Slashdot Mirror
Google Expands Usenet Archive to 20 Years
Paul Boutin writes "The Ghost of Usenet Postings Past has returned to haunt many more of us: Google just announced the expansion of their Usenet archive back to May 3, 1981."Check out the past on Groups.google.com
Thats from before I was born.
The only pr0n (why not just spell it as porn?) they have on there is erotic literature.
And in alt.ascii-art.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Don't you love Google? This item took some decent reseach, holds genuine interest for many of us, is presented in a light format with no banner ads and is actually interesting.
If only Google could take over the WWW as well as usenet we'd all be better off!
It appears that this is the first message mentioning slashdot.org.
This one is the first post by Rob Malda.
First mention of Jeff "Hemos" Bates.
First mention of CowboyNeal (is it the same guy?).
Awww, you guys...
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Hey Folks,
:)
A lot of fun and a great job. Christ it's a laugh to look up first mentions of things.
Why not send a little thanks to google and the folks listed on their page that THEY give thanks to. For the lazy:
comments@google.com
bjones@wmhosting.com
faq-admin@faqs.org
magi@csd.uwo.ca
Doesn't take but a few minutes... So go on and drop them a note. Probably matters more than you think
This is the standard practice in all sciences: information is to be shared freely. I don't see any problem with this. How could I "own" my Usenet posts anymore than I could own a public domain program I released on the net?
But then again the world seems to be breeding more and more people who wouldn't let other people pick up their dog's feces lest they should profit from it.
Well, UN is looking for new World Heritage targets to sponsor... ;-)
I don't see why. First, there is a difference between personal use and commercial redistribution. Second, if the RIAA and MPAA rules are the law of the land, I expect Google to play by them as well when it comes to my content.
This very question of the copyright status of public postings has been tried and precedent has been set: Your Usenet posts aren't really copyrighted.
Oh? Would you care to share the case law?
Adjust your expectations of privacy downward.
I have, as have most other people. But the on-line world is poorer for it, because if every word is "on the record", people either post anonymously or they don't engage in informal discussions. You just can't have informal on-line conversations with friends if everything is recorded.
It makes me nervous to find texts about people
having been abused and writing about it. And
that's by searching for their names and what
they've done technically the last years.
The Usenet was IMHO never as public as the web,
but had much more a private character, where people
could say what they only wanted to know certain
groups.
Just imagine, your name is well known (e.g. Linus Torvalds)
and suddenly someone who searches for it finds
texts you wanted to keep more or less private.
And people wonder why I insist on posting to /. as an AC?
Stop whining. You posted your comments to a PUBLIC forum. The fact that someone has found a way to make money off of a archive of public messages does not give you any kind of legitimate grievance. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing if you wanted to. If you really feel so strongly that your copyright has been infringed, put your money where your mouth is and file a copyright infringement suit against Google.
If you spray-painted a bunch of grafitti around your town, then someone came around and took pictures of it and published a coffee table book of your art, you would have a VERY hard time convincing a court that you were due a cent. While IANAL, I would be suprised if there was not ample precedent saying that by placing your original work in a public forum you are releasing it to the public domain.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Well, they are attempting to pull together archives from many different sources. Remember, the Usenet feed was extremely poor prior to the mid-90s (It is still poor, but it's heaven compared to the way it used it be.) You couldn't find any site with a complete feed, and if there's only one source for the archives of some of these newsgroup archives, they WILL be incomplete. And that's just blaming the newsfeed, not other possible issues.
There is a newsgroup whose history I am particularly interested in. Deja's/Google's original archive started in January 1996. With this recent update, posts have been added from May, 1994-March 1995. There is still nothing from April 1995-December 1995, and it's pretty clear to me that the "new" material came from one limited source. It consistantly lacks posts from particular posters (including every posting of the FAQ [!] which was posted by the same person for many years.) But it's more than what we had before. We've already been able to track down and verify some information. Of course, the newsgroup underwent a major change beginning in May 1995 (which was mainly complete by January 1996) and we'd love access to those posts too. But Google Groups is free, and attempting to provide access to what was a very ephemeral resource. The further back you go, the more spotty the coverage will be, due to the nature of Usenet and the older Usenet culture. If nobody was archiving the group during certain years, they're not going to be able to retrieve those posts (which I think is especially a problem in the alt hierarchy.)
This really is a moral dilemma. My first reaction was that google should not allow removal of messages. Then I decided to check the archive for my old posts and wow, I'm really torn.
As I write this I sit in front of my computer cowering. Any minute now someone I work with and/or respect is bound to call me or IM me a link to some of my earliest posts.
In all seriousness one of the posts did contain my old telephone number from a small business I ran. Instead of allowing removal, google should allow certain information to be edited out for the sake of security or privacy.
-- Button up, your ignorance is showing