorite search engine and see? Do they have a legal right to repost and rebrand your posts? Absolutely not - that's called copyright law and is enforced in MOST countries as far as I can tell. I'm preaching to the choir, I know, but as a legal offense it's viable.
To me it's beneficial. To me, as a minor site owner who's just recently started a new site every single inbound link HELPS me. Yes, every single time I put a link to my site in the newsgroups it benefits me in giving me an inbound link many times over due to the replication to forums and the likes. If I said that people could not do so then I'd be shooting myself in the foot. What I would like is just ONE person to post to the newsgroups they intend to leech and ask permission. What I would accept is that when they did leech posts they did so honestly and without making claims of ownership.
So, as you see we likely agree on a number of points. My language skills aren't capable of keeping up with my thinking so I hope I said them all correctly. If you get the chance look for the final contact between Frank and I on the 24th at 5:03 EST. He summed up his thoughts, I had finished with mine, and I accept that his verbiage is better. My opinion may me nothing to you but it is my opinion that you're likely trying to sell fire to nomadic arctic people. They might need it but they won't listen. Most people think it's on the internet and thus it's free.
I want to quote him here and, no, I don't have permission but I've not made one single change to the format nor have I tried to capitalize on it. I claim the fair use clause!
"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." - That Frank Slootweg guy
That is more correct in the verbiage BUT no fewer legal issues there. My point was, and never altered I hope, from an end-user view in which when I mess up (and I will) they have the right to know how to reach me so that I can do my darndest to fix it. They have a right to know I'm not affiliated with any of those forums and would not ever be. They have a right to know that when I ask for some sort of personal information that it's going to be kept in at least hashed format and if it's financial information I will not keep it at all but ask them silly questions like, "Why would you send this to me?"
I guess it's a sad day when you feel obligated to keep posting. The people who did not understand will not, they can not. The only exception is to people who do not reside in countries where copyright laws are coincident with those of the US and they do matter but not here as all the links given by me are in the US.
I would like to take a moment to thank you for your views. They are very much inline with my own and accurate as far as I can tell. That people can not comprehend copyright law and the ideas behind it (copyright exists JUST for those instances when technology can't prevent it easily) is beyond me. When I typed out the signature file I knew not one bit of copyright law but, well, I've now read more of it than any human should. Well, maybe lawyers should read it more. So, thanks but anyone still posting is most likely someone trolling for a reaction so it's my opinion that you should either take this to private mail (I'll happily carry it on with you) or give up... They simply can not comprehend.... The irony is it wasn't meant to be copyright related but even if it is it's still likely correct.
What you think, i.e. your *opinion*, is irrelevant because it is silly.
Thinking that HTTP versus NNTP access to Usenet/News is "a significant issue" is as silly as thinking that webmail (see the part which you (conveniently?) snipped) somehow isn't e-mail. You can not make the HTTP versus NNTP distinction and not make the HTTP versus SMTP(+POP/IMAP) distinction.
So, because you keep beating around the bush (i.e. implying things without really saying them, let alone proving them), let me ask a specific question:
Do you consider webmail to be e-mail? Answer with "yes" or "no". If "no", explain why.
Let's suppose for the moment that there is a difference between the value of content for GG versus a normal NSP: What does that *matter*? It's not illegal. If it was, everybody would be charging/sueing GG and nobody is. And *again*: How is it different from some webmail providers which do exactly the same thing?
Sorry but we *can* and do read. Just one of the most blatant ones:
The first sentence is utter innuendo. (I explained why and you, again, failed to respond.) The second sentence is again innuendo, because (their opt-out use of Usenet/News content) is *not* "a problem for Google". The last sentence is an utter falsehood (as there *are* no lawsuits against GG for their use of Usenet/News content).
Of course we see what you *try* to do by implying, but we see right through it and don't buy it.
And what value would that be? they would argue that they are making money on the value of their work in archiving and cross indexing the content, not from the value of the content itself. How often have you sold your usenet post and how much did you get for it. Ie, it is access and convenience, service not content that they are "selling". But of course to the advertisers who are actually paying google money, they are not even selling that. They are selling access to the people who access their site. That is the valuable commodity. Just like you could sell to an advertising company the side of your house facing the busiest intersection in town for their advertising. Would you or anyone claim that you were actually selling the people who are passing your house? That their bodies were the valuable commodity?
What matters is that Google is making money off of the specific value of the unlicensed content.
On the contrary -- book authors and publishers are going after Google Print (where the fundamental issue is the much the same) with a vengeance. That there hasn't been similar action in Google Groups simply reflects the lack of big bucks interests.
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.