Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".

From: Galen (galennews_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/20/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:55:27 -0500

In news:barmar-BBB36F.00544819112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> had this to say:

 My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> In article <ufeYimI7FHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> "Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:437df90c$0$89138$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl,
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> had this to say:
>>> So please remove your claim [1] from your signature, because it
>>> only makes you look very silly and it does not accomplisch anything.
>>>
>>> [deleted]
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>> 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.
>>
>> *yawns* Well, this is just too early in my day for this sort of
>> stuff but...
>>
>> I'd show you a screen shot of my sent message process but, well,
>> that could just be faked and wouldn't prove anything. Propagation to
>> alternative newsgroup servers relates exactly how to my signature? I
>> suppose, if you
>
> Your signature implies that you don't expect your messages to be on
> non-Microsoft servers without permission. But Microsoft *does* send
> the microsoft.public.* newsgroups outside of Microsoft, via the normal
> Usenet news propagation mechanism.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by qualifying it with "in a
> browser", though. Are you saying that it's OK to be reading your
> message in a newsreader, but not in a web browser? Is there some
> special provision that prohibits web interfaces to Usenet, like the
> extremely popular Google Groups?
>
>> wanted to relate it, then maybe someone could be taking the alt.*
>> groups and posting those to the web automatically and had asked the
>> admins of the group for permission to do so (I'd like an example of
>> this though) though that's
>
> Except for moderated newsgroups, there are no "admins of the group" in
> Usenet. And the groups are not being "posted to the web". The web
> servers are merely providing access to them, analogously to the way
> NNTP servers do for newsreaders. It's just an alternate way to get
> at the same messages, and doesn't require any special permission.

I'll be short in this as I'm lacking on time - I'm sorry because this likely
deserves more of a response. You and David Candy made excellent points. (I
simply haven't had time.) Yes a work published to "public domain" is not
something I can retain much control over and still claim is public domain.
My vocabular is off more than anything though my point remains the same.

My signature implies just as it says. A browser. Not a newsreader. A
browser. If a browser had NNTP capability (that'd be pretty neat) then the
domain for where I posted would begin with news:// and not http://...

I accept, and know, that crossposting exists on newsgroups. It's a part of
the beast and I actually like it. Otherwise I'd not have learned that there
aren't any admins for the alt.*-type (new Galenism so I hope that makes
sense) newsgroups. Thank you for that. This whole time I'd been under the
impression that in order to get a group started you requested it in the
right section, you then justified it, and then administrators saw to it?

I am saying that if the reader is reading the post here in a browser and the
domain is not owned by Microsoft... (It's writen right down there.) Is there
some provision that prevents Google Groups? Well there's the copyright but
unless you're a lawyer who's willing to explain all of it in detail to me
then please don't bother because it's not one bit about copyright. Not even
a wee bit about it. It's about permission. When I send a message to NTTP I
have expressly granted permission for the server that it was sent to to
publish that content to it's servers to be read and retrieved. (And this is
STILL not what it's about...) When I send a message that crossposts to one
of the other newsgroup servers (via whatever method - I'm truly lost on how
they go there in the first place - and just to see if there's a difference
I'm going to delete the alternate groups in this one again unlike the last
one because now I'm curious) I accept that I have then given that server
permission to post it. I have not said that that server can then propagate
it to a site. I have not said that someone can rebrand it, charge for it in
either information or ad showings, or the likes. (There's a decent bit of
information out there that shows that I do have this right I suppose but,
again, this is not really at all about copyright.) So, even if it's
crossposted to another group and that specific group non-admin or general
consensus says that they want to publish it to the web - I have not been
asked permission. That is a pretty simple fact? I have not at all said that
someone can take the information I have given and repackage it and send it
with ads (etc) out via HTTP. I have not and if asked I probably would say,
"Heck yeah! Great idea, thanks for asking." I simply haven't said that and
assumption or not - the sites do not have permission. Can you take a CD of
your favorite artist and repackage it in MP3 format and sell it with your
name on it legally? No? What's the difference between that and Google
Groups? They don't sell it "directly" but rather make money on either an
information exchange (you give them a password and username for instance) or
via ad impressions.

Am I missing something or is this just not being understood? I'm at a loss
on this one. I know - specifically - that my statement is true. I (for one
and I doubt you expressed permission either) did not say they can do this.

The real reason - and this has been typed out far too many times to be
productive - is to be able to share the method of accessing the newsgroups
without need of rebranding, ads, etc... The user has a right to know this.
They have the right to know that the site that they may be seeing this on
(assuming it's not the one from Microsoft) is showing them my content
without permission. If for no other reason than it's so that they can come
blame me if I mess up or so that they don't blame me if the site messes up.
But really, it's about sharing the method of accessing (this is getting dull
to type) the newsgroups via a newsreader without need to remit personal
information, pay for the site via being shown ads, or potentially much
worse.

I'm sorry to be so short because, well, the ideas presented made me think.
Thank you for that and for letting me know that the usenet hasn't any
administrators other than in moderated groups. 

-- 
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".
    ... > a browser with a built-in newsreader. ... payment as would be submission of personal information for permission to ... a critter that functioned like a browser and accessed newsgroups I'd not ... It is my opinion, and this is just my opinion, that a simple human effort ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
    ... >> post to the Microsoft groups because, well, because it's easier. ... >> The posting of the content to other newsgroups via ... for permission to do so though that's ... If you are reading this in a browser and that browser ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
    ... non-Microsoft servers without permission. ... microsoft.public.* newsgroups outside of Microsoft, ... Usenet news propagation mechanism. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
    ... >> domain now owned by Microsoft then it's being used without ... of copyright - simply one of permission. ... Google, "Okay, go ahead and copy what I wrote and publish it?" ... > browser access to Newsgroups. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
    ... >> simply, taking without permission, I'd give it if asked. ... >> if it was okay if they included it on their site, made money from ... > As to the latter point: Google Groups, ... because the list of Newsgroups still is: ...
    (comp.security.misc)
Loading