More web theft of AFW content

Mark, I tend to disagree with you based upon the "Fair Use" exemption.

Most of what is posted here is simply commentary or opinion.

Since this site is free, and the others are and no money is being made, even if you could stop what they do, which is doubtful, you could not likely benefit financially.

However, is you placed music here that you created, then some other site downloaded and sold it or gave it away...then I think you would have protection.

This area is in no way my specialty but I do beleive that I am correct that fair use would apply to our group and most "usenet group" where opinion is being discussed.

Sorry.

Also, non of our postings would likely be consider for commerial use. Especially mine.

How does that differ from what you read about wines in newspapers and magaizines?

The two I looked at made money from google ads.

We post to newgroups for discussion on newgroups. You could argue providing a web interface (read-only or with posted going back to AFW) to the newgroup is fair use. And google do indeed argue precisely that.

But to dress AFW up as an independent forum, where replies go back to the forum is surely not fair use. Especially in the case of the worst perpetrator that changed the names of all the posters in attempt to cover up.

You can argue almost anything...however filing a suit may end the use of AFW material...but I see no monetary awards.

For the most part, opinion and discussion is not protected. I think for the most part, non of these postings in our forum would get protection.

That is not to say what the other sites are doing is right. It is dispicable..but not necessarily a slam dunk either in court. IMO

This forum and its content is NOT proffesional but mostly that of conversation and opinion. I think the type of forum would play a role. Its line message boards for stocks. You make nasty commnets about a CEO or an officer of a company. If those comments were in a newpaper they may be considered slander or libel...but is a message board where the conversation is more like bar talk the courts have decided to allow the type of forum to play a role as to the seriousness of the violoation. Rarely, in fact never have I heard of a win. And yes, about 8 years ago I had a case of that type representing my client. That was the defense taken when a Texas Company accused my client of Slander. They wanted to penetrate the screen name. We used a John Doe defense, the ACLU also joined in to protect his first ammendment case, we eventually lost on the John Doe, the courts wanted his name. Then when the courts understood the forum, they dismissed the case. Of course this was only after we paid $5000 for a media attorney specialist to evaluate the message board and conclude non of the postings would rise to the level of any form of legitimate journalism or writings.

But they are not charging for the material. The fact that they make money at the site from ads is different than charging $2.00 to read Dale William insult me and vice versa. Sorry, I don't think that it would yeild any rewards.

Again, you could make that argument and you would be correct. I just don't see the courts ruling in favor. The internet as a medium and our newsgroups in my opinion are not perceived as being front and center of the New York Times. Its more like there were 30 guys discussing a wine in a bar. Now, if Robert Parker was here, and he posted, and he is a proffessional, then perhaps he might rise and have claim to a higher level. We would not likely.

I would imagine that would be one of the most harmful sites if they change the names. I imagine that would be the place to start if you were going to. However I am not sure where the site is hosted, and of not in the same country you better hope the hosting country follows the laws in general of our country.

One other point, and I have not visited the site that does that, do they post, or does it allow others to post and someone other than the owner/operator control what is on the site. That plays a role IMO.

Mark, is there any legal way to pursue this. I have had many posts hijacked over the last year and I'm sure Dale is a regular contributor to these bogus forums unbeknownst to him.

I just checked the latter and immediately noticed filched posts from people I know on other food groups, as well as the discussions from here on this very topic. Graham

Dick, I have no real interest in pursuing any legal action, and in Internet parlance IANAL, but this is no way conforms to my understanding of the Fair Use doctrine. Fair use applies to using small amounts of copyrighted material for one's own use; to qualify, the amount of material used must be small, no commercial gain can be sought and it cannot be widely distributed. In all cases, these examples fail all three criteria.

That is of no consequence. The Op-Ed page of every newspaper is also commentary and opinion, but they are most certainly copyrighted.

Agreed. Damages in copyright law are derived from lost revenue, but that is a separate issue from the legality/illegality of what they're doing. A cease and desist order doesn't depend on lost revenue arguments.

Not according to my understanding. Implicit copyright applies to all writing in fixed media, and courts have agreed that the Internet qualifies. I believe that even email has implicit copyright, but I could be very wrong about that. Certainly, what appears on websites is copyrighted, provided that the content is original. The same would apply here: as long as what's written originates with the author, it is protected by copyright. Ironically, protections on the Internet are even *stronger* than they are in print media thanks to the wonderful DMCA ;-)

Injudiciously yours, Mark Lipton

I would assume between fair use and safe harbor there is not much of a case. Which is different than saying what they do is acceptable. To me the most aggregious would be the one that changes the names ( I have not seen that one)

Additionally, when I access this site I access it from Earthlink for a connection and use outlook express. You can also access from google groups.

I don't know who actually owns the site but after a quick review of the terms of use I am still not sure that there is a case. And when another site uses our matierial, such as google groups that implies that it is google.. Is this Google? I assume google while they may not advertise have some reason to attract us to their site.

Not my specialty but I still assume fair use combined with safe harbor, that they are not commerically selling our actual posts....a non issue. I am sure for $5000-$10000 you can retain a media attorney, (they usually represent news orgs) and you might win...and the other sites likely are ordered to remove the posts, an no damages or legal costs.

Just a guess of someone that spent time in courts years back. Just a guess.

Now if you had music or military contract leaking on a site...you got them dead to right.

Like Mark, I am not for a moment suggesting anyone bother to take legal action. But if anyone did, surely the point would be to get the blighters to stop rather than seeking damages.

I think a US court would be a lot more lenient than an English one. In the US creativity is apparently required to make a work copyrightable. In England it is sufficient to demonstrate skill, labour or judgement went into the piece, which would be quite easy to do for, e.g., a set of tasting notes. Of course, working out which country's courts would try the case would be one of the first problems :)

IANAL either, but I have made it my business to read a legal textbook that includes, amongst other things, a thick section on copyright law and the Internet. An amateur perhaps, but I can read like the next man. Better than most, I think.

Her's a post I just found supposedly posted by Unlovable Caranda:

=======================Jenny, that is very interesting. It sounds a bit like collecting stamps or coins. (Or "sigilography," a word I know only from the Tintin books that I read as a child -- an old professor studied official seals...)

I have only saved a few wine labels as reminders of the wine. If there is a larger world of label collecting, if you can say anything more it, or post further references, I would be grateful. (Maybe others also.)

Best -- Max Hauser ======================= :)

It's clearly not fair use in US either, as it fails on 2 of the usual

4 criteria. It's being used on a commercial site (a site that has advertising is commercial, it's clear none of those sites is hobby driven!). . More importantly it fails on the "amount and substantiality" text, as it's just copying over (using a program, probably) the entire text of discussion. To qualify under fair use it has to generally be a sample of the work to make a point. No decent lawyer would claim this as fair use. But like others, it's probably not worth pursuing, as thse #$sholes just pop up somewhere new.

The point also is that these sites like Google Groups, or Earthlink Newgroups all asscess the same data.

The only issue that I would see is that they may/may not define as usenet.

But what is the difference in commerial application? You use commercial as though a profitable company cannot show because they advertise. IMO that is NOT the same as commercial use.

If they sell the material...that would be different. Without selling I think you could use. Just a thought.

I think you guys might want to hire a media attorney and go after it. I have a few I could recommend if anyone is serious. Also a couple Intellectual Property Attorneys...but you will have to argue the media aspect fo the internet. There are some trying, none that I know of that win money...but it could happen.

It's clearly not fair use in US either, as it fails on 2 of the usual

4 criteria. It's being used on a commercial site (a site that has advertising is commercial, it's clear none of those sites is hobby driven!). . More importantly it fails on the "amount and substantiality" text, as it's just copying over (using a program, probably) the entire text of discussion. To qualify under fair use it has to generally be a sample of the work to make a point. No decent lawyer would claim this as fair use. But like others, it's probably not worth pursuing, as thse #$sholes just pop up somewhere new.

A friend just logged onto this one and her software flagged it as a phishing site.

Graham

No surprise there. I have found AFW posts now on more than 20 sites and have not exhausted the search. All of them are commercial sites.

Google's archive is, apparently, the usual source for these "thieves" and the reason is financial ("populating" a website so they can sell advertising banner space). Graham

Great...go hire an attorney and sue. Let us know how much you make on it. :-)

IMHO, just because they sell advertising does not really make it commerical.

I personally dispute that our conversations are protected by copyright...they are NOT articles or literature.

But, I sure would like to see someone go after them. So get a lawyer and sue them all. In the end if you accomplish anything other than a , we will take down those posts, I would be amazed.

Again, Does Google have the rights to USENET, and if they do, I access our group from Earthlink. Do thay have the right...both look different. Both companies make money on their sites...therefore, are they also part of this? Aren't they commerical?

I don't buy into any of the thought that our posts are protected as our posts are more conversation.

Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase the "noise" factor considerably. The difference between that and Google groups is that Google makes no attempt to disguise the nature of the forum, and provides the mechanism to post replies. I certainly don't feel the neccesity to experiment with those sleazy sites, but I would bet that if one posts a response to Bi!!'s TN on any of those, it does not appear on Usenet readers. Please let me know if I am incorrect. If a site is providing full access to newsgroups, and doesn't pretend that the forum is their own, I personally would have no problem with it.

Typical usenet response. You pick one word you disagree with and ignore the meat of the post. The opposite of "private" is public. You are worried that your content is in the public domain and whether that means you have a right to it or not. I believe that was the whole point of all the fair use discussion.

How do these sites increase the noise? They keep the trolls out of your group.