Ever noticed when you google its pulling up messages from here that companies have captured and reposted without permission and with the headers stripped off. e.g. search GS650GLD carb and you see all the messages I have written. Thought that was illegal without getting permission? Ian Singer -- ========================================================================= See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894 All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply? =========================================================================
You can send them a letter informing them of their copyright violation and your intention of pursuing the matter. Then you can either sue them for damages (which would cost you more than it's worth), or let it go. They probably know this just as well as I do. Unfortunately, copyright law mostly benefits people with enough extra cash to pay lawyers, and that sort of person doesn't seem to hang out here very much. -- Later, John 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.
Yes and they do not even list a contact address but clicking on the purchase an ad leads you through Google to is anyone is interested. On the other hand tyhere are a lot of cheapskates here who could band together as a class action? Ian Singer -- ========================================================================= See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894 All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply? =========================================================================
Please refer to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA If it's private individuals reposting copyrighted material on blogs and such, you have no legal foothold to stand on, Google and suchlike are shielded from liability by law as a result of DMCA 512 You also need to review Section 108 of the the US Copyright law. Libraries and archives are not required to get permission from copyright holders, you see. Google is effectively a library. You need to understand that copyright law was established for one reason only, that was to allow content creators to make a living from works that they create. It was not established to allow people who say embarassing and stupid things in a public forum and then later want to take those things back, to use copyright law solely for the purpose of controlling those things distribution. When you post advice and such on a public forum, without renumeration, you are undermining just about all legal foundation you would have to claim copyright control on these things. In particular if the information is already accessible elsewhere, without charge, and you have done nothing to create a derivitave work of it, you simply cannot hold a copyright on it at all, because the copyright is already held by someone else. For example if someone asks a question in this forum and I respond with pretty much a restatement of what the factory service manual says to do for the problem in question, I -cannot- hold copyright to this response. I would have to substantively modify the directions of the service manual to have any part of that copyrightable. Ted
The reply back from was "Ian, Thank you for your query. Articles posted to usenet are widely distributed through many systems including websites such as ours and google groups. This even includes many distribution services that charge commercial rates for access. A quick search finds your posting on several other similar sites to ours. The copyright for postings on usenet remains with the author, but by posting you are giving permission for distribution in this way. If you were not, how would you expect usenet to work? If you do not want to give such permission then you should use e-mail or private forums where distribution is limited in the way you wish. Please also note that a standard of usenet allows you to deny permanent archiving of your posts by adding this line into the header X-No-Archive: yes Because many modern newsreaders do not make this easy to do, we will honour any occurrence of the string "no-archive" in the header or message as a request to prevent archiving on our site. You may find that this approach suits you regards John" -- ========================================================================= See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894 All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply? =========================================================================
: While true that facts cannot be copyrighted, the vast : majority of discussions here contain a lot more than purely factual : material. My dear sir, you've won the Understatement of the Year Award! Justin '02 Shadow VT750DC
I'd like to start by thanking the acadamy... <VBG> <ducks> -- Later, John 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.
I didn't say it changed one's rights, I said it undermined just about all legal foundation. Courts generally want to see evidence of the plaintiff actually suffering damages before they award anything. Suing someone then when the judge asks "what damages have you suffered, exactly" and saying "none that I can think of" is generally a recipie for disaster. We had a case like that here a few weeks ago, a bicyclist sued the bus system because he blocked a bus and a bus passenger got off the bus and popped him in the mouth then disappeared into the crowd. He claimed 45K in damages. He was awarded $604.00 which put him something like $3,000 in the hole for court and attourney fees. Only if the content is original. If you take someone elses content and merely put it in a different form, your still plagerizing. Ted
*If* you present it as being your own work. Reference/cite the original source, and it's fair use, as I uderstand it. Back to the original point: I, too, have found some of my usenet baltherings included as "content" on websites (the fools!). *But*, they had left the "From:" header intact, so I didn't really care. In my opinion, if a website strips the "From:" header, and any signature block, from a Usenet posting and then include it as content, they may not have done something legally actionable, but they are definitely being unethical.
You assume incorrectly. The writer still holds copyright. Ian Singer -- ========================================================================= See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894 All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply? =========================================================================
