|
(This seems not to have gotten to you. I'm trying to force
my mailserver to send it, rather than my newssever.)
On another newsgroup, a certain poster has questioned whether I
can legally quote his messages in replying, even though he
frequently "forwards" (replies, adding additional newsgroups,
but no content of his own) newsgroup articles, or copies
newspaper articles in full.
My questions:
What makes Usenet LEGAL? After all, messages are copied
all over the various networks, kept by DejaNews/Google, etc.
Arguments I've heard include "implied consent", and "command
of the poster" (in other words, if it's not legal, it's the
poster's problem). I've still seen .signatures and
Organization: lines which prohibit distribution on Microsoft's
networks. If (as seems obvious), this doesn't happen, "implied
consent" is obviously not adequate to protect Microsoft.
What makes the Usenet quoting convention legal? (How about
the "forwarding" mentioned above?)
Arguments I've heard include "fair use", "implied consent", and
"law (or custom) of the forum". Agsin, "implied consent" can be
negated by explicit non-consent, and "fair use" seems unlikely
in the case of the forwarded articles.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
On another newsgroup, a certain poster has questioned whether I
can legally quote his messages in replying,
My questions:
What makes Usenet LEGAL? After all, messages are copied
all over the various networks, kept by DejaNews/Google, etc.
As far as quoting parts of messages in follow-ups, that's how Usenet
worked from Day 1. I can't tell whether you feel "implied consent"
is a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory explanation, but I believe it
_is_ the explanation. Anyone who posts to Usenet knows (or
reasonably should know) how it works, including the fact that
messages are quoted.
A more interesting question is what makes the Google (n Deja)
archives legal. People who posted to Usenet did _not_ expect that
their messages would be saved forever and put up on the Web; many
expressed themselves quite differently from how they would if they
had known they were writing for posterity.
None of the archive services ever asked my permission to archive my
articles. In my idle moments I think about fomenting a class action
suit, but since I use the archives several times a week I don't
think I'd get very far. :-)
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
In article <rpdh50lu0807ta7g3odshikvq4qin7mi77@4ax.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
What makes Usenet LEGAL? After all, messages are copied
all over the various networks, kept by DejaNews/Google, etc.
I would say that Usenet is a large machine, and the poster causes all
the copies to be made. (Similarly, if I fax something to you, I'm
making the copy, even though your fax machine physically produces it.)
Arguments I've heard include "implied consent", and "command
of the poster" (in other words, if it's not legal, it's the
poster's problem). I've still seen .signatures and
Organization: lines which prohibit distribution on Microsoft's
networks. If (as seems obvious), this doesn't happen, "implied
consent" is obviously not adequate to protect Microsoft.
If I write on a document "This may not be printed in Massachusetts"
and then I fax it to a machine in Massachusetts, I'm violating my own
prohibition.
What makes the Usenet quoting convention legal?
Implied consent. That's the way Usenet has worked forever, so any
reasonable person would expect to be quoted, or at least accept the
possibility.
(How about
the "forwarding" mentioned above?)
[out of order]
he frequently "forwards" (replies, adding additional newsgroups, but
no content of his own) newsgroup articles, or copies newspaper
articles in full.
Copies of newspaper articles probably aren't legal.
Arguments I've heard include "fair use", "implied consent", and
"law (or custom) of the forum". Agsin, "implied consent" can be
negated by explicit non-consent,
Can "implied consent" be so strong that an explicit disclaimer of it
is deemed unreasonable and therefore inapplicable?
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <rpdh50lu0807ta7g3odshikvq4qin7mi77@4ax.com>,
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Arguments I've heard include "implied consent", and "command
of the poster" (in other words, if it's not legal, it's the
poster's problem). I've still seen .signatures and
Organization: lines which prohibit distribution on Microsoft's
networks. If (as seems obvious), this doesn't happen, "implied
consent" is obviously not adequate to protect Microsoft.
I don't think this follows. If I give you a copy of my manuscript for
the purpose of making copies and distributing those copies to anyone who
requests one, and on page 143 I write "do not give a copy to your
sister", are you really bound by that? I'd say that prohibitions on
Usenet messages that do not conform to any standard for limiting
distribution cannot be considered a removal of consent.
Imagine that Kinko's had a means for sending a copy of a manuscript to
every Kinko's in the United States. You pop your manuscript into the
machine, and Kinko's makes a copy in every Kinko's. But written on the
manuscript you forbid the Kinko's in Massachusetts from making any copy.
I don't think that would make the Kinko's in Massachusetts liable for
unauthorized infringement. Neither the machine on your end nor the
machine in Massachuessets have any means of reading those instructions.
It seems to me that it's the same thing on Usenet. When you post a
message, you are requesting that it be copied to every Usenet server. It
isn't even just implied, it's what you're asking your newsreader to do.
If you have issues with where a Usenet posting is going to end up, it is
incumbent on you to learn about the Usenet "machine", just as it would
be incumbent on you to learn how to block Massachusetts from the
recipient list for the hypothetical Kinko's multiscanner.
Jerry
--
It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:40:13 -0500 Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com>
whittled these words:
What makes Usenet LEGAL? After all, messages are copied
all over the various networks, kept by DejaNews/Google, etc.
The archiving by Dejanews/Google simply hasn't been effectively challenged
yet so we don't know whether it is "legal." That they have simple "opt
out" provisions may influence the decision on this, we don't know and time
will tell.
Arguments I've heard include "implied consent", and "command
of the poster" (in other words, if it's not legal, it's the
poster's problem). I've still seen .signatures and
Organization: lines which prohibit distribution on Microsoft's
networks. If (as seems obvious), this doesn't happen, "implied
consent" is obviously not adequate to protect Microsoft.
I'm not sure I understnd this, so I pass.
What makes the Usenet quoting convention legal? (How about
the "forwarding" mentioned above?)
You've got the arguments explaining Usenet quoting. Again it reallly
hasn't been effectively tested. Forwarding, however, is pretty widely
regarded as NOT legal. But legal liability alone does not a case make.
There is always the question of whether there is sufficient motivation to
persue it. And it will be a rare violation that will be worth the
time/money/aggravation. Eventually it will be to enough people willing to
persue it that a body of law starts to develop, but we aren't there yet.
Arguments I've heard include "fair use", "implied consent", and
"law (or custom) of the forum". Agsin, "implied consent" can be
negated by explicit non-consent, and "fair use" seems unlikely
in the case of the forwarded articles.
I agree, but Usenet is an anarchy that neither our legal system nor our
technology is up to dealing with in the context of traditional copyright
law.
--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html
|
| |
| |
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote
As far as quoting parts of messages in follow-ups, that's how
Usenet worked from Day 1. I can't tell whether you feel "implied
consent" is a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory explanation, but
I believe it _is_ the explanation. Anyone who posts to Usenet
knows (or reasonably should know) how it works, including the
fact that messages are quoted.
A more interesting question is what makes the Google (n Deja)
archives legal. People who posted to Usenet did _not_ expect
that their messages would be saved forever and put up on the
Web; many expressed themselves quite differently from how they
would if they had known they were writing for posterity.
None of the archive services ever asked my permission to archive
my articles.
Actually, Google does ask your permission, though it's an opt-out
rather than an opt-in. You can specify your post as not for
archiving, and they will (at least with respect to the searchable
portion of their data base) respect that designation.
While I normally don't do so, I have designated this post for not
being archived, as a demonstration.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:17:56 -0500, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
As far as quoting parts of messages in follow-ups, that's how Usenet
worked from Day 1. I can't tell whether you feel "implied consent"
is a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory explanation, but I believe it
_is_ the explanation. Anyone who posts to Usenet knows (or
reasonably should know) how it works, including the fact that
messages are quoted.
A more interesting question is what makes the Google (n Deja)
archives legal. People who posted to Usenet did _not_ expect that
their messages would be saved forever and put up on the Web; many
expressed themselves quite differently from how they would if they
had known they were writing for posterity.
How long did you anticipate that your messages would be saved? There isn't
any fixed convention, and it isn't unusual for messages to hang around for
many months on some ISPs. There are many newsgroups that are archived
essentially forever.
Is there anything different about google other than the length of
archiving and the fact that they archive a large percentage of the
traffic rather than a selected newsgroup?
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:18:13 -0500, TOTE@dog-play.com <TOTE@dog-play.com> wrote:
You've got the arguments explaining Usenet quoting. Again it reallly
hasn't been effectively tested. Forwarding, however, is pretty widely
regarded as NOT legal. But legal liability alone does not a case make.
Widely regarded as not legal in what circles?
Isaac
|
| |
| |
In article <kj3m50ptgfl19hu20br4hmb33o913pk59j@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
A more interesting question is what makes the Google (n Deja)
archives legal. People who posted to Usenet did _not_ expect that
their messages would be saved forever and put up on the Web; many
expressed themselves quite differently from how they would if they
had known they were writing for posterity.
It was been well known over 15 years ago that usenet messages were
archived. Several people made archives. The FBI got a news feed
on magnetic tape. What has changed is the ready availability of
the archives. In this respect usenet messages are like court
records and other public but hard-to-find documents.
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
As far as quoting parts of messages in follow-ups, that's how Usenet
worked from Day 1. I can't tell whether you feel "implied consent"
is a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory explanation, but I believe it
_is_ the explanation. Anyone who posts to Usenet knows (or
reasonably should know) how it works, including the fact that
messages are quoted.
A more interesting question is what makes the Google (n Deja)
archives legal. People who posted to Usenet did _not_ expect that
their messages would be saved forever and put up on the Web; many
expressed themselves quite differently from how they would if they
had known they were writing for posterity.
None of the archive services ever asked my permission to archive my
articles. In my idle moments I think about fomenting a class action
suit, but since I use the archives several times a week I don't
think I'd get very far. :-)
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Jerry Stratton <newsw@hoboes.com> writes:
I'd say that prohibitions on
Usenet messages that do not conform to any standard for limiting
distribution cannot be considered a removal of consent.
Note that there /is/ a Usenet mechanism for limiting distribution.
But when was the last time you encountered anyone using the Usenet
"Distribution:" header? Do any systems still respect it?
If there is a true desire to limit distribution of a message, perhaps
a "non-Microsoft" distribution should be added to Usenet.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359
dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu
"Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and
the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry
|
| |
| |
Jerry Stratton <newsw@hoboes.com> writes:
I'd say that prohibitions on
Usenet messages that do not conform to any standard for limiting
distribution cannot be considered a removal of consent.
Note that there /is/ a Usenet mechanism for limiting distribution.
But when was the last time you encountered anyone using the Usenet
"Distribution:" header? Do any systems still respect it?
If there is a true desire to limit distribution of a message, perhaps
a "non-Microsoft" distribution should be added to Usenet.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359
dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu
"Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and
the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke
|
| |
| |
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
(upon my pointing out that I was never asked for permission to
archive my Usenet articles and serve them up on a Web site)
Actually, Google does ask your permission, though it's an opt-out
rather than an opt-in. You can specify your post as not for
archiving, and they will (at least with respect to the searchable
portion of their data base) respect that designation.
I'm know about it, but as far as I understand it that's not asking
permission. "Unless you tell us you don't want it, we will ship X to
you and bill you $Y", from a company with which I have no prior
relationship, is not asking permission. If it's anything it's an
offer to sell, and if I ignore it it has no legal force whatever.
The only time negative-option permissions are valid, as far as I'm
aware, is if the parties have a contract that contains a provision
for negative option.
But anyway, Google didn't even notify me of the negative option, if
it even existed at the start of Google.
(Please understand we're talking theory here. As a matter of fact,
if Google had asked permission I would most likely have granted it.
I hardly ever use X-no-archive: Yes.)
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
How long did you anticipate that your messages would be saved? There isn't
any fixed convention, and it isn't unusual for messages to hang around for
many months on some ISPs. There are many newsgroups that are archived
essentially forever.
Is there anything different about google other than the length of
archiving and the fact that they archive a large percentage of the
traffic rather than a selected newsgroup?
Yes, I think there is a difference between "forever (or as long as
we're in business)" and "for a month or so". I don't know of any
server that ever kept articles on line for as long as a month, but
if you say there was one I'll believe you. Still, the expectation of
everyone who posted articles was that they would be _temporary_,
that we were not writing for the ages.
(Again, please understand that I am not actually outraged at having
my articles stored. I just wonder under what legal theory it can be
done without asking me.)
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
In article <653u509hic2afs9uni5g4v40e91lkvlqmr@4ax.com>,
Liz <liz@tiredofspam.com.easynews.com> wrote:
a few points: there is a safe-harbor provision for ISPs in 17 USC 512; a
copyright must be registered to maintain an infringement action; the Google
question seems a bit more tricky; as far as I know the only reported case
involving Google is an SEC suit ..
Since Google isn't publicly owned, what does the SEC have to do with
it?
(There's another case "involving Google", but that was the arrest of
someone who tried to blackmail Google with, he claimed, software that
produced payments for bogus click-throughs on ads.)
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <863u50toe9nsmj3rpk7sd9r88126s9eub3@4ax.com>,
Dave Close <dave@compata.com> wrote:
Jerry Stratton <newsw@hoboes.com> writes:
Note that there /is/ a Usenet mechanism for limiting distribution.
But when was the last time you encountered anyone using the Usenet
"Distribution:" header? Do any systems still respect it?
Many systems respect it; but the major servers, which want to be able
to serve customers all over the world, accept all Distributions.
Since most people get their news from such servers, most people don't
see much effect.
(There are some specialized Distributions that are prevented from
leaking outside a cooperating subnet.)
Geographic Distributions were never intended to mean "don't store this
message on a server outside its geographic range" but rather "I assert
that this article is primarily of interest only to people interested
in stuff in the specified locale."
If there is a true desire to limit distribution of a message, perhaps
a "non-Microsoft" distribution should be added to Usenet.
Go ahead and use it now, it won't break anything.
If you really wanted to avoid your article reaching some server, you
could preload the Path header.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Stan Brown wrote:
Yes, I think there is a difference between "forever (or as long as
we're in business)" and "for a month or so". I don't know of any
server that ever kept articles on line for as long as a month,
I don't know if there's a difference, but it's not just
"a month or so". Earthlink now keeps THIS group, at least,
for over 3 months. And, before the Internet, it was not
uncommon for transmission from the US to the land of OZ
(Australia) to take a month, so they would need a
longer retention time.
Or you may not recall shipping magnetic tapes as part of
Usenet, in additional to UUCP (usually by telephone tree).
Also, there were single-group archives before DejaNews. In
fact, I recently found one of my posts on sci.math dating
before the earliest post in the google archives.
(I realize there is little LEGAL content here, but this
is primarlily in response to a question of fact as to
historical Usenet retention times.)
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
(Mailed and posted -- as there's no legal content -- although
the question of whether the X-No-Archive header IS preserved
by the moderator might be of interest to readers of the
newsgroup.)
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
While I normally don't do so, I have designated this post for not
being archived, as a demonstration.
I'm afraid your designation got stripped by the moderator,
unless you "nuked" the post directly on google.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
Yes, I think there is a difference between "forever (or as long as
we're in business)" and "for a month or so". I don't know of any
server that ever kept articles on line for as long as a month, but
if you say there was one I'll believe you.
A couple of days ago I subscribed to uk.legal, and the server gave me
messages back to early January. I have downloaded messages that were years
old from some more obscure newsgroups. I think that for most servers the
retention time is largely a function of traffic level; less traffic = longer
retention.
Still, the expectation of
everyone who posted articles was that they would be _temporary_,
that we were not writing for the ages.
I'm baffled by this whole part of the discussion. How can anyone who
publishes a message on USENET, which is distributed through tens of
thousands of servers to hundreds of millions of potential readers, imagine
that it will not be preserved indefinitely in numerous locations? This is
like writing a letter to the editorial section of the New York Times and
thinking that because newspapers are ephemeral, your words will not be
preserved more than a few days.
|
| |
| |
In article <vbg06092vmso0l2ttddp1lhf12j29qqckm@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
Yes, I think there is a difference between "forever (or as long as
we're in business)" and "for a month or so". I don't know of any
server that ever kept articles on line for as long as a month, but
if you say there was one I'll believe you.
Panix keeps articles (except binaries) for a month or more, and some
newsgroups (local or upon request) for much longer. The RFCs even say
that the "Expires" header is only a suggestion, and local policy
overrides.
Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that 75 years, and extending
every time it's about to expire, is a limited period of time (see the
Mickey Mouse copyright extension), Google could claim to expire
articles after a finite time as well, with no _practical_ effect.
For that matter, UUNET used to sell Usenet on CD; what would the
expiration on a purchaser's system be?
Still, the expectation of
everyone who posted articles was that they would be _temporary_,
that we were not writing for the ages.
My expectation was that if I wrote anything that somebody felt like
saving, he'd save it for as long as he felt like it.
(Again, please understand that I am not actually outraged at having
my articles stored. I just wonder under what legal theory it can be
done without asking me.)
How does Google differ from any free Usenet server, other than by
having a different interface (so what?) and a longer expiration
(again, so what)?
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <653u509hic2afs9uni5g4v40e91lkvlqmr@4ax.com>,
Liz <liz@tiredofspam.com.easynews.com> wrote:
Since Google isn't publicly owned, what does the SEC have to do with
it?
it would not have to be presently publicly owned to have a tangle with the
SEC, BUT in this instance, my error ... wrong Google .. mea culpa
(There's another case "involving Google", but that was the arrest of
someone who tried to blackmail Google with, he claimed, software that
produced payments for bogus click-throughs on ads.)
Seth
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:56:38 -0500, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
Yes, I think there is a difference between "forever (or as long as
we're in business)" and "for a month or so". I don't know of any
server that ever kept articles on line for as long as a month, but
if you say there was one I'll believe you. Still, the expectation of
everyone who posted articles was that they would be _temporary_,
that we were not writing for the ages.
It's not unusual for messages to be online for well over a month at
some ISPs. I've seen messages in some groups well over a year old.
I would suggest that some expectations are simply uninformed.
There are also some large news servers who promise a month or two of
retention for both text messages and huge binary messages.
Also people or organizations often run their own private spools of one or
more newsgroups. There is no telling what the storage policies of those
spools are.
(Again, please understand that I am not actually outraged at having
my articles stored. I just wonder under what legal theory it can be
done without asking me.)
I think there are two possible legal theories. One is that you have
given an implied license and the other is that you yourself are the
agent for whatever copying occurs. Both arguments rely on the theory
that you have dumped your text into a machine that you know or should
know is going to do X and then X happens. It would seem that the
sane thing to do if you didn't want X to happen would be to keep your
messages out of the machine.
Additionally, a service may be protected by the safe harbor provisions
of the DMCA if they do not control the content in their archives. In
that case they have to react appropriately when copyright violations
are pointed out using the required protocol.
Exactly what permissions do you think you have given and which have
you withheld? Have you given permission for giganews to archive
your messages from a month or only for earthlink to keep them for a
week?
Isaac
|
| |
| |
|
