The NSA has hundreds, if not thousands, of linguists on staff. At one level of abstraction, there is little difference between translation, encryption, or decryption, or any other recursive function on information. Nevermind the practical fact that the NSA would have to understand any decrypted foreign documents before presenting intelligence reports.
Because translation is far more time consuming than a quick read. You don't have to read a whole document to know that it doesn't have classified secrets in it -- you can scan. But you need to read and understand the entire document completely before you can finish translating it.
New Belgium used to claim that Fat Tire was a Belgian style beer. The story behind the name is that the brewer took a bike tour through Belgium's breweries and was inspired to make a Belgian styled beer, copying as much of the regional flavour as he could. I agree that he failed it. I don't know if they're still sticking to that story or not.
Don't be a weasel. I have given reductio ad absurdum arguments buttressed with real world examples. I would have every right to complain if someone recorded my reading a novel in public and released it. Just because a work has been distributed in the public once does not mean that it is part of the public domain.
Now that this is established, and since I, as a copyright holder, have exclusive control of my work's redistribution, it follows that I can dictate the terms by which it is propagated, even in the public sphere. Relating to the case at hand, I am well within my rights to ask one usenet server to remove my posts and not asking another. If the infringement causes financial damages, I can sue for those. The mechanism by which usenet works is irrelevant to my rights.
Miller makes their beer from scratch as well. In any event, I was wrong. NB just changed the recipe when they started expanding. I think its gross. Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of a different regional brewery.
Fat Tire has been brewed regionally since Miller bought out New Belgium. Neither advertises the fact, for obvious reasons. But the recipe has changed and now sucks. (As opposed to being a tasty, but poor imitation of Belgian beers.
Fat Tire is disgusting. It was okay 4 years ago, but they got bought out by Miller and changed the recipe. Fat Tire is an American interpretation of Belgian beers anyway. It pales in comparison to good Frisian and Lambic ales. Get Chimay if you want a good intro to Belgian beers.
I agree about Portland though. We have the most home brewers and microbrews per capita. Since we have so many beer lovers, we have access to some of the best beers in the country. My recommendations: Bridgeport IPA, Stone Brewery Arrogant Bastard, Stone Brewery IPA. I like hoppy beers and avoid malty beers.
As a physicist, I don't care if most people don't understand the distinction between voltage and current -- that doesn't mean they've become synonyms.
Consider "heat" and "electricity" -- In a technical context, they are not related (at least not in any way relevant to this discussion). But there are many other contexts where "hot" and "electric" are synonyms.
The symbols made up from an h, o, t, and e, l, e, c, t, r, i, c can stand for different things in different contexts, and none of them are "more right" than any other.
Nice rhetoric, but unfortunately, rhetoric is all your argument stand on. You brought up the park example. I simply showed you why it was flawed vis a vis google groups and other usenet servers.
To wit, I've consistently made the claim that posting on usenet does not automatically grant everyone the right to redistribute your material, and have given arguments supporting the claim.
To follow your analogy, I'm talking about going into a park, reading a novel I wrote aloud, and suing anyone who plagiarizes it. I'm perfectly within my rights to do so, as my novel doesn't become a part of the public domain just because I read it aloud.
Similarly, my usenet posts don't become part of the public domain by virtue of the fact that I posted it. This really isn't that hard.
The licensing example demonstrates this phenomenon. Do you understand now?
Why would a capitatechnoanarchist like yourself want the overhead associated with signatures and contract law? Obviously, the invisible market hand forces will force people who deal with such inefficient methods of establishing 'rights' to go into bankruptcy, as the differential efficiencies are tremendous.
Unfortunately, under some circumstances, the CC licenses can lock people into "restrictive freedoms". They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand. For a similar case, consider the "viral nature" (from some companies' perspective) of the GPL.
The web is just as public a forum as Usenet. Everything I publish on the web is protected by copyright. To follow your analogy, the paparazzi makes its living reporting on what I publish, but they couldn't redistribute what I publish. Capiche?;-)
It might seem like a red herring, but it isn't. The point is that text written to Usenet can be written under just about any license, as the kernel example demonstrates. Posting to Usenet does not invalidate the license. If you must, consider text licensed under the GFDL. The same applies to it as to the Linux kernel.
Posting to Usenet doesn't invalidate licensing. Suppose it did. Then any Usenet server hosting a binary copy of the Linux kernel could redistribute it as they saw fit. This is silliness and clearly false. Ergo, they are bound by the GPL, though I doubt anyone cares that they aren't in compliance.
That is more-or-less what happened in this case. I find that very surprising, given how clear the law on the books is about this sort of thing, and Google's loss in their Images case. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11488787/
I suppose the analogy I would draw out is that both HTTP and NNTP are redistributed by "network nodes" in the relevant networks -- TCP/IP for the first and a set of connected servers for the latter. In the HTTP case, Google downloaded images, modified them, and then served them to the public. As clients, they were the last dot on the tracert between them and the servers they downloaded from. Their argument is that as NNTP providers, they're entitled to download content from other sites, modify it, and serve it to the public in full despite the fact that there is little difference between the relevant networks. They're both peer-to-peer networks. As clients, they are still the last dot on the tracert between themselves and the servers they get stuff from. Moreover, they're obviously the last "nntp node" to touch the data before it is modified and served.
Does my analogy make any sense? Sorry if it doesn't -- it's been a long night.
A better analogy would be that the Associated Press picked up your advertisement and distributed it to newspapers across the country. Depending on what your advertisement is about, this may or may not be a good thing.
I would personally rather be able to stop the AP in cases when this is a bad thing.
Do you really not understand the difference? Consider a targetted marketing campaign for, say, an online store. You might set higher prices for people in New York than SLC Utah, and advertise those prices locally. Worse yet, you might be advertising different sales depending on location. Suddenly, everyone might get 50% on designer jeans, instead of just the SLC guys, who usually buy Levi's anyway.
I don't know the motives behind the TFA's subject's action, but I can see many plausible reasons for this kind of access control. Nevermind the fact that control of distribution channels has been a part of copyright law since its inception, and should be expected.
Yes. Each of those usenet providers is also liable for copyright infringement, as none of them qua usenet providers are common carriers. You get it!
Most people want their material to go all over the place. Some might not want their material to end up on the web, for instance. They're within their rights dictate how their material is distributed, even if it throws a huge monkey wrench into the works.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the current state of copyright law.
The point is, Google is a fucking third party, distributing work without the author's expressed, written consent, and as such, should be liable for copyright infringement under current copyright law.
Which I may say isn't what you said in the last post, you said they're not YOUR newsgroup server. Neither is every other damn newsgroup server in the world to which your message gets sent.
From the post to which you refer:
Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent.
Awww, shucks. Thank you for your constructive post. Feel free to fill me in on any and all points "I'm missing." The issue ultimately comes down to "implicit licenses" as Rakishi has said, and not the many red herrings and google fanboy defensiveness offered by others.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA has hundreds, if not thousands, of linguists on staff. At one level of abstraction, there is little difference between translation, encryption, or decryption, or any other recursive function on information. Nevermind the practical fact that the NSA would have to understand any decrypted foreign documents before presenting intelligence reports.
Because translation is far more time consuming than a quick read. You don't have to read a whole document to know that it doesn't have classified secrets in it -- you can scan. But you need to read and understand the entire document completely before you can finish translating it.
New Belgium used to claim that Fat Tire was a Belgian style beer. The story behind the name is that the brewer took a bike tour through Belgium's breweries and was inspired to make a Belgian styled beer, copying as much of the regional flavour as he could. I agree that he failed it. I don't know if they're still sticking to that story or not.
Now that this is established, and since I, as a copyright holder, have exclusive control of my work's redistribution, it follows that I can dictate the terms by which it is propagated, even in the public sphere. Relating to the case at hand, I am well within my rights to ask one usenet server to remove my posts and not asking another. If the infringement causes financial damages, I can sue for those. The mechanism by which usenet works is irrelevant to my rights.
RTFBlurb. It's now running on five wheels, and is dragging the sixth.
My favorite quest is getting E.T. back to his planet in that old Atari 2600 game.
Miller makes their beer from scratch as well. In any event, I was wrong. NB just changed the recipe when they started expanding. I think its gross. Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of a different regional brewery.
Fat Tire has been brewed regionally since Miller bought out New Belgium. Neither advertises the fact, for obvious reasons. But the recipe has changed and now sucks. (As opposed to being a tasty, but poor imitation of Belgian beers.
I agree about Portland though. We have the most home brewers and microbrews per capita. Since we have so many beer lovers, we have access to some of the best beers in the country. My recommendations: Bridgeport IPA, Stone Brewery Arrogant Bastard, Stone Brewery IPA. I like hoppy beers and avoid malty beers.
Consider "heat" and "electricity" -- In a technical context, they are not related (at least not in any way relevant to this discussion). But there are many other contexts where "hot" and "electric" are synonyms.
The symbols made up from an h, o, t, and e, l, e, c, t, r, i, c can stand for different things in different contexts, and none of them are "more right" than any other.
Apple-Enter works in Safari as well.
To wit, I've consistently made the claim that posting on usenet does not automatically grant everyone the right to redistribute your material, and have given arguments supporting the claim.
That is all.
Similarly, my usenet posts don't become part of the public domain by virtue of the fact that I posted it. This really isn't that hard.
The licensing example demonstrates this phenomenon. Do you understand now?
Why would a capitatechnoanarchist like yourself want the overhead associated with signatures and contract law? Obviously, the invisible market hand forces will force people who deal with such inefficient methods of establishing 'rights' to go into bankruptcy, as the differential efficiencies are tremendous.
Unfortunately, under some circumstances, the CC licenses can lock people into "restrictive freedoms". They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand. For a similar case, consider the "viral nature" (from some companies' perspective) of the GPL.
The web is just as public a forum as Usenet. Everything I publish on the web is protected by copyright. To follow your analogy, the paparazzi makes its living reporting on what I publish, but they couldn't redistribute what I publish. Capiche? ;-)
It might seem like a red herring, but it isn't. The point is that text written to Usenet can be written under just about any license, as the kernel example demonstrates. Posting to Usenet does not invalidate the license. If you must, consider text licensed under the GFDL. The same applies to it as to the Linux kernel.
The law certainly thinks companies capable of agency, which is what this case refers to.
How exactly was someone in 1990 responsible for Google archiving and redistributing their copyrighted material in 2006?
Posting to Usenet doesn't invalidate licensing. Suppose it did. Then any Usenet server hosting a binary copy of the Linux kernel could redistribute it as they saw fit. This is silliness and clearly false. Ergo, they are bound by the GPL, though I doubt anyone cares that they aren't in compliance.
I suppose the analogy I would draw out is that both HTTP and NNTP are redistributed by "network nodes" in the relevant networks -- TCP/IP for the first and a set of connected servers for the latter. In the HTTP case, Google downloaded images, modified them, and then served them to the public. As clients, they were the last dot on the tracert between them and the servers they downloaded from. Their argument is that as NNTP providers, they're entitled to download content from other sites, modify it, and serve it to the public in full despite the fact that there is little difference between the relevant networks. They're both peer-to-peer networks. As clients, they are still the last dot on the tracert between themselves and the servers they get stuff from. Moreover, they're obviously the last "nntp node" to touch the data before it is modified and served.
Does my analogy make any sense? Sorry if it doesn't -- it's been a long night.
I would personally rather be able to stop the AP in cases when this is a bad thing.
Do you really not understand the difference? Consider a targetted marketing campaign for, say, an online store. You might set higher prices for people in New York than SLC Utah, and advertise those prices locally. Worse yet, you might be advertising different sales depending on location. Suddenly, everyone might get 50% on designer jeans, instead of just the SLC guys, who usually buy Levi's anyway.
I don't know the motives behind the TFA's subject's action, but I can see many plausible reasons for this kind of access control. Nevermind the fact that control of distribution channels has been a part of copyright law since its inception, and should be expected.
Most people want their material to go all over the place. Some might not want their material to end up on the web, for instance. They're within their rights dictate how their material is distributed, even if it throws a huge monkey wrench into the works.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the current state of copyright law.
Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent.
Heh. We both look kind of silly now. :-)
Thank you. You explained my points better than I could. Dealing with the rush of fanboys was like pulling teeth.
I'll direct you to http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180487&cid=149 40205, who gets it and put it better than I did.
When google is involved, rational discussion on slashdot is just a wrestling match.