Copyright

Copyright law will not make me dislike people that copy my messages any less. It is not about law, it is about people misusing my content for their get rich with no work schemes. Let me pose another example to you since you did not jump on the idea of someone editing your contributions to say something different. If I google your user name to see what other groups you might be contributing to and find that you also post to alt.sex.littleboys it would certainly have an impact on how I dealt with you in the future. It is not about law, it is about what is right.

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet back several years."

Bill, with all due respect, I agree with you. It does seem wrong. But I am not sure it rises to a legal issue that can be stopped.

If a legal option is not the solution, I do think that if everyone used your signature statement regarding usenet and that this is alt.wine.food perhaps it would be harder for others to copy or mirror our group and take credit for it.

Do you give everyone on AFW the permission to use your statement below?

""This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this posts is copied in part or whole on another website or Usenet group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet back several years."

Regardless of the copyright issue, there likely is one more thing that could be done. Once a month a post could be made here that lists sites that have copied, edited, posted as a guest etc previously posted alt.food.wine posts. This would depend on the person whose post has been re-posted in another site reporting the details to someone who would post the list every month here. Of course Mark Lipton is concerned with this issue and could add this to his monthly faq post. However it might be asking too much of him to do this, as he already has quite a bit of work for the faqs, to say nothing of university duties. I just throw this out for discussion, and I do not have a strong opinion on just how it should be done or if it should be done at all.

This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this post is copied in part or exactly on another website or Usenet group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet back several years.

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .......

I must to confess to having a pet peeve - and the use of this "copyright" disclaimer in "cwdjrxyz"s post is a graphic illustration.

The above statement appeared THREE TIMES in this single post !

With the greatest respect gentlemen (and ladies?) - for goodness sake, please edit the content of your post before sending, and SNIP!!!!!

For too long, I have remained silent (recognising that "I" am the one with the problem!) - but, it is simply poor netiquette to include a 10-15kb post being tasting notes of a wonderful event - with a comment like "Nice notes, Charlie!" included at the bottom.

I no longer purchase wine which will probably outlive me - I certainly do not want to be spending my limited remaining life scrolling through 2 or 4 or 6 identical disclaimers, because contributors are too bloody lazy to "cut out the crap".

In two words "SNIP DAMMIT"

st.helier

I guess it depends on what reader you are using and how it is set. I do not see all of the long text quoted on top, but only a "show quoted text" in blue. If I want to know what is in the thread that came before, I just click this and it all comes up. I happen to be using Google Groups for this post. I would guess you are using a reader that is not set, or can not be set, to show quoted text only when you click for it. I really do not worry about KB of a text post anymore. The content of even a dissertation of text is trivial with what is being used today for video for example. Streaming a video, using progressive download, of up to about 50 MB is not uncommon these days, for example. And it is quite possible to download uncompressed DVD movie files that may run from about 4 - 8 GB overnight with a very high speed DSL or cable connection these days. Ten years ago things were very different indeed when one was lucky to have even a true 56K dialup connection and perhaps only a very few GB of disk space on the computer. Usenet is a relic from that era when one had to download a selected group of Usenet posts and then read them, usually off line. Since then it has become common to use newer formats for groups, such as PHP BBs, that work on line and you do not download anything, except to the usual temporary cache, which takes care of itself. I use Google Groups because they do all of the Usenet downloading so their interface can be used on line much like a more modern method. It is true that they do not allow as much customized filtering as the better Usenet readers. However, for me, I do not see the point of filtering out the posts of some who may annoy me. That reminds me of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to avoid something that really is there. I admit some groups have troll problems and mass ad attacks from time to time, but so far these have not bothered me enough to make me want to use an elaborate Usenet reader and fuss with elaborate filters. Of course we are all different.

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .....

Aha - thanks for the clarification (and apologies if my post sounded like a cheap shot at you - it wasn't!)

Yes, and perhaps I am similarly anachronistic!

I resolve to be more tolerant I resolve to be more tolerant I resolve to be................................

st.helier

You could put it under the conventional sig-separator, the one I use in my posts. That way, most newsreader will automaticaly strip it off when quoting. Note that there is a space after the two hyphens.

The way I read the copyright law (I'm a writer and not an attorney) is that postings here would be assumed to be copyrighted. Perhaps not if you simply listed wines you tried, but if your list includes your notes, that would fall under literary (as computer programs do, according to the law referenced in the posting).

Shaun Eli

Perhaps you can clarify what in those two links you feel supports your contentions that newsgroup posts aren't protected by copyright and/or their reproduction without attribution on websites constitues fair use? From what I read in both those links, no support for either of your views is offered. Here's a more germane (IMO) link for you:

There are two key points here:

1. Any work with original content in a "fixed medium" receives copyright protection. Original in this context means anything that wasn't simply copied from another source. Fixed medium refers to any material medium (print, video, CD, digitized information). Both email and newsgroups are considered fixed media.

1. Google's Groups feature is an example of implied license, since they are reaching the same audience that the original poster tsrgeted and they aren't (arguably) introducing the posts to a different distribution system. There are those who feel that Google's Groups feature may not survive a legal challenge for copyright violation, though.

Mark Lipton

Mark,

There is not much more to say, we simply disagree.

You make some assumptions that I do not. I do not assume email and newsgroup postings are literary. Secondly I do not agree that they are fixed.

Then the content I see as basically excluded "Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration "

I make not bones about it, our board is more of a discussion thus not literary.

That stated, perhaps the AFW FAQ's are copyright protected. I assume you have printed those as well.

I am sorry, I simply don't see it the same way you do. Furthermore, I don't think the courts would either if pursued. IMHO.

I tend to agree, Dick, but I'll take one last stab at it:

From your first link:

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”

If computer programs are considered literary works, I can't see how we can reasonably exclude someone's ramblings about wine.

(I cite the Fair Use doctrine for quoting their page, BTW ;-))

Again, from your first link:

The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device.

That line, to me, clearly indicates that digital information is to be considered a fixed medium, and all that I've read supports that view.

That sentence, as I read it, merely makes the point that it is the written documents that are copyrighted, not the intellectual property that underlie them; these latter are protected by patents instead.

Nope, but I'm really not concerned about it, despite my view that it is protected by copyright.

As I said before, I think it would be difficult to claim any damages in such cases. OTOH, "cease and desist" letters from lawyers seem to be the usual way in which these things are handled anyway.

Anyway, I've said all that I'll say on the subject. There's a reason (several, actually) why I'm not a lawyer, and discussions like this make them vividly clear to me.

Mark Lipton

Richard,

Most of what you say would also apply to The Tonight Show, which is clearly protected by copyright.

Being on the internet instead of in a book makes no difference as far as copyright.

Well, I am not sure I agree with that aspect and if challenged in court you might find the defendants attorney will use that as our forum is more of conversational and I do not beleive that is covered.

That said, I have not practiced law in a while but I did in the last 10 years have a slander/libel case for a client and forum was the essential aspect of our victory. The client had a john doe posting to a yahoo message board of a public stock. The company CEO was offended, we used John Doe to maintain confidentiality and lost on that part, but won on the overall issue.

If we have a bull session talking about fine wines, and it is tape recorded, is that tape fair game to broadcast at a later date without the permissions of the participants?

Does it matter if the participants do (or do not include) Parker, Mondavi, and The French Chef? Does it matter if they speak in iambic pentameter or chant like a Gregorian choir?

Jose

OK, iambic pentameter only from now, let's go:

If all the post right here were done in verse No thieves would ever steal from us again

But only honest folk would come peruse the writings from our electronic pen.

So pop a cork and swirl the glass tonight and tell the world what grape is your delight...

Who can fill in eight lines here to make a proper english sonnet? We already have the a-b-a-b / g-g lines, we are missing c-d-c-d / e-f-e-f ...

If one is a poor poet, perhaps two lines will do.

Last night I drank some Mirabelle Today I do not feel too swell

Something close to that comes from some author that I can not recall. Apparently the plum eau de vie Mirabelle can give you a nice hangover if you drink much of it, but perhaps we can not blame the plums because it is often 40 - 45 percent alcohol.

Hah!! The one we finished tonight we estimated at between 60 and 55%.

I'm not very good with Classic rhyming couplets, but - in view of the direction in which your thoughts are going perhaps the example I first learnt of something or other will suffice. (Probably an elegiac couplet).

"Down in a deep dark ditch sat an old cow chewing a beanstalk Out of her mouth came forth, yesterdays dinner and tea."

All I'm any good at is writing scurrilous limericks. Here's one that came to me in the last few seconds.

There once was a lawyer named Dick, whose mind was remarkably sick he'd argue all night over who had the right to copy his writings, the silly fellow.

Which took as inspiration one of my favourites

"There was an old man of Dundee who was stung in the arm by a wasp when they asked "Does it hurt?" he said "No it doesn't" Thank heavens it was't a hornet.

-- All the best Fatty from Forges