Slashdot Mirror
Google Owns Your UseNet Post
michaelmalak writes: "Google Groups, the deja.com replacement, now supports posting of articles. But be careful, because in posting you grant Google a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license." I noticed that UseNet volumes went down significantly when Remarq and then Deja went down. Then volumes went down again in the traditional slowing accompanied by college summer recess. If volume is to pick up, it will likely come from those using Google's posting service, rather than an unreliable or unavailable (esp. in the case of AOL) ISP news server. So it would seem UseNet is not going to die, it just got bought out like everything else these days."
The paragraph reads in full:
"By posting communications on or through the Service, you automatically grant Google a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, perform, and display the communication alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or hereafter developed, and to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees."
Individuals also have the right to nuke their own posts, though, and to specify 'X-No-archive: yes.'
As you noted in the write-up yourself, this agreement merely forces you to grant Google a non-exclusive license to use your post (in exchange for them allowing you to posting it via their service free of charge). This explicitly means that Google does not claim to own your UseNet posts; you still retain ownership and full rights to do whatever you want with it. They can just also use it without your permission (but as they don't own it, they can't do things like force you to pay them to use your own post, or sell your post to someone else, and so on).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Sorry guys, it was just way too tempting.
I thought Google were the good guys, because they used a Linux server farm. Now it turns out that they're acting like a business, which makes them the bad guys, right? Can one of the mages at Slashdot please tell me what the orthodox line is on Google? Still clean? Or worse than Microsoft?
And are there any incensed iconoclasts out there pledging to create an Open Source, GPL'd search engine and news directory?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Just because I grant Google a license to my post, doesn't mean they own the post, just like the fact that I have a license for Microsoft Office 200 doesn't mean that I "own" Microsoft Office 2000.
That google demands a license in order to post using their service may be unfortunate, but it isn't really suprising given the state of Intellectual Property law in the world today. Without the license, they would be subject to unreasonable liability.
And yes, what about posts made elsewhere that end up on Google groups. I really have no idea. Maybe Google will claim that they assumed the post was redistributatble given the nature of usenet an assumption they couldn't necessarily reasoably make for a posting made through their own service.
I'm not one to usually get excited about spam.. usually quite the opposite, however I received one advertising eTin.com a, free & totally anonymous, Usenet service. They have a decent interface, and very fast server(s).
They don't retain binaries for much more than 3-4 days, but they keep everything else indefinately.
Like all good things, I'm sure they'll start charging after they get you hooked.. but it's a much better alternative to Google in the interm.
Cheers.
GB.
The CIA has invested $1 Million in Safeweb, and uses it for its own agents (and I believe they use triangleboy when in the field.
So, if they trust it, then why shouldn't you... Of course, if they have a stake, whose to say they don't have a bit of insider access...
"The issue is not whether you are paranoid, the issue is whether you are paranoid enough."
- Max, "Strange Days"
Usenet did fine before deja.com, it'll do fine after google.com is gone.
Somehow, I don't think it's a problem that some ISPs don't allow newsgroup access.
As long as you can find people like Dennis Ritchie,John R. Mashey(actually, he seems to have abandoned Usenet in January, but his Farewell is there...),John McCarthy,Bjarne Stroustroup and Larry Wall posting frequently, I'll keep reading.
Somehow, it doesn't bother me much that what passes for common wisdom here is that Usenet is effectively already dead. I don't read much about sporks or petrified women on Usenet.
The problem comes in only if the prediction I made comes true: that Google Groups grows to become the primary way for people to post to UseNet due to continuing decay of ISP support for UseNet. UseNet is supposed to be distributed, not centralized in a corporation. We have seen the effects of this already. Frequent posters who relied on deja.com were suddenly silenced.
And now that Google can take posted articles out of context and publish them without attribution -- and if Google becomes the dominant UseNet entryway in the same way Windows is the dominant OS -- then it puts a chill, or at least a corporatized spin, on UseNet.
So, yes, there are alternatives to Google Groups today, but tomorrow UseNet may be nearly fully controlled by and dependent upon a single company.
The 'cluedness' of the average USENET poster has gone down the tubes. Sure, it's always been a great place for newbies to get some help from the veterans, but lately things have gotten out of control. Cross-posting is rampant, trolls are everywhere, and spammers think folks care about their offerings. Technical discussion has given away to politics. Less than 18 months ago comp.sys.sgi.* was full of interesting chatter, these days half of the posts are by folks asking how to install a (completely unaccelerated and very unfinished) Linux port on an SGI MIPS machine they bought off eBay for $50. The true engineers, developers, and scientific users have pulled completely out and rely on private mailing lists.
Google didn't kill USENET, lamers did.
...And welcome to real life.
Welcome to the way the law actually works....from potential lawsuits. Any one of the millions of posters on Usenet could potentially sue them for including their posts in their archives. Including that clause just make it less likely that something like that will happen.
Usenet posts are a fairly grey area when it comes to copyright law... Google's just being safe. Now, they could be planning to take all the Star Trek porn fanfic that's being posted through their interface and make millions selling it in their own compilation, but I think that's unlikely...
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
And now that Google can take posted articles out of context and publish them without attribution -- and if Google becomes the dominant UseNet entryway in the same way Windows is the dominant OS -- then it puts a chill, or at least a corporatized spin, on UseNet.
Where does it say it can publish them without attribution? The copyright doesn't change hands, and even under license, the copyright holder must be credited.
The clause in question only means that Google has automatic permission to re-use the post without having to ask the copyright holder, not claim ownership of it.
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
"In exchange for using this service, Google can re-use your post."
From the clause, I can see no change of copyright or any other IP, but Google is granted non-exclusive rights to the post. (Non-exclusive meaning the copyright holder can still do whatever he likes with it, even sell it on).
What exactly is the problem here?
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
You know, like George Lucas or Sony. So we should all continue supporting them individually while loudly proclaiming collectively that nobody should support them.
--