Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen".
From: John Navas (spamfilter0_at_navasgroup.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:45:38 GMT
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <firstname.lastname@example.org> on Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:51:07 -0900,
email@example.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>John Navas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>email@example.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>John Navas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>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. ...
>>I respectfully disagree, on all counts. See "10 Big Myths about copyright
>Of course what you cite supports exactly what I've said, if you
>read if very carefully.
Again, I respectfully disagree.
>And also note that Templetons wrote
>that quite a few years ago, and *none* of the dire predictions
>for what might actually be the case have made it through a court
>of law yet.
True -- it's "unsettled law" -- which makes debate a bit pointless.
>> Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to
>> everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others
>> feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all
>> the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the
>> consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if
>> the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
>> it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
>> granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when
>> one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material
>> into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it
>Nobody has said that it places the article into the Public
>Domain. I've just said that it is clear enough that permission
>was granted to copy it virtually anywhere.
>There can be *no* argument that permission has been granted to
>copy it everywhere that Usenet goes. After all, that is what
>posting an article to Usenet *does*.
Again, I respectfully disagree, just as radio and TV broadcasts don't grant
further permission to copy, or even permission for commercial use -- a bar or
restaurant providing the broadcast for customers still has to pay a license
>Hence the only question is one of just what is Usenet, and as
>someone else has pointed out it is by definition virtually *any*
>form of distribution.
Again, I respectfully disagree -- the question is of the type of use, and
there's a difference between (a) free broadcast over Usenet and (b) commercial
use after the fact, just as there is between (a) free radio/TV broadcast and
(b) commercial use of that broadcast.
>> comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make
>> copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can
>> be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit
>> licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was
>> aware of.
>Which is to say, when an individual hits the "ENTER" key (or
>whatever) to cause an article to be posted... *that person* is
>the one doing the copying! That would be true even if it is
>days or months later that some far flung part of Usenet finally
>gets the command and make one more copy.
Again, I respectfully disagree -- the persons doing the copy at (say) Google
are [drum roll] the employees of Google.
>>Both the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) sued
>>Google over its book search project for much the same issue.
>A vastly different issue. ...
Again, I respectfully disagree -- I think the fundamental issue of commercial
use is quite similar.
>>>If there were, just think of all the many Usenet providers such as
>>>supernews.com, newsguy.com, etc. etc. who *are* selling access.
>>That's a different issue -- they are selling only news service in the same way
>>that ISPs sell news service, not making money off related ads.
>Damned right it's a different issue! They are selling the
>*articles*, while Google isn't! They are profiting directly
>from commercial use of the copyrighted material, Google isn't!
Again, I respectfully disagree -- they are copying Usenet in the intended way,
not making separate commercial use of the content.
>>Google is actually an advertising company that uses search to generate an
>So? They still have nothing more than a rather typical news
Again, I respectfully disagree -- Google Groups is vastly different a standard
>>We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Pretty much the case.
At least we agree on something! :)
>I would add one more caution too. Usenet has been around for
>over 25 years now, and Google/Dejanews has been here for a
>decade. Crackpots have been making similar claims to what the
>OP makes since nearly the beginning, but none of them have ever
>won in a court.
None of them have lost either, so there's no point to be made.
-- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>