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

It's just your opinion, Frank.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've already explained how and why Google is different.

Copyright law says otherwise.

I respectfully disagree (on both counts).

I have no real reason to do so.

Been there; done that. (As I'm sure you know.)

It's actually an accurate assessment of where we are.

Yet another opinion.

Fair enough -- who besides you (by name)?

Actually it is.

I think we've now beat this to death. Feel free to have the last word.

It's been pointed out by me and others that the standard EXPLICITLY states you can use whatever transport you want. I even quoted the relevant section of the RFC. Since the RFC EXPLICITLY allows any transport why do you think one specific transport is not allowed?

The point is that the transport mechanism does not define what is being transported.

If you print a book with a clause saying that publishing it on the web is not allowed, then YOU publish it on the web, is a court going to accept that the owner of the web server is breaching your copyright?

Or if you publish it on the web with a copyright notice saying, "this article is not to be cached" will the courts allow you to sue ISPs running caching proxy servers?

I think the answer is no, and because Google and other companies providing web access to Usenet are PART OF Usenet, it is exactly the same thing.

So far no one has even attempted to explain why, when the standard says ANY transportation method can be use, one specific transport method cannot be used.

Authors granted permission for the books to be published on paper. By posting to Usenet you are not merely granting permission, but explicitly REQUESTING that your post be published on Usenet. Google and all the other web interfaces to Usenet are PART OF Usenet because they meet ALL of the requirements in the RFC that defines what Usenet is.

If you disagree then tell us which SPECIFIC clause of the RFC that defines Usenet (note, that is Usenet NOT NNTP) Google and the other web interfaces are not meeting. No vague, it isn't part of Usenet because it is a web interface rather than NNTP, or it is not part because it shows adverts, a SPECIFIC BREACH of the RFC.

Webmail providers place adverts based on the content of the email they are showing (some do anyway) and Google place adverts based on the content of the message they display. What is the difference?

Flash Gordon. I've not kept track of who else agrees with Frank's position.

Others have also posted that Google is part of Usenet. Most people who agree with statements like Franks above don't post because their opinion has already been aired.

However, the people he is speaking for are reading and would say if they disagreed.

I've possibly beaten him to it.

No, they *are* *facts*:

- Usenet/News: 'Normal' client uses NNTP. Webclient uses HTTP. For both, the server-to-server connection uses NNTP.

- E-mail: 'Normal' client uses SMTP(+POP/IMAP). Webclient uses SMTP. For both, the server-to-server connection uses SMTP.

I.e. the *facts* say: "The protocol aspects of webmail and web-Usenet/News are *directly* comparable." QED

And, as said a zillion times and just again by Flash Gordon, *fact* is that the RFCs *specifically* allow *any* protocol, i.e. also HTTP. QED

No, "we" do not have to agree to disagree at all. What "we" - read "you" - have to do is to accept facts or refute them (with other facts). Keeping silent is another option which you may want to consider.

I/'we' don't think you have. You might want to try again/better.

Cite. Do, in your opinion, 'normal' NSPs also use "unlicensed content"? If so, don't bother to cite, because in that case your "unlicensed" qualification is not relevant (for this discussion), so it does not matter if it is (in)correct. If not, explain why not.

Again: You can not "disagree" with *facts*. Are you saying that the publishers *have* relinguished control of distribution of 'their' work?

Translation: "I realize that I don't have a snowball's chance in hell."

We haven't discussed the webmail providers' business model, so we've not "Been there; done that.". (As I'm sure you know.)

Yes, "That's a copout!" is indeed an accurate assessment.

No. "Google Groups is on shaky legal ground" does *not* follow from "Google will remove material on request, and won't archive material when so flagged.". If you *think* it does, then I'm sure you can *cite* (the part of) the law which is "shaken".

(Almost) Everybody in this thread, except, *partly*, for Galen. If your newsreader/-server can't reconstruct the thread, you can look it up in GG. :-) c.q. :-(

False. See Flash Gordon's comments.

Well, I had to answer the question, didn't I?

An event has overtaken this discussion that's sufficiently relevant that I'm adding another word - :

Group: Online content cannot remain free

Publishers Warn They Cannot Keep Letting Internet Search Engines Make Money From Their Content

Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium Dec 6, 2005 - European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content.

"The new models of Google and others reverse the traditional permission-based copyright model of content trading that we have built up over the years," said Francisco Pinto Balsemao, the head of the European Publishers Council, in prepared remarks for a speech at a Brussels conference.

His stance backs French news agency AFP, which is suing Google for pulling together photos and story excerpts from thousands of news Web sites.

"It is fascinating to see how these companies 'help themselves' to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people's content," he said.

Which is, of course, my point.

on 12/7/2005 7:02 PM John Navas said the following:

Excellent, you have a point. Which I understand to be a dissatisfaction with Google's (among others?) business model. And, as I understand your argument, the business model is accumulating content produced by others and using that content to make money: Offer the content for "free" and sell advertising. Is this a correct statement of what you see to be wrong?

Now, do you see the distinction between the ABC news story you linked and usenet? Once more with feeling: Usenet is DIFFERENT!

The French news agency, AFP, is posting their content to their own websites. They give the world permission to read it when they do, presumably with the hope that their advertisers links will be "clicked." They do *not* give permission for their content to be distributed, (especially without their advertisements), from server to server around the world.

If, however, they post their content to usenet, then they are giving implicit permission for their content to be distributed from server to server around the world.

If you are willing to acknowledge that difference, without going into the protocol discussion again, then there might be a worthy conversation left. But if you don't "get" the difference, then you're right, there is nothing to talk about.

(By the way, you can ad me to Frank's "we" list.)

John Hyde, JD

That saves me from having to find the time to respond.