tha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Larry Qualig <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > It's different for Google, Deja News (now Google) or any of the ISP's
> > because they are a member of the USENET system/network and have an
> > "implied license" to use and display the information.
>
> There is no special status conferred on one server versus another that
> makes it part of the 'USENET system/network'. It is a completely ad-hoc,
> decentralized, anarchistic system. Anyone can create a downstream feed
> and archive it however they like, forward it anywhere over any protocol
> they like, whatever. Numerous web archives abound of both usenet and
> many public mailing lists. This is tradition.
And if the messages are used in the context of providing USENET content
or delivering content to the USENET system then it would be okay. But
this clearly is *not* how these messages are being used. He is
*selectively* taking the messages he wants, discarding the ones that
don't suit his agenda and putting them up on his for profit website.
> > To put it differently, when somebody posts to USENET they have the
> > expectation that it will appear and become available to USENET. There
> > is an implied license that gives all USENET systems the right to carry
> > this post.
>
> Again, the thing that makes you part of Usenet is the decision to
> transmit or archive Usenet posts. Nothing else.
If he were running a USENET server and the posts appeared on the USENET
server there would be no problem. But these posts are *not* being
served as USENET content. He is taking *selective* posts and displaying
them on his for-profit website.
> > But there is *NO* expectation that a post that someone makes will
> > appear in People magazine, a Pepsi commercial, the New York Times or
> > Roy's web-site. There is no "implied license" for use in these venues.
>
> Well, you might get some coin going after Pepsi, but a reprint in
> the guise of journalism might be protected by the courts if properly
> attributed, and a web archive is well in keeping with the history of
> the medium. Before the web, thread archives were often made available
> via FTP. Of course you can never know for certain until someone takes
> it to court... though I don't know why anyone would bother.
Notice the whining that some posters are making about some other site
(jlaforums?) and how they are putting USENET postings up on their
for-profit website. There is no practical difference between what
jlaforums does and what Roy is doing.
> Thad
|
|
