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

From: David Candy (.)
Date: 11/17/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:32:03 +1100

Once you release into the public domain you lose all rights. 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read David defending the concept of violence.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/entering_the_ga.html#more
=================================================
"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23r$ZN376FHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In news:%23b%23xdD36FHA.2628@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
> Vanguard <vanguard.code@comcastNIX.net> had this to say:
> 
> My reply is in the middle somewhere:
> 
>> "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%230Kshkz6FHA.808@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> That's not even remotely the problem ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> Okay, so forums using gateways as portal clients to Usenet isn't the
>> problem.  Do you have an actual example of a forum that is doing what
>> you claim they are?  I'd be interested in seeing how they are
>> purloining Usenet content and claiming it as their own work rather
>> than declaring it public information.  Not everything you release
>> into a public domain can be copyrighted.  I've yet to read about
>> lawsuits where the defendant can successfully claim that their
>> communications which they knowingly released into the public domain
>> and without copyright notification (which may not even apply to
>> public speaking) can be copyrighted.  There's a big difference
>> between what YOU think you can copyright and what the courts will
>> acknowledge.  If you cannot sue regarding copyright infringement, you
>> look damn silly trying to claim a copyright that you really don't
>> have.
>> Since you release your statements into a public domain, and
>> especially since you released it to a venue under which YOU have no
>> control over how those statements are divulged or distributed, anyone
>> can copy them.  Anyone with a newsreader or using a webmail
>> interface, like Microsoft's CDO or a forum, is copying your posts. 
>> However, they should not be claiming your words as their work, so I'd
>> like to see an example of what you are claiming.
> 
> Since I release... What??? Surely you jest... If I write an application and 
> distribute it into public domain I'm still free to place restrictions on 
> use, decompiling, etc... It's not really about my claim to copyright (to me 
> at any rate) it's about being human. More on that in a moment but, again, 
> it's about permission and the end-user's right to know. My paltry sum total 
> of contribution is neglegable and if asked I'd happily grant permission.
> 
> http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/ForumList.aspx
> 
> Anyhow, follow the link above. Then read their "Terms of Use" page (there's 
> a link at the bottom of the page). They don't even go so far as to point out 
> the source of the information.
> 
> Here's a nice one:
> 
> http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ie6-outlook-express/21158/Fw-Rules-question-in-IE6-to-Vanguard-and-Mikey
> 
> That's you? Now - read their page - and this is kinda sorta funny... Well it 
> is to me at any rate... First they grant a limited license to use the work - 
> fair use and all that stuff...
> 
> "WindowsKB.com grants you a limited license to access and use the Website 
> via Web browsers only."
> 
> And while that's funny the true humor is in that they then turn around and 
> claim they don't own anything?
> 
> "WindowsKB.com does not claim ownership of the Content you place on the 
> Website and shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such 
> Content." Except, well, I didn't place the content there. Yeah, that whole 
> permission stuff? That's needed - just because I put it on the 'net doesn't 
> mean that it's free to use in any way they want. Can we copy and distribute 
> televisions shows? Why not? They were put on the airwaves free, they were 
> meant for public consumption, no? Because they're protected works - just as 
> anything original you make or anything that you make a substantial change to 
> is protected by default. The same applies for music, artistic work, etc...
> 
> Ah well... Just ironic really and not fair to the end user. It's not fair to 
> you - even if you don't mind - and it's certainly nothing more than piracy 
> albeit in a rather minimal form in my opinion.
> 
> Here's a good example of a site that I don't mind doing it:
> 
> http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=93044
> 
> You should like that one - it's this thread. I don't really mind that one 
> site for example - they don't go so far as to make claims restricting the 
> content for instance and they tend to grab only a couple of the groups. I 
> suppose I'm impressed more because they clearly identify it as the 
> newsgroups. The first link you'll see makes no mention of it and goes so far 
> as to put a false copyright on the page. I suppose they could be a little 
> bit more clear on the source of the content but as far as I'm concerned the 
> acknowledgement that it's from the Microsoft Public Newsgroups is close 
> enough.
> 
> Would this hold up in a copyright case in court? Actually it probably would. 
> Is this about my making a copyright claim? Nope. It's about them restricting 
> the use of what I did, of what you did, and about deception. I don't care 
> about MY copyright - I care about someone claiming the ability to restrict 
> the use of the work that I created. I care about the end user thinking that 
> in order to access the answers given here they must sign up for something, 
> pay the provider of the service, and relinquish information such as a 
> username, password, and real email address. The end-user has the right to 
> know, if they're reading this in a browser and it's not on a domain owned by 
> Microsoft that they're using this post without permission and that if they 
> want they're free to access the newsgroups with their newsreader client of 
> choice without needing to do such things. They have a right to know, say one 
> of us was rude to them, that the site owner wasn't responsible for the poor 
> behavior. In reverse they have the right to know that the source of help 
> that they got was not the work of the site.
> 
> One person - I'm only going to have time to respond to this one before I 
> have to head out I think - made a claim further down (or was it up) that 
> Microsoft was propagating this to the alt.* groups. No, that's their ISP 
> doing that I'm pretty sure? I'm not really sure how that all works but I do 
> know that the posting of information to a public forum doesn't grant any 
> license to use it beyond fair use. Fair use surely isn't disemination in 
> it's entirety. Removing the alternate addresses in the field is long since 
> already done. I only post to the Microsoft groups because, well, because 
> it's easier. I don't use the ISP provided service so they'd just flash 
> errors and I'd have to click more so on my way through I automatically 
> delete them and any non-English speaking groups because I wouldn't be able 
> to answer in another language well enough to warrant further discussions in 
> those groups. (I have a hard enough time with just this language.) The 
> posting of the content (from me at least) to other newsgroups via NNTP is 
> assumed, cross-posting is part of the nature of the beast. How that ties in 
> with someone automatically taking the posts, publishing them to their site, 
> requiring the end-user sign up and be subjected to ads for help, deceiving 
> the user into thinking the site (or their visitors) are the people who 
> submit content, and then placing restrictions on the use of the content 
> (that they don't own, didn't create, nor have modified in any way to enable 
> them to claim derivative work beyond copyright) is beyond me... If you want 
> to draw a line between that and NNTP then it's going to be pretty fuzzy 
> unless you explain that better. (Sorry to include that here but I am lacking 
> on time right at the moment.)
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
    ... > into a public domain can be copyrighted. ... > interface, like Microsoft's CDO or a forum, is copying your posts. ... acknowledgement that it's from the Microsoft Public Newsgroups is close ... Microsoft that they're using this post without permission and that if they ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: jambands.com letter to the editor
    ... >> Okay, so how about we modify that statement to match the facts. ... and property that is in the public domain. ... You have to have the permission of the coyright or trademark ... >act to protect it.** The end result was the attorney got permission from ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: jambands.com letter to the editor
    ... > bands to get their permission to make shows available. ... and property that is in the public domain. ... You have to have the permission of the coyright or trademark ... act to protect it.** The end result was the attorney got permission from ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: jambands.com letter to the editor
    ... >> Okay, so how about we modify that statement to match the facts. ... and property that is in the public domain. ... You have to have the permission of the coyright or trademark ... >has passed into the public domain and the band has given up rights to it. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Discuss music downloading and blogging with me
    ... Can I blog and quote someone else's blog? ... Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com ... Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore ... Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to ...
    (misc.legal)