Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Silverstein Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 00:19:22 -0400 Organization: QNX Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: WlZAL97qrgRbKGTQyuOxmw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4337 On 19/05/2011 11:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message, John Silverstein wrote: > >> On 19/05/2011 8:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message, 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...