Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)

• Previous message: zeldorblat_at_gmail.com: "Re: Call For Papers: 2006 PDPTA, ICAI, SERP + more (28 joint conferences); Las Vegas, USA, June 2006"
• Maybe in reply to: Frank Slootweg: "[OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Next in thread: Galen: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Reply: Galen: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:53:27 -0600

"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eNmLexx6FHA.744@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In news:437b7e72$0$33780$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl,
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Galen <galennews@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [deleted]
>>> <das><dash><space>
>>> Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>> 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
>>> permission.
>>
>> What the heck is that supposed to mean?
>>
>> *Which* domain? The domain of the (user of the) browser? If so, I
>> didn't know that you/Microsoft/<whatever> owned Usenet, or Google, or
>> ... ad infinitum! :-(
>>
>> If not the domain of the browser, then the heck what, why, etc.?
>
> I don't think I mentioned copyright. I mentioned lack of permission.
> There's sites which steal, yes steal, the usenet posts and insert them
> into their forums in order to get traffic or to appear as if the content
> was created by them. This, this signature, is for those site readers to
> know that they're not accessing the actual source of information and that
> the posts that are being included on those sites have indeed been taken
> without permission.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before someone noticed the signature. <g>
> It's been there for a while - since I noticed that when I was checking
> site ratings that some of the sites that I was either linking to (or my
> own) were actually lower in the ratings - the higher ratings were these
> forums that had been using the posts from us here to generate traffic. I'm
> not too picky - I'd happily give permission if asked, my posts aren't that
> important really. Beyond that, I haven't any complaint with Google -
> they'd adhere to the no-archive if I wanted to use it. I don't...
>
> I take it you're either a site owner who's using, say, VB Forum (or what
> ever the most popular one is) to steal the posts here or you're not a site
> owner who hasn't any idea what level of dedication people put into the
> work they perform for their site? Either way the choice is up to you. I
> make absolutely no claim to copyright. As a site owner I'd be flattered if
> someone took the content of our site and framed it. In fact our copyright
> gives people permission to do so. As a site owner I'd no sooner frame
> someone else's site without their permission. It's a matter of respect I
> should think - never mind the legality, that's secondary when it comes to
> humanity. If you created some sort of work, framed it, and then I came
> along and took a photograph of it and sold it (or gave it away so that
> people wouldn't want to buy your's) then I'm willing to bet you'd be
> bothered. More so if your livelihood depended on your work. I'm
> fortunate - mine does not.
>
> Again, I make absolutely no claim of copyright. These are Microsoft's
> servers and open to the public. The issue at hand hasn't anything to do
> with copyright in my opinion but in deception. The end-user has a right to
> know that the limited access they're being granted through the forums that
> copy our posts do not originate at the site they're visiting. They have
> the right to know that they're able to freely use this service without
> supporting a webmaster who's simply installed and configured a script and
> a plug-in. They have the right to know how to access the site without any
> need to visit a specific site, sign up for anything, nor adhere to any
> conditions other than those set forth in the expectations given in the
> user's guidelines. Basically, the end-user has a right to know that the
> site they're are using is not in any way associated with this other than
> that of leeching the content without permission.
>
> Just for the record - this isn't what you might term usenet in the normal
> sense of the word. This is a server owned and operated by Microsoft. It is
> the only one to which I am responding - I don't use the regular newsgroup
> server offered by my ISP to post to these groups so these posts don't go
> to the alt.* groups at all. I do not own the server, I make no claims of
> this. I do, I suppose, have a reasonable expectation of ownership of my
> work though I opt to make no claims for it.
>
> I'll show ya something funny...
>
> This is from a site that leeches our posts - www.windowskb.com - and
> here's a bit from their terms of use:
>
> "You agree not to copy, republish, frame, download, transmit, modify,
> rent, lease, loan, sell, assign, distribute, license, sublicense, reverse
> engineer, or create derivative works based on the Content or Design of the
> Website." - quoted from:
> http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Languages/en-US/Terms.aspx
>
> Now, you brought up the subject of copyright? Okay... Here these people
> are - whom I have no idea who they really are nor why they think they can
> do this - saying that they can leech my content (my text - which is
> certainly mine in most cases and if not then attribution is given) and
> that they can place limits on how my work is used? Their content is
> actually mine in some areas? Yet they're now making some sort of legal
> claim on it? Pfft! Here's a random example:
> http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/windows-xp-support/73714/forgot-password
> Err, they (the site owner) didn't author the question nor the responses
> and yet they make a claim towards the content? Pfft... I'd happily give it
> to 'em if they asked. I'd happily give it to 'em if they were honest. I'd
> happily give it to them if they didn't make a claim about owning the
> content. Heck, I'd happily give it to 'em regardless - the signature is
> there for the end-user and not for the site owner. Ah well, I've wasted
> too much time answering this.
>
> --
> Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
> http://dts-l.org/
>
> 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 permission.
>
> Access MS Newsgroups :
> http://kgiii.info/windows/all/general/msnewsgroups.html
>

So are you talking about forum software that implements a gateway to Usenet
to include newsgroups posts in the forum's message list? While this means
more Usenet-dumb users end up in the newsgroups, I can't see how it violates
your implicit permission for viewing your posts since you released your
content to a public domain, especially since you don't ban viewing your
posts on non-Microsoft NNTP servers or with Microsoft's CDO
webnews-for-dummies interface.

I'm not sure that the forum admins are using the gateway as a deliberate
means to make their forums look more active. Mostly it appears to give
their users a forum interface via browser to which those are accustomed so
it becomes just another client accessing the newsgroups. Whether you are
running a local NNTP client program or using a browser, you are using a
product or service that gives you a portal to Usenet. So what's the
difference between the webnews interface provided by Microsoft and the forum
interface provided by someone else? They both simply provide an interface
using the web browser rather than requiring users to learn an NNTP client.

Obviously opening a portal from the forums into Usenet means you end up with
boobs that have no knowledge of Netiquette, RFCs, or de facto standards
intrinsic to Usenet. They may be a wizard in whatever topic is for the
forum but know nothing about NNTP, Usenet, or etiquette. So what? Lots if
not most users of OE, Thunderbird, Forte Agent and other NNTP clients are
Usenet-challenged users, too. The only complaint that I have with the forum
gateway portal is that often they are misconfigured or deficient in regards
to the headers and following the RFCs regarding Usenet. Also, some such
portals will show the post in Usenet but replies issued from other forum
users don't show up in the newsgroups (i.e., only the original post shows up
in the newsgroups along with replies that came from the newsgroups but
replies submitted through the forum never get back here). Again, that seems
a misconfigured portal.

I see the forum gateway as simply another NNTP client that uses a browser,
any browser of choice, as its UI instead of requiring a separate NNTP client
program that requires the user to learn a new interface. It does, however,
mean opening a portal to Usenet from those that haven't a clue as to the
environment to which a copy of their posts are getting spewed.

• Previous message: zeldorblat_at_gmail.com: "Re: Call For Papers: 2006 PDPTA, ICAI, SERP + more (28 joint conferences); Las Vegas, USA, June 2006"
• Maybe in reply to: Frank Slootweg: "[OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Next in thread: Galen: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Reply: Galen: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a stranger's WiFi channel ?)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]