Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
From: Flash Gordon (spam_at_flash-gordon.me.uk)
Date: 11/21/05
- Next message: roxanne.charlebois_at_gmail.com: "IT Security Awareness Seminar- Nov 30. 2006"
- Previous message: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Next in thread: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Reply: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:34:18 +0000
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Galen wrote:
>>>> And here I go at the bottom again. Okay, I see you're just not paying much
>>>> attention. Do you see the ads on the side of your Google Groups? Yes? That
>>>> would be you paying them. They not only make money for click-throughs but
>>>> they also make money per impression. Do you think they track your use of
>>>> their site for "informational purposes" with their cookies? That would be
>>>> paying them information in exchange of services.
>
> All of the above is seriously flawed thinking... *very* seriously flawed.
Agreed.
>>> The advertiser is paying them, the user is not.
>> Nonetheless, Google is making money on copyrighted content it doesn't have
>> explicit permission to copy, which I think is a shaky legal proposition, much
>> like it's project to scan and search copyrighted books.
>
> Not very shaky at all, given the circumstances. 1) They are
> indeed a "commercial" operation, but they are *not* selling
> copies, while others are indeed selling copies. 2) They may not
> have explicit permission, but the implied permission is so
> obvious and so strong that it may just as well be explicit.
Agreed.
They could even argue, and justifiably IMHO, upon these lines:
1) When you post to a news group you are requesting that your post be
forwarded to all who request a copy of your post from that server.
2) You are further requesting that said server forward it to all servers
with which there is a peering agreement from that server.
3) You are further requesting that they forward it on, etc, until it has
reached all news server.
4) Google is well established and well known as a news server.
They can back this up with this section from the RFC that defines how
Usenet works http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html
| 4. Transmission Methods
| USENET is not a physical network, but rather a logical network resting
| on top of several existing physical networks. These networks include,
| but are not limited to, UUCP, the Internet, an Ethernet, the BLICN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| network, an NSC Hyperchannel, and a BERKNET. What is important is that
| two neighboring systems on USENET have some method to get a new
| message, in the format listed here, from one system to the other, and
| once on the receiving system, processed by the netnews software on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| that system. (On UNIX systems, this usually means the rnews program
| being run with the message on the standard input. <1>)
So the standard says it can leave the internet, and that once at the
receiving system (a Usenet server) that system provides software for
people to read the news. It just happens that in the cse of Google that
software is sitting behind a web server to allow people to access it
over the web, but the standard does not prohibit this.
Note also that they refer to rnews reading the message from standard
input as a way of reading the article, since this is clearly not reading
it over nntp from a news server it is obviously intended that using an
nntp client should not be the only method of reading articles.
> To put it mildly, anyone is in for a disappointment if they post
> to Usenet and then claim a copyright violation when the article
> is copied for *any* reason. (And the OP's contention that this
Agreed. See RFC above where it explicitly states that the internet is
not the only transport mechanism and explicitly states that the list it
provides is *not* exhaustive.
> is not a copyright issue is ingenious indeed, because there is
> no other legal impediment to copying his articles.) Worse yet,
> since Google is *clearly* engaged in typical and traditional
> distribution of Usenet (granted they have set their expire time
> to infinity), there doesn't seem to be the slightest wiggle room
> for a valid complaint.
Agreed.
> If there were, just think of all the many Usenet providers such as
> supernews.com, newsguy.com, etc. etc. who *are* selling access.
>
>>> You have posted it *knowing* that it will automatically be shown by
>>> Google. This is like someone broadcasting on a frequency where a
>>> repeater will pick up and retransmit the signal (as my Father does) and
>>> then complaining that it has been retransmitted (which he does not).
>> Bad analogy: Google is much more than a Usenet server, and knowledge of what
>> Google is doing doesn't constitute any sort of implied consent.
>
> Google is nothing more than a normal server with extended expire
> times and providing a fancy online interactive newsreader which
> can do nifty things that rn (also) does in a crude way.
And one that provides another way of accessing it, and multiple ways of
accessing Usenet seems to be blessed by the standard.
>>> Most people replying to you have seemed to understand what you have said
>>> perfectly. They are just pointing out how incorrect and stupid your
>>> statements are.
>> He's not stating it well (IMHO), but I do think he basically has a point.
>
> I thought he'd stated it well enough! :-) Everyone understands what
> he is saying; they just don't agree with him.
>
> The problem is that his points are totally invalid. Start with the
> statement that it is not a copyright issue, and go from there...
What is worse is that it is an international copyright issue, and this
may well include countries with very lax or no copyright laws, since by
posting you are requesting that it be sent to all Usenet servers.
>>> If you don't want your posts to show up on web interfaces to Usenet then
>>> don't post to Usenet, and that includes the microsoft.* groups because
>>> they are normal groups just like any other.
>> That's like saying: If you don't want people to copy your music or movies
>> without permission, then don't broadcast them over radio or TV. In other
>> words, it's not a valid argument.
>
> No, it's like saying if you don't want people to *hear* your
> music, don't broadcast it on radio and television. Copying
> (many thousands of times) each and every article posted to
> Usenet is just as part and parcel of Usenet as listeners hearing
> music on AM radio. (Okay, used to be, before right wingnuts
> took it over).
Agreed. In other words, posting to Usenet is if anything explicitly
requesting that the article be copied and distributed far and wide, and
this includes posts to the microsoft.* hierarchy as Microsoft have
chosen to peer that with other Usenet servers.
-- Flash Gordon Living in interesting times. Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
- Next message: roxanne.charlebois_at_gmail.com: "IT Security Awareness Seminar- Nov 30. 2006"
- Previous message: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Next in thread: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Reply: Frank Slootweg: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
