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

Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.

John

---

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

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:

>Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.

Legally that's not true.
#3 of "Myths About Copyright Explained"
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>

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

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
>
> >Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
> >that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>
> Legally that's not true.
> #3 of "Myths About Copyright Explained"
> <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>

First, your link didn't work (no response).

Second, if it isn't true, did you first check with John Horner before
reposting his copyrighted response? <g>

Notan

John Horner wrote:
> Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
> that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>
> John

Practically speaking, that's the case. Almost no one would have the
resources to get their postings removed from all the servers that they
end up on, and on all the forums they are reposted in.

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).

Notan wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Legally that's not true.
>
> First, your link didn't work (no response).
>
> Second, if it isn't true, did you first check with John Horner before
> reposting his copyrighted response? <g>

Third, there are things in life that are worth getting excited about,
and this doesn't really seem to be one of them.

--
St. John
This generation doesn't have emotional baggage. We have emotional
moving vans.
-Bruce Feirstein

"St. John Smythe" wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> Legally that's not true.
> >
> > First, your link didn't work (no response).
> >
> > Second, if it isn't true, did you first check with John Horner before
> > reposting his copyrighted response? <g>
>
> Third, there are things in life that are worth getting excited about,
> and this doesn't really seem to be one of them.

Who's getting excited?

Just having a friendly conversation...

Notan

Notan wrote:
> Who's getting excited?

Wasn't thinking you were (don't get excited.

--
St. John
Elbonics, n.:
The actions of two people maneuvering for one armrest in a movie
theatre.
-"Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

"St. John Smythe" wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > Who's getting excited?
>
> Wasn't thinking you were (don't get excited.

Who's getting excited? <g>

Notan

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:39:57 -0600, Notan
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
>> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
>>
>> >Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>> >that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>>
>> Legally that's not true.
>> #3 of "Myths About Copyright Explained"
>> <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>
>
>First, your link didn't work (no response).

Easily found with a simple Google search:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Myths+About+Copyright+Explained%22>
First link, cached version
Or the second link
etc.

>Second, if it isn't true, did you first check with John Horner before
>reposting his copyrighted response? <g>

Fair Use exception.

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

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:46:52 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Horner wrote:
>> Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>> that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.

>Practically speaking, that's the case. Almost no one would have the
>resources to get their postings removed from all the servers that they
>end up on, and on all the forums they are reposted in.
>
>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), you could pursue a copyright infringement action, which
wouldn't be possible in a real case of public domain.

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

On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
>
>>Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>>that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>
> Legally that's not true.

How is it legally not true that he thinks you should assume that?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! After this, I'm going
at to BURN some RUBBER!!
visi.com

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:41:28 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
>> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
>>
>>>Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>>>that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>>
>> Legally that's not true.
>
>How is it legally not true that he thinks you should assume that?

From my citation:

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
when one posts to Usenet" ...

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

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:41:28 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
> >> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
> >>
> >>>Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
> >>>that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
> >>
> >> Legally that's not true.
> >
> >How is it legally not true that he thinks you should assume that?
>
> From my citation:
>
> Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
> permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
> wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
> forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
> done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
> poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
> former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
> it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
> granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
> when one posts to Usenet" ...

Care to clarify what "from my citation" means?

Notan

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:38:40 -0600, Notan
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:41:28 -0000, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >On 2006-08-30, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:06:17 GMT, John Horner <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> in <JPhJg.8783$Xl5.1470@trnddc06>:
>> >>
>> >>>Personally I think that when you make a usenet posting you should assume
>> >>>that you have put that content into the equivalent of the public domain.
>> >>
>> >> Legally that's not true.
>> >
>> >How is it legally not true that he thinks you should assume that?
>>
>> From my citation:
>>
>> Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
>> permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
>> wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
>> forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
>> done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
>> poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
>> former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
>> it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
>> granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
>> when one posts to Usenet" ...
>
>Care to clarify what "from my citation" means?

#3 of "Myths About Copyright Explained"
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>

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

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:40:06 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>#3 of "Myths About Copyright Explained"
><http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>

You keep on posting this non-working URL.

A_C