The message
from Frogleg contains these words:

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

Google gives usenet posters the choice *not* to be archived there and
honours the "x-no-archive" post header. In addition, those who do appear
in the google archive can request ar any time, to have one or all posts
deleted.

It would be annoying indeed (and probably copyright violation) to
abstract messages (or pictures) without attribution and reproduce them
out of context.

That has happened here in the past. A regular poster to this group
lifted third-party material straight from it, without the writers'
knowledge or permission, and reproduced it without attribution on a
gardening website which was paying him to write original material for
it.

I've been approached several times by idle journalists (including
Americans) trawling the urg google archives to find ready-written
gardening material for the newspapers/magazines which employ them to
write it. Two asked me to waive copyright or settle for a byline and one
just informed me of the great honour he was about to confer. No prizes
for guessing who got paid for the reproduced article and who did not.

Goodness only knows how many self-styled journalists/researchers do
that without permission or notification...I saw an instance not long ago
in a national newspaper. The author was an urgler, the post was from
another usenet group, taken out of its context, without their knowledge
or consent, and published along with their name.

Others may find such behaviour acceptable, that's fine for them. Those
of us who don't would just like our clearly-indicated choice to be
respected, and that's what this American website refuses to do.

Janet.