Website Leaches of my Usenet Postings...Cease and Desist

On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I see postings of mine from the early 1990's still floating
>>around in many forums, and I don't mean just on deja.com
>>(Google Groups).
>
> Nothing of the sort. Public domain is a term of art with special
> meaning, and posting to Usenet doesn't put something in the public
> domain, effectively or otherwise. Should you be damaged by someone
> making use of it (e.g., for commercial purposes outside of your intended
> use on Usenet),

How does that cause you damage?

> you could pursue a copyright infringement action, which
> wouldn't be possible in a real case of public domain.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I just heard the
at SEVENTIES were over!! And
visi.com I was just getting in touch
with my LEISURE SUIT!!

---

› See More: Website Leaches of my Usenet Postings...Cease and Desist

On 2006-08-31, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-08-31, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lets examine one Leeching Website:
>> cellphonetopics.com
>> which calls ACS
>> Cell Phones Forum > Cellular service providers > Sprint PCS
>> and surrounds the site with Ads.
>
> I admine cellphonetopics.com is incredibly lame.

Um, "I admit ..."

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Is this sexual
at intercourse yet?? Is it,
visi.com huh, is it??

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:08:50 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I see postings of mine from the early 1990's still floating
>>>around in many forums, and I don't mean just on deja.com
>>>(Google Groups).
>>
>> Nothing of the sort. Public domain is a term of art with special
>> meaning, and posting to Usenet doesn't put something in the public
>> domain, effectively or otherwise. Should you be damaged by someone
>> making use of it (e.g., for commercial purposes outside of your intended
>> use on Usenet),
>
>How does that cause you damage?

It denies you that financial gain, a well-accepted principle in
copyright infringement.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:07:03 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On 2006-08-31, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lets examine one Leeching Website:
>> cellphonetopics.com
>> which calls ACS
>> Cell Phones Forum > Cellular service providers > Sprint PCS
>> and surrounds the site with Ads.
>
>I admine cellphonetopics.com is incredibly lame.
>
>> The owning company Jelsoft Ent. will soon see legal papers for
>> money damages.
>
>I know I shouldn't ask, but how exactly do you think you've
>suffered monetary damages?

Presumably because the site is making money from his content.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:08:50 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>I see postings of mine from the early 1990's still floating
>>>>around in many forums, and I don't mean just on deja.com
>>>>(Google Groups).
>>>
>>> Nothing of the sort. Public domain is a term of art with special
>>> meaning, and posting to Usenet doesn't put something in the public
>>> domain, effectively or otherwise. Should you be damaged by someone
>>> making use of it (e.g., for commercial purposes outside of your intended
>>> use on Usenet),
>>
>>How does that cause you damage?
>
> It denies you that financial gain, a well-accepted principle in
> copyright infringement.

I believe you'll have to show in court that there was a
credible expection of financial gain. Nobody in their right
mind is going to believe that you have a credible expection of
making money off your Usenet postings.

But you can always hope for a jury that's not in their right
mind...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! You should all JUMP
at UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS
visi.com while I decide on a NEW
CAREER!!

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:22:56 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It denies you that financial gain, a well-accepted principle in
>> copyright infringement.
>
>I believe you'll have to show in court that there was a
>credible expection of financial gain.

Per se established by the actual financial gain from use of that
material.

>Nobody in their right
>mind is going to believe that you have a credible expection of
>making money off your Usenet postings.

Google has actually made a good business out of it.

>But you can always hope for a jury that's not in their right
>mind...

I personally don't rely on that kind of hope.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:22:56 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It denies you that financial gain, a well-accepted principle in
>>> copyright infringement.
>>
>>I believe you'll have to show in court that there was a
>>credible expection of financial gain.
>
> Per se established by the actual financial gain from use of
> that material.

That establishes that a set of newsgroups can be presented in a
way that makes (or at least attempts to make) a profit. I
would think you would still have to convince a jury that your
postings _alone_ could have been used to make money.

I don't think you'd have much of a chance if your lost profits
rely on you violating the copyrights of other posters in the
same manner for which you're suing.

>>Nobody in their right mind is going to believe that you have a
>>credible expection of making money off your Usenet postings.
>
> Google has actually made a good business out of it.

Hmm. I don't think that's analogous to one person expecting to
be able to make a profit from just his Usenet postings (without
using anybody else's postings).

Not that I'd go to court with any of these arguments.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Two with FLUFFO,
at hold th' BEETS...side of
visi.com SOYETTES!

John Navas wrote:

> Google has actually made a good business out of it.

Yes they have. Has anyone successfully sued Google for copyright
infringement of their Usenet postings?

--
St. John
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
-Adlai Stevenson

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:07:56 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Per se established by the actual financial gain from use of
>> that material.
>
>That establishes that a set of newsgroups can be presented in a
>way that makes (or at least attempts to make) a profit. I
>would think you would still have to convince a jury that your
>postings _alone_ could have been used to make money.

I think Google AdSense creates a strong presumption of direct financial
gain from specific content. While the presumption would be weaker for
general advertising, I think it would still be pretty persuasive.

>I don't think you'd have much of a chance if your lost profits
>rely on you violating the copyrights of other posters in the
>same manner for which you're suing.

As I wrote, that's clearly Fair Use; i.e., expected usage in the normal
course of Usenet.

>> Google has actually made a good business out of it.
>
>Hmm. I don't think that's analogous to one person expecting to
>be able to make a profit from just his Usenet postings (without
>using anybody else's postings).

It's not necessary to show that. Note that recording companies are
harmed if free broadcasts are freely re-broadcast or freely shared on
the Internet. It's only necessary to establish value, for which I think
Google is sufficient.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:32:05 -0400, "St. John Smythe" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> Google has actually made a good business out of it.
>
>Yes they have. Has anyone successfully sued Google for copyright
>infringement of their Usenet postings?

No, but that's not much of a case against it. I think a class action
might well get some traction.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I don't think you'd have much of a chance if your lost profits
>>rely on you violating the copyrights of other posters in the
>>same manner for which you're suing.
>
> As I wrote, that's clearly Fair Use; i.e., expected usage in
> the normal course of Usenet.

No, I mean that nobody would pay to put ads on a site contained
just a single users Usenet postings. I think there's value in
Usenet (which is what Google provides) that's simply not there
in just a single user's postings.

> It's not necessary to show that. Note that recording
> companies are harmed if free broadcasts are freely
> re-broadcast or freely shared on the Internet. It's only
> necessary to establish value, for which I think Google is
> sufficient.

Could be.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Why am I in this ROOM
at in DOWNTOWN PHILADELPHIA?
visi.com

St. John Smythe wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> Google has actually made a good business out of it.
>
> Yes they have. Has anyone successfully sued Google for copyright
> infringement of their Usenet postings?

It's probably not a great business. Deja was unable to make a go of it
and went into receivership and sold it to Google for a song. Google
recently removed Google Groups from their opening page, demoting it to
be under "more>>." There doesn't seem to be much advertising on Google
Groups, so I doubt if Google's making any money on it.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:35 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>St. John Smythe wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Google has actually made a good business out of it.
>>
>> Yes they have. Has anyone successfully sued Google for copyright
>> infringement of their Usenet postings?
>
>It's probably not a great business. Deja was unable to make a go of it
>and went into receivership and sold it to Google for a song. Google
>recently removed Google Groups from their opening page, demoting it to
>be under "more>>." There doesn't seem to be much advertising on Google
>Groups, so I doubt if Google's making any money on it.

You would be wrong:

* Groups are still on the popup with the same status as Books and
Froogle.

* Groups pages have Sponsored Links that pay the same as other Sponsored
Links.

* Google is using Usenet to boost its own groups.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:22:56 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >On 2006-08-31, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It denies you that financial gain, a well-accepted principle in
> >> copyright infringement.
> >
> >I believe you'll have to show in court that there was a
> >credible expection of financial gain.
>
> Per se established by the actual financial gain from use of that
> material.
>
> >Nobody in their right
> >mind is going to believe that you have a credible expection of
> >making money off your Usenet postings.
>
> Google has actually made a good business out of it.

Google also presents Usenet in the form of the actual group titles,
not some renamed forums that these websites claim are posts
by the sites members.

Google also provides useful tools for searching usenet, for free.

JG...gsmhack.com another leecher thats at least truthfully in naming..
hack

>
> >But you can always hope for a jury that's not in their right
> >mind...
>
> I personally don't rely on that kind of hope.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

HAHA idiot of the Month maybe?

Agent_C wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2006 14:48:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> All of the below websites are now legally notified to cease and desist
>> copying MY intellectual property to your websites...JG
>
> I nominate this poster for the esteemed title of: "Idiot of the Week".
>
> Would anyone care to 2nd the motion?
>
> A_C
>
>
>