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

From: John Navas (spamfilter0_at_navasgroup.com)
Date: 11/22/05


Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:45:38 GMT


[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <87hda57e6s.fld@apaflo.com> on Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:51:07 -0900,
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> 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
>>explained" <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>:
>
>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
fee.

>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
>>audience.
>
>So? They still have nothing more than a rather typical news
>server...

Again, I respectfully disagree -- Google Groups is vastly different a standard
NNTP service.

>>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>


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Magdalenian experiment (continuation)
    ... ideas in the Usenet. ... Vinci's Mona Lisa painting as an allegory of seeing - ... and then also Google, as I recall. ... Best Replied ANJELINA JOLIE - KATE WINSLET BLUE FILM VIDEOS Hide ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Pleas for help from clueless students?
    ... Some people seem to have real problems finding anything on google for ... However a lot of questions patently are homework. ... might never have heard of usenet can now offer their opinions and ... I haven't got as far as using outlook for news yet. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Troll Activity Going Through The Roof!!! Amazing!!!
    ... Google has permitted large numbers of individuals to access usenet who ... this thread is a person who, if you run a search on all his posts in this ... posting volume through the eyes of the Google interface, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Report this spam to: groups-abuse@google.com
    ... The usenet is still routinely spammed. ... since GOOGLE IS NOT USENET. ... L3-Com/Microdyne as an engineering tech in RF, Digital, Embedded ... to Ft. Greely Alaska to work at the base's Radio and TV station. ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)