Weight Loss Forum Is Plagerizing Our Posts From ASDLC

Jim Bard wrote:
"D.F. Manno" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Will McGugan wrote:


When you post on newsgroups, the text gets sent to numerous news servers
around the world, to mailing lists, and to web forums. You have to
consider your words to be in the public domain, even if someone else
seems to be profiting from them.

Being publicly available is absolutely different than being in the
public domain. By that logic, every book that finds its way into
people's homes, libraries and on sound recordings should be seen to be
in the public domain. Obviously, accessibility isn't a criterion.

No, nothing is in the public domain unless you specifically put it
there.

Or copyright runs out.

For someone to profit from the use of my Usenet posts is
infringement on my copyright.

Just FYI....

An infringement on your "copyrighted material" is only actionable if you can
show monetary loss from the "theft".

Nope.

Copy right law is not about some sort
of altruistic "ownership", it's really all about money.

It's about property rights. The ownership of intellectual property. And
no monetary loss has to be shown unless the complaint seeks damages. The
simple fact of someone using property not theirs is enough to begin
proceedings to secure an injunction. Yes, some potential loss bolsters
the case, but ownership of copyrighted material is sufficient strength.

If you post
information without an attempt to earn from it, but others take your
publicly posted information and manage to profit, it's no more actionable
than a kid selling a bike that Santa gave him for Christmas.

Nope. Copyright law isn't about whether money flows or not. No more than
your ownership of your bicycle is altered by whether someone else uses
it. It's yours and you can make them stop using it without permission.

Usenet posts are technically copyrighted and stay so. The reality is
that the likelihood of anyone (except maybe B*ll P*lm*r) trying to sue
over unauthorized use is slim since it's a discussion forum that invites
repartee which, by necessity, entails quotation and implicitly permits it.

Trust me on this one, okay?

No. I've been to too many seminars on the subject.

Pastorio

Suze wrote:
Quoting D.F. Manno:
Will McGugan wrote:

When you post on newsgroups, the text gets sent to numerous news servers
around the world, to mailing lists, and to web forums. You have to
consider your words to be in the public domain, even if someone else
seems to be profiting from them.

No, nothing is in the public domain unless you specifically put it
there. For someone to profit from the use of my Usenet posts is
infringement on my copyright.

What are your feelings on Google Groups ?

On Google I am not listed as "Guest" no matter what server
I use to post from. So long as I remain listed as the
original author, I'm happy for my postings to be echoed to
assorted forums and archived.

I've been on UseNet since the 1980s and some of my oldest
archived postings are ones that got echoed to mailing lists
and later posted to archives. It's been done for a very
long time.

The problems with this particular two-way gateway a

1) Guest listing, not exactly certain how bothered I am
since I could register just as I have registered at Google.

2) A flood of new users who don't appear to have been
given any training on the difference between UseNet and
a bulletin board. ASDLC is NOT a bulletin board and
postings to it should NOT be treated like it is. The
rules are different. UseNet expects folks to read the
FAQ file, to be willing to read answers, to quote portions
of the text being responded to and such.

In article ,
Suze suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious wrote:

Quoting D.F. Manno:
Suze suze_anderson@spamcop/dot/obvious wrote:
Quoting D.F. Manno:

No, nothing is in the public domain unless you specifically put it
there. For someone to profit from the use of my Usenet posts is
infringement on my copyright.

What are your feelings on Google Groups ?

You don't see an x-no-archive header on my post, do you?

Does this mean that you don't have a problem with Google (which is a
for-profit enterprise selling/generating ads based on post content)
archiving your posts, yet you have problems with other sites doing
essentially the same thing? If so, what do you see as the difference?

Or does your statement mean that you don't really care either way, and
were just passing on information earlier?

I consider Google Groups a worthwhile tradeoff. It's very useful to me
because many other people have allowed their posts to be archived, so I
do the same.

As for other forums, I don't consider my Usenet posts to have much
commercial potential for me, so going after sites that repackage them
just isn't worth the effort.

Mostly, I was just positing to correct the misconception about public
domain.
--
D.F. Manno

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Sherry wrote:

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
2) A flood of new users who don't appear to have been
given any training on the difference between UseNet and
a bulletin board. ASDLC is NOT a bulletin board and
postings to it should NOT be treated like it is. The
rules are different. UseNet expects folks to read the
FAQ file, to be willing to read answers, to quote portions
of the text being responded to and such.

I look at it the same way I look at people wanting privacy when they walk
down the street: you're already out there, privacy is a moot point. I just

True, but that doesn't mean that someone has a right to take my picture
walking down the street and include it in their commercial endeavor.


assume that once I post anything anywhere on the 'net, it might as well be
public domain, for all the control I have over those words once they're out
there - especially in the very public internet area of usenet with feeds
going out everywhere. And I post accordingly.


Probably always good to take the "NYT" approach (never write anything you
wouldn't want to appear in the insert whatever periodical people you care
about read.

Martha



--
Sig pending

Quoting Doug Freyburger:
Suze wrote:
Quoting D.F. Manno:
Will McGugan wrote:

When you post on newsgroups, the text gets sent to numerous news servers
around the world, to mailing lists, and to web forums. You have to
consider your words to be in the public domain, even if someone else
seems to be profiting from them.

No, nothing is in the public domain unless you specifically put it
there. For someone to profit from the use of my Usenet posts is
infringement on my copyright.

What are your feelings on Google Groups ?

On Google I am not listed as "Guest" no matter what server
I use to post from. So long as I remain listed as the
original author, I'm happy for my postings to be echoed to
assorted forums and archived.

I've been on UseNet since the 1980s and some of my oldest
archived postings are ones that got echoed to mailing lists
and later posted to archives. It's been done for a very
long time.

The problems with this particular two-way gateway a

1) Guest listing, not exactly certain how bothered I am
since I could register just as I have registered at Google.

True enough. And, although you -could- register, why would you even
want to?

Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by it. I think it's all so
much hand waving and high horse riding as far as complaining about the
downloading of our posts 'for profit' goes -- especially as Google has
been doing substantially the same thing for quite some time now.

For example, when I pull this particular thread up in Groups (beta),
it is 'selling' three ads -- one promising you can lose 9 pounds in 11
days, one for an inventors site, and one for copyright registration.

However, the way this particular gateway -uploaded- posts from their
board may constitute some sort of net abuse (by the RFCs or whatever)
as posts were not properly formatted or threaded. The content of some
of them is also obviously several months old.

2) A flood of new users who don't appear to have been
given any training on the difference between UseNet and
a bulletin board. ASDLC is NOT a bulletin board and
postings to it should NOT be treated like it is. The
rules are different. UseNet expects folks to read the
FAQ file, to be willing to read answers, to quote portions
of the text being responded to and such.

By the same token, Google Groups is also contributing to similar sorts
of problems in terms of providing posting access to many that don't
(or can't be bothered to) understand the differences.

Quoting D.F. Manno:
I consider Google Groups a worthwhile tradeoff. It's very useful to me
because many other people have allowed their posts to be archived, so I
do the same.

That is pretty much my take on it as well.

As a side note, I have seen people make the argument that at the time
they made posts 'back in the day', Google, Deja, and such weren't
around, therefore they had no reasonable expectation that their posts
would ever appear in a searchable archive.

Now, that's certainly not -my- argument, just sayin'.

As for other forums, I don't consider my Usenet posts to have much
commercial potential for me, so going after sites that repackage them
just isn't worth the effort.

Mostly, I was just positing to correct the misconception about public
domain.

Okay. Thanks.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
2) A flood of new users who don't appear to have been
given any training on the difference between UseNet and
a bulletin board. ASDLC is NOT a bulletin board and
postings to it should NOT be treated like it is. The
rules are different. UseNet expects folks to read the
FAQ file, to be willing to read answers, to quote portions
of the text being responded to and such.

I look at it the same way I look at people wanting privacy when they walk
down the street: you're already out there, privacy is a moot point. I just
assume that once I post anything anywhere on the 'net, it might as well be
public domain, for all the control I have over those words once they're out
there - especially in the very public internet area of usenet with feeds
going out everywhere. And I post accordingly.

That there isn't moderation on this newsgroup means anybody can post from
anywhere - including these intrusive boards. Which isn't saying I like it
of course...only that it's a fact of the 'net over which I have no control
and therefore don't want to stress over...even while I empathize with those
who are upset about it sigh...

--
Sherry
364/315/195
http://lowcarb.owly.net

*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

In article ,
says...
I look at it the same way I look at people wanting privacy when they walk
down the street: you're already out there, privacy is a moot point.

Yes, but using that analogy, this is a case of someone videotaping you
walking down the street that YOU choose walk down, but then layering it
on top of some OTHER video, making it appear that you are walking down
THEIR street, not YOURS. It's deceptive because it makes you appear to
be doing something that you did not, in fact do. Yeah, it's you, and
your name appears on it, and you are, indeed walking, but they totally
changed the appearance of the location WHERE you are walking without
your consent or knowledge and with no indication whatsoever that you had
ever walked down YOUR street in the first place.

--
Saffire
205/135/125
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

"Saffire" wrote in message
.. .
*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- it's appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***
Yes, but using that analogy, this is a case of someone videotaping you
walking down the street that YOU choose walk down, but then layering it
on top of some OTHER video, making it appear that you are walking down
THEIR street, not YOURS. It's deceptive because it makes you appear to
be doing something that you did not, in fact do. Yeah, it's you, and
your name appears on it, and you are, indeed walking, but they totally
changed the appearance of the location WHERE you are walking without
your consent or knowledge and with no indication whatsoever that you had
ever walked down YOUR street in the first place.

OK, I get the difference now. I'm still not as upset by it as you are
but I do "get it" thanks .

--
Sherry
364/315/195
http://lowcarb.owly.net