More web theft of AFW content

Below is something that might be worth a try. If it gets cut out on posts that appear in another group, this is proof that they edit posts to suit themselves and do not thus "archive" posts as does Google. Yes, I have found some of my posts to alt.food.wine in other groups. In one I am listed as a "guest". I don't recall ever visiting that group before. Perhaps I am showing my age, becoming forgetful,and need to check with my physician - but I doubt that.

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this posts is copied in part are 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."

I am enjoying a nice Shiraz as we speak. And to answer you question, everyone posts from a position of self-interest, whether it be merely self-actualization or some commercial advantage. This thread was archived to Google.com and I found the subject matter interesting. Usenet is an interesting animal, and the fact that it still exists represents a bit of an anomaly. Modern forums provide much better functionality and spam control and yet usenet continues to exist. The only reasonable explanation is that the Usenet history and archives have value. This thread should serve as a reminder that nothing said on the Internet is truly lost, and your words will live forever. Caveat Poster

Not sure that function is working right now.

:-)

just kidding

Why does being commercial make any difference to their legal position? If I ripped off music CDs, would it be any more legally acceptable if I then gave them away?

Steve, I beleive the purpose of commercial would be very important in terms of any monetary damages. Someone would/should have to prove that because the post was on one site, but now other sites, that your NON commercial post somehow damaged you monetarily. So, you might otherwise hire an attorney and agree in principal that what is done is wrong, but your legal fees will NOT get recovered. IMO.

Please now, I am fairly certain that Google Groups is a "FOR PROFIT" thus Commerical site. Just because they are not advertising on the google group page does NOT make them less commercial. What is your definition of commercial?

Because I am a woos, I don't want to register on one and test it out. But then you contradict yourself. You CLAIM it will increase noise factor here, but then come back and say, it would not likely post here from one of those other sites? Which one is it again?

I am NOT that INTERNET SAAVY...but how do you know for a FACT it is copied? Could they not point their server to the other and it provides a mirror image? If it is the same, and the only issue is they show ads on the page, its not necessarily copied. Does google do the same thing but not show ads? They offer groups I assume so people will come to their site at google. Why, cause they likely make money on advertising on searches with pay per click. On selling demographic info, contact info or other stuff...(Google is great, what ever they do I am sure is in their terms of use)

For the record, I registered using a gmail account at Mombu, and the first post did not come here to afw.

One other thing, I don't see that their posts are complete from our group. I do think they use partial posts.

One other thing, their advertisments are sponsored links from Google it said. If I understood that correctly.

Quite. It's the commercial interests of the owner of the copyright that are key to getting damages paid.

Incidentally, why is it that one seems to have to hire an attorney for copyright cases, and the dispute seems always to be between the 2 parties concerned. If physical property were stolen I'd expect the police to catch the perpetrators, and the (in England) the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. Why is it different for intellectual property?

Here in the US, copyright is not criminal, its civil law. IMHo

That's what I thought too until I was persuaded otherwise by someone a couple of years back.

A quick google and it seems it is USUALLY civil law, but c>Here in the US, copyright is not criminal, its civil law. IMHo

That should be enough to turn you against this use of our posts. It you write something here with your name on it and then they edit it to be what they want it to be and leave your name on it, I would think that you would be screaming. (like the rest of us)

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this posts is copied in part are 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."

Bill, I like the signature statement you use. IF we ALL did that, I think it would be much harder for someone else to use our posts without LOTs of EDITING.

But I am not that internet saavy.

Bill, I am not happy about the situation, however:

I do not think our posts have the protections of copyright.

Secondly, I think the sites that replicated or somehow mirror image us likely have little going on for them and we lend them credence by using their names on our posts.

Third, I see no real damages.

Most of our copyright laws protect works or expression of ideas, real ideas, not postings of likes/dislikes etc.

Therefore, I don't see any benefits other than your signature on your post. Can I copy it?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Any figures as to what proportion of news servers respect the X-No-Archive flag?

The point isn't wheter my silver tongued prose is echoed throughout the www, but whether the web site that does it has asked my permission and told readers that it has "borrowed" content from afw without permission. You're surely not suggesting it's acceptable are you, because you seem to be. Are you associated with this slimy organisation?

I think discussion of the legality and the existence of copyright is largely a waste of hot air. If it has taken until now for film makers and record producers to "persuade" ISPs to write a polite letter of remonstration to those blatently stealing material that is equally clearly subject to copyright,then it's clear that protecting copyright on the Internet is a very rocky field.

-- All the best Fatty from Forges

I am not myself suggesting legal action as it would be monetarily useless and even legally a stretch. I just resent the use of my posts or anyone on here to sell advertising space. I do copyright my material pertaining to my own business and would sue if someone lifted material from my work and posted or published it as their own.