Re: Vanity Googling for fun

On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:03:34 +1000, Salty <p@xxxxxxx> wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:56:34 +1000, Salty <p@xxxxxxx> wrote:

When you you post something in a public newsgroup you have published it
(to as many newsgroups as carry that particular feed). If someone moves
it to another medium i.e., a website, or a magazine article about
newsgroups (in general or related to a specific subject), or archives it
in a public archive, ALA Google, there is nothing the original poster
can do unless they have specifically requested that this not happen. It

Wrong.

No, I am right.

In real life what can you do? If there is no demand that the material
not be archived, then there is nothing "effective" that you can do. If
the "no archive" flag is set, then you have grounds and can sue and win.
A lot of precedent for that, which is why Google abides by the request.

In real life you can sue.

Archiving and moving to a new medium are two different things.

Google doesn't make the entire book available in a new medium. They
copy/archive the book for their own business use (to search inside the
book) and then they only offer others small snippets from the book
(fair use). If they offered the whole book without explicit
permission that would be illegal copyright infringement.

This post does not have the X-No-Archive flag set, so if I was to search
in a month or two and attempt to sue any entity who had a copy of it, I
would not be sure of winning,

Why would you sue for someone archiving a post that you posted into a
worldwide distribution and archive system?

in fact it would be highly unlikely that I
would win. Possible yes, but likely? No way! The law is on my side, but

No, it isn't.

Unless you mean "any entity who had a copy" to apply to someone who A)
took a copy from usenet and then B) used that copy in a way that was
outside of Fair Use, such as republishing it in another form without
your permision.

As I said before, permission to copy and copyright are not the same
thing. Every usenet server has "permission to copy" (and archive) my
posts. Individuals also have the right to copy my post for their own
personal archive (Fair use). No one has the right to take my post and
put it in a book and sell it - that is violation of my copyright.

the usual practice of law isn't. If however, I was to discover that an
article I had written, say on a new small boat desalination system, had
been published elsewhere, I would be certain of winning, as both the law
and the courts would uphold me. As would the original publisher.

It doesn't matter where you first published the article - on usenet or
in a book. If someone else takes that article and "publishes it
elsewhere" without your permission, it's a copyright violation.

Usenet archives, and making usenet archives publically available (thru
a web server interface) fall into fair use - part of how usenet works.
Taking a usenet article and publishing it *elsewhere* is no longer
"part of how usenet works" nor is it "fair use".

is still being published. This has been tested quiet often

Cite?

I am not a law clerk, you can do your own research if you are really
interested. Hard though it may be to believe, I do not carry a record of
the footnotes or attributions for every book I read or lecture I attend,
and I certainly can find better ways to waste my time than hunting them
down in response an offhand query.

I have never heard of any such case being resolved the way you claim.

I'm aware of several cases (but I can't find my cites) where such
behavior was ruled illegal copying.

I said in my earlier post that the advice I have (from the campus law
faculty - not a law firm) is that it is technically a breach of
copyright, as is recording television shows, but like recording
television shows, although not legal, it has become common practice.

It is totally legal to record a TV show for one's own personal use
such as time-shifted later viewing - this is fair use.

Taking material from a web site can often result in prosecution, but
newsgroup posts, while just as illegal, seem to be ignored by courts.
One day, someone with the time and resources may push a test case
through, appeal a lower court decision and set a real precedent
protecting everyday posts. Until then I would not rely on copyright law
to protect any posts you make to a newsgroup.

I'm not "relying" on copyright law, I'm just saying what the law is.

DejaGoogle is allowed *only* because it's a usenet archive at the
core, and the website is just another interface to the usenet archive.

It is far more broad ranging than a just a Usenet archive. It provides
all manner of research and statistical material. Hard copy if requested
and paid for by interested parties.

It isn't being "republished" when you view it on the web - you are
still viewing the same usenet archive the post was published to.

No you are not.

You have the option to select an "original" view by going through
several menus, but you are viewing it in an HTML web format. For
instance, using Google Mobile, I can view posts on a BlackBerry in a
format that is not even similar to the original newsgroup post. That
does not qualify as "just an archive", it has been deliberately
reformatted for a different media, it has been republished.

I disagree. The article is still on the usenet server, and it has
just been sent to you via a different method.

If I fax you a page from a book I haven't "republished" the book. The
article is still in the book. Instead of looking at the book in
person, you look at a fax of the book.

Many news feeds, RSS and its emulators, provide the core text of many
newsgroup posts but in a changed format. That is republishing.

I disagee, it's just a different distribution method of the same
publication (original usenet post).

There are
many instances, (you must have come across them yourself), where
"condensed" newsgroup threads are available for download in an Adobe PDF
format, particularly in specialist areas like IT, diet/lifestyle, or
Medicine etc. That is republishing, not archiving.

I have not run into this. You may be right. Then again, if no one
has sued to stop it, we don't know if it's legal or not.

and as far as
I am aware, no website or magazine/newspaper has been found in breach
for further propagating the material.

Just because I publish a book doesn't mean you can copy my book and
publish it as a magazine.

Book aren't under discussion. Enforcing copyright for any form of
commercial hardcopy is not a problem.

Books ARE under discussion. There have been cases of usenet posts
that were published in book form.

http://www.netfunny.com/inetjoke.html

Just because I published a post on usenet
doesn't mean you can copy my post in a book. Just because I publish
a photo doesn't mean you can take that photo and put it in your book.

I specifically noted that photographs are quite a different matter, even
when published in a binary newsgroup.

No, photos are NOT a different matter.

I'm a professional photographer - I happen to know *quite* a bit about
photo copyright.

The problem isn't the law, copyright law exists and is clear in its
intended application; it is the *everyday* enforcing of the law that is
a problem.

The problem is one of people understanding the rights and limits of
copyright. Most people are badly confused on this issue.

The comparison with video recording is the best example. It is, and
always has been illegal to copy a broadcast television or radio show.

No it hasn't - it's fair use to copy a TV program to replay it for
*personal* use.

Maybe you need to read up on fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


The law exists, but where is the application of the law? The courts
don't seem to feel it worth rocking the boat to the extent that
enforcing copyright with regard to audio or video recording would
entail. Too many people adversely affected, too many people who are not
basically criminals would be in a very difficult legal position for
simply following accepted convention. Not many people would bother with
owning any form of recording device if they could legally only copy
things that they had purchased, and not loan them etc. Death of an industry.

Using a photocopier is another area of infringement. If not for "Fair
Use" purposes (reviews etc.), photocopying anything that you don't have
rights to is illegal.

Wrong again. It is TOTALLY LEGAL to photocopy a few pages from a book
for personal use. This falls under Fair Use test #3:

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole

If the photocopying is of an entire work then it might be a copyright
violation.

That issue has cropped up from time to time in
libraries and on campuses, but never been fully "legally" resolved, it
is conveniently ignored. Every student who uses photocopies rather than
purchasing the full text is in breach of copyright law.

Students can copy excerpts legally because that falls within both of
these tests of Fair Use:

#1: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

#3: amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole

jc


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design
    ... the newsgroup charter, and therefore you are a troll. ... You make a common mistake of the autodidact and that's content free ... >> You snip without reading passages which you then irresponsibly ... This is because Usenet is a rape culture in Susan ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Dont Cross Post
    ... pronounced to usenet: ... Everything I've done in this newsgroup has been ... than you, was way too fuckin' swishy, chump. ... this group to post more of his laughable crowing. ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • 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: PartnerIn finden
    ... meine Gefühle sind eher ungeeignet etwas verständlich zu formulieren. ... Usenet in keinem Fall zu leisten ist, ... Sollte ich als selbstverliebter ... gehen" fallen und folglich nicht zu postings in der Newsgroup führen. ...
    (de.soc.subkultur.bdsm)
  • Re: Damn, thsi used to be Alt.machines.cnc
    ... Now my kill filters are getting so long I need a bigger hard drive. ... My GOD the things he's done for fun on usenet. ... subjects "we" personally care about and no others. ... Now imagine this newsgroup without the side chatter. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
Loading