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

From: Galen (galennews_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:38:15 -0500

In news:uJhGXIy6FHA.3136@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
Vanguard <vanguard.code@comcastNIX.net> had this to say:

 My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> "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.

That's not even remotely the problem, again - if asked I'd happily give my
personal permission for my personal silliness to be copied elsewhere. Heck,
if they want it they can have at it but don't try to claim it's their
property or try to prevent other people from using it. They are leeches -
they can at least admit to that and not then try to restrict usage of what I
gave to the network freely. And that's speaking just for myself... To be
frank I don't care one bit about the objective of the site owners - I care
about the honesty

The problem is the deception and the claim to copyright that they make. The
problem is the end-users right to know the truth about the content and that
the claim of copyright of the work that I (or you) give away for free is
being claimed as their work and restrictions placed on it and that is about
as low as one can go online. To take someone else's work and then lay claim
to it as your own (and I did point out their use policy) is tantamount to
the lowest one can aspire to be as an online parasite. Even the GNU license
requires attribution. My issues are that the site makes the claim of
ownership, doesn't tell the truth as to the source of information/content,
and finally the end-user's have a right to know. MY permission has been
given (quite clearly actually) but what of the person behind me? What of the
people who limit their publications? I am NOT making an effort to bring
another person here but there's at least one person who expressly prohibits
publication of his answers which is within his legal right in both the
country he resides in, the country the owners of some of the servers live
in, and the country in which this server that I'm posting to resides in. The
people who grab the posts by adding a script to their site's forum are
leeching. If you owned a site - and you might, I don't know that but I have
watched you for a while - you might feel the same. I think the only answer I
could give that would equate to you specifically is if you created the
ultimate answer to the most problematic newsgroup question and then someone
came along and took it and, in one form or another, charged people to access
it or to respond to it and not only didn't ask you but claimed that they
were responsible for the controlling of that information... I can only hope
that that equates with you. It's about all I can think of that's specific.

*chuckles* I've been using this signature for quite some time now. It's
funny that it's first being mentioned now. The objective of my signature is
to inform the reader - no matter where they come from - that they're freely
able to come to the source without a need to remit a username, password, and
email. The objective is to inform them that they can access this freely, get
help from you (or me) without charge, and to ensure that usenet lumbers on
in it's current form to the best of my ability because I haven't time nor
inclination to check 200 forums a day. The statements in my signature are
completely true - if they're reading this in a browser and that browser is
not pointing to a domain owned by Microsoft then this work is being used
without permission. It's not that hard to understand and it's not like it's
not true or accurate. It doesn't mention me, it doesn't mention you. It is a
simple statement of truth. Besides - I change my signature once a month or
so (even if it doesn't need it) so it's not like it will remain there for
long unless I know it's effective. Thank you for your insight - to be honest
I read it and I've been a good hour responding because I figured if I'd
spent this long reading your posts I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. In
this case I see your position and ideals but in this case I'm afraid the
signature is both valid and remains as it is until I find a Sherlock Holmes
quote to fill it again. (Honestly? I was out of quotes that fit that
particular day so, well, they got this which I'd been thinking about for a
while.) 

-- 
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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen". (was: Is it safe to use a strangers WiFi cha
    ... > the posts that are being included on those sites have indeed been taken ... > Just for the record - this isn't what you might term usenet in the normal ... So are you talking about forum software that implements a gateway to Usenet ... to include newsgroups posts in the forum's message list? ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: RGP: Newsgroup VS Forum
    ... 05+ Tacoma forum. ... isn't that hard to link to old Usenet threads via Google anyway, ... much harder to browse new posts. ... There is forum software out there to let folks have it both ways. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Newsgroup abuse trough linuxaa.com [was: xfs to ext3 conversion]
    ... the group through some www forum or via nntp. ... > couple of posts, but the spammers only scan the homepage. ... Usenet group. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: RGP: Newsgroup VS Forum
    ... Usenet thread. ... Assuming the forum owner doesn't archive old discussions, ... but could live in a forum where no new posts could be made (only ... discussions about anything pinball are welcome. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: How can I eliminat the captcha?
    ... You are currently accessing a usenet newsgroup via comcast connectivity ... using a Mac Safari browser logged into googlegroups GG. ... very bad way to read and post to newsgroups; it would be far superior to ... posts may be filtered out by those who avoid spam and other unwanted posts ...
    (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)