On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:57:46 GMT, "no one of importance"
wrote:

If I understand correctly, the problem you all are arguing about is that one
person may have put a post from the newsgroup on their own blog or website.

If I'm not mistaken, and I honestly don't think I am, as long as that person
gives the correct attribution to the original writer, they're pretty much
home free. They'd need to cite the date and newgroup as well, but it falls
under the "fair use" exemption, if I'm not mistaken. The problem would only
be if the website didn't include the attribution, but rather quoted it as
their own work.

I think you are mistaken. Using this theory.... say you
have written a book and it's been published.

John Doe then Xeroxes it and sell the copies for $50 each.
They are correctly attributed to you (because he copied the
entire book, including the title page with the author's
name, etc.).

This is a violation of your copyright. And illegal. And so
it should be because instead of you (the author) profiting
from the sale of your works, John Doe is profiting.

However, you are free to read the sources I gave yesterday
and form your own interpretations of them, of course. For
your convenience, I will repeat them he

US Copyright Office - http://www.loc.gov/copyright

The Copyright Site (written by a copyright lawyer) -
http://www.benedict.com

I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw
that broke the camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far
as I'm concerned. I'm not going to participate in
newsgroups any longer, I give up.

I've fought the trolls and spammers for years, I've filtered
out hundreds (if not thousands) of idiots, I've made a
worthwhile contribution (I hope) to the general welfare of
the Usenet community: but I'll tell you what: The
noise/signal ratio is just too great for me now. I give up
on newsgroups. This was one of the few remaining worthwhile
newsgroups, IMHO.

I'm on several very good mailing lists and although I vastly
prefer the newsgroup *format*, it's sadly necessary to have
the control a mailing list affords.

Pat
--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:20:22 +1100, "Fran"
wrote:

wrote in message
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:37:24 GMT, Bry
wrote:

(snip) the site I linked to, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is in fact not my
blog as you suggested, but is actually the *official HTML viewer to
this newsgroup*. I have no control over what is posted there, it
simply mirrors all the posts sent by people such as you who use an
email reader to access the group. (snip)

As I posted a few minutes ago, this is absolutely untrue.

Your website -- gardenbanter.co.uk -- has no association
with rec.gardens.edible and you are violating the copyright
of posters on this newsgroup by republishing their writings
elsewhere without their permission.

I'm quite curious as to how you know this for certain. Were you around when
rec.gardens.edible was created?

Yes.


I ask because I know that there are some gatewayed ngs (the same posts
appear in differing internet guises) and I just wonder if there is such a
set up here that was created at some time in the past.

It may have been, but not to gardenbanter.co.uk and - even
if it had been - NO ONE has authority to do this. That is
*not* how unmoderated Usenet newsgroups operate.

In other words, I could create such a 'gateway' and take all
the posts from this newsgroup and publish them on my website
(for commercial purposes): but it would be unethical and a
violation of copyright. Or you could. Or anyone could.

There's nothing to prevent this from being done. It would
still be unethical and a violation of copyright.

If you are in a friend's house, perhaps minding the goldfish
while your friend is away on vacation, and see lots of money
lying about, there's nothing to prevent you from taking it.
The fact that there's nothing to prevent you from taking it
does not make it right.


It is also unethical,
in my opinion, as you are stealing the intellectual property
of others.

?????? that doesn't make sense. Bry is a poster whose posts come to this
forum through an alternate means. Bry is no more stealing your posts than
you are stealing his/hers.


I was under the impression that Bry was the domain owner of
gardenbanter.co.uk -- his own posts gave me that impression.
He now says that he is not. If this is true, I was
mistaken. And I hereby apologize to Bry.

Anyway: I'm gone, unsubbing.

Pat
--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

spamtra wrote:

I'm quite curious as to how you know this for certain. Were you around
when rec.gardens.edible was created?

Yes.

I was here, too, when rec.gardens.edible was split off from rec.gardens.
Being around when a newsgroup is created is not really a sign of any
authority at all - even if you voted for said newsgroup, which I did.

I ask because I know that there are some gatewayed ngs (the same posts
appear in differing internet guises)

It may have been, but not to gardenbanter.co.uk and - even if it had been
- NO ONE has authority to do this. That is *not* how unmoderated Usenet
newsgroups operate.

Ah. So, Pat, what are you going to do about groups.google.com? Because
usenet-to-email, usenet-to-html, usenet-to-whatever gateways been around
in one form or another for ages (probably since usenet began), and will
stay around as long as usenet continues to functions.

I see gardenbanter as just yet another take on that gateway, for those who
don't have usenet access; this one is set up in the spirit of the times,
like most any php-mysql forum (bb? bb2? they all look the same to me.).

Is this better than googlegroups? Dunno. Is it better than a proper usenet
program? Certainly not.

Henriette

--
Henriette Kress, AHG Helsinki, Finland
Henriette's herbal homepage: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed
Best of RHOD: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/rhod

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:57:46 GMT, "no one of importance"
wrote:

If I understand correctly, the problem you all are arguing about is that
one
person may have put a post from the newsgroup on their own blog or
website.

If I'm not mistaken, and I honestly don't think I am, as long as that
person
gives the correct attribution to the original writer, they're pretty much
home free. They'd need to cite the date and newgroup as well, but it
falls
under the "fair use" exemption, if I'm not mistaken. The problem would
only
be if the website didn't include the attribution, but rather quoted it as
their own work.

I think you are mistaken. Using this theory.... say you
have written a book and it's been published.

John Doe then Xeroxes it and sell the copies for $50 each.
They are correctly attributed to you (because he copied the
entire book, including the title page with the author's
name, etc.).

Well, there you fall down. First, you're assuming that it's money is being
made, that's not seen, and that would be the first exception. Second,
entire letters to the editor can be posted in other newspapers without
payment, as long as they are properly attributed.

As to your sources, you need to understand that the sources aren't as
important as you think. What are important things are the precedents that
have been accepted by the courts, all of which interpret the law. Fair use
applies in this situation.

Finally, understand that the copyright laws are still in the process of
catching up to the digital media. At this point, with all due respect, you
have no case.

Philip

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:55:53 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:20:22 +1100, "Fran"
wrote:

wrote in message
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:37:24 GMT, Bry
wrote:

(snip) the site I linked to, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is in fact not my
Big snip.
Pat

If you really decided to unsubscribe you won't see this I suppose.
Anyone can archive posts to usenet and make those archives available
to the public. They can even charge people for access. This breaks
no US copyright rules. Simply ticking off the yes no archive button
does not offer any legal protection. You certainly do own the
copyright of any material you write and claim. That offers you
protection against infringements, but an archive of public posts is
not an infringement.

I'm still picking tomatos in zone 6 - Now that's worth discussing!

-Rick

When last we left our heros, on Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:55:53 -0500,
scribbled:

Anyway: I'm gone, unsubbing.

I wish you wouldn't. You're a very calm, sane voice that
skews the noise/signal ratio to the good side. I don't
get to post as much as I would like, but I always
enjoy your posts.

And I liked your passionate defense. I've had entire posts of
mine from another froup lifted and presented as someone
else's. That's just so tacky!


Pam


--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn"

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:47:31 -0500, spamtrap wrote:

I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw that broke the
camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far as I'm concerned. I'm not
going to participate in newsgroups any longer, I give up.


Have a nice day.

--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
01:20:01 up 3 days, 9:04, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.15
01:15:00 up 104 days, 4:27, 1 user, load average: 1.76, 1.82, 1.81

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:21:41 -0400 in
, Anonymous
graced the world with this thought:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:47:31 -0500, spamtrap wrote:

I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw that broke the
camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far as I'm concerned. I'm not
going to participate in newsgroups any longer, I give up.


Have a nice day.

that message is what, seven months old? Good eye.

Anonymous wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:47:31 -0500, spamtrap wrote:


I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw that broke the
camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far as I'm concerned. I'm not
going to participate in newsgroups any longer, I give up.



Have a nice day.


You just now replied to a post from over 5 months ago?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:19:11 -0400, Steve wrote:



Anonymous wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:47:31 -0500, spamtrap wrote:


I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw that broke
the camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far as I'm concerned. I'm
not going to participate in newsgroups any longer, I give up.



Have a nice day.


You just now replied to a post from over 5 months ago?


Yeah ... I've been busy. Just now getting caught up. :-)

Bill
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
01:49:00 up 4 days, 9:33, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.35, 0.27
01:44:00 up 105 days, 4:56, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00