On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:21:30 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

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.

IPC boat magazines do the same trick.
--
Martin