"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , David Rance
writes
Sorry, I just don't agree with those who argue in favour of keeping this
a usenet-only means of communication. If I were still active in the
Fidonet I would port it over to that! WHAT DOES IT MATTER? (I'm not
shouting, it's the only means I have of emphasising.) Usenet is in the
public domain so no theft, intellectual or otherwise, is taking place. The
more we argue about our "rights" the more these sites will endeavour to
prove that we have none.

The consensus is that participants hold the copyright in their posts. By
posting the material to u.r.g. an implicit license is granted. But this
does not cover every possible use of the material. IANAL, but it seems to
me that in particular if a site that republishes a post is ignoring
x-no-archive headers they would be in breach of the implicit license.

OTOH, there doesn't seem to be much distinction between Google Groups and
Garden Banter, so I never really understood the opposition to Garden
Banter.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Reference your last para, Violet Elizabeth Bott comes to mind

Mike



--

....................................
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
....................................