Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #4337

Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories!

Show key headers only | View raw

On 19/05/2011 11:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<ir4n45$nf4$1@speranza.aioe.org>, John Silverstein wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2011 8:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<ir0osq$2sg$2@speranza.aioe.org>, John Silverstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> If someone puts that in their usenet
>>>> post, but no X-No-Archive: Yes header, and Google then shows ads
>>>> alongside it in Google Groups, can Google be sued?
>>>
>>> X-No-Archive makes no difference.
>>
>> Its absence could be interpreted as granting Usenet archives an implicit
>> reproduction license under attribution-noderivs like terms.
>
> Except, since it says no such thing, no.

Wrong. It's become a norm that Usenet posts can be retained and, without 
modification except to add Xref etc. headers, redistributed:

1. For a limited time (typically up to three months) by news servers, so
    in practice by pretty much anybody; and
2. For an unlimited time by archives (so in practice by pretty much
    anybody) unless marked X-No-Archive: Yes.

Consequently, making a Usenet post may be construed as granting an 
implicit reproduction license as described, but that license can be 
construed as expiring after a short time in the presence of the 
X-No-Archive: Yes header, whereupon any explicit license terms would 
apply, or, if none was present, the default "all rights reserved".

Of course, unless the poster registered their Usenet post with the 
Copyright Office, they could not sue for damages, only for an injunction 
to stop infringing uses. (They could also still use the DMCA to take 
down copies on US servers.)

In practice, the poster would probably use Google's own methods to 
remove their post from the archive after the fact, and this would 
probably work; otherwise they'd use a DMCA takedown notice, which Google 
would probably respond to; and only sue if that also failed.

However, the law does allow someone to skip straight to suing someone...

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Pitch <mail@fake.info> - 2011-05-11 10:53 +0200
  Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-11 08:57 -0400
    Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-11 19:16 +0200
    Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Pitch <mail@fake.info> - 2011-05-12 11:02 +0200
      Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-12 08:28 -0400
        Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Pitch <mail@fake.info> - 2011-05-13 11:43 +0200
          Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-05-18 08:09 -0400
            Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! John Silverstein <js19375@ymail.cox> - 2011-05-18 11:33 -0400
              Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-20 12:36 +1200
                Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! John Silverstein <js19375@ymail.cox> - 2011-05-19 23:28 -0400
                Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-20 15:31 +1200
                Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! John Silverstein <js19375@ymail.cox> - 2011-05-20 00:19 -0400
                Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-20 18:50 +1200

csiph-web