The prohibition I mentioned is with regards to redistributing material that has been format shifted. For example, if Company, Inc. has permission to distribute music via MP3, it doesn't mean they have permission to broadcast the same music via radio. Format shifting in and of itself is fair use under current case law.
We agree again. There are a few things I wonder, however:
Does this implied license necessarily give Google (or any other usenet provider) (henceforth "Google" for short) the right to change the message's distribution method from an nntp based distribution model to a web based model?
If so, what the content provider posts under a license forbidding delivery through a web-based distribution model? This doesn't sound like an unreasonable restriction.
Two things motivated my interest in this case. First is that Google lost its case regarding Google Images, as mentioned in TFA, due to arguments similar to mine. Second is that many works in usenet are copyrighted using relatively strong licenses, such as the GPL, that could potentially cause trouble for automated services like these, or GPL licensed works, should the shit hit the fan.
True enough. Google is obviously a third party in the post you're referring to, though I guess I wasn't clear that I was trying to emphasize that point. I've argued elsewhere that other usenet servers 'should'[1] face the same liability. Google is just an easy target for a lawsuit and the obvious company to talk about.
[1] Given my arguments. This isn't a normative 'should'.
Uhm, why don't you try relaxing a little bit? I'm perfectly aware of how Usenet works. And how the web works. And I'm perfectly aware that the same arguments that apply to the Google Images case applies to the Google Groups case. Google lost the first and won the latter. 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.
For fucks sake, Google isn't a common carrier or an ISP. Google got fucked over for doing the same thing with Google Images. I simply want to know why this ruling was different from the Images case, when the same arguments apply to both. And I got blind-sided by a shitstorm of Google fanboys defending Google stomping on the little guy with no regard for the facts.
The kernel is a good case, because it shows that posting on usenet is not in and of itself enough to invalidate the license under which material was released, regardless of the medium. Google, and every usenet host outside of the one(s) Linus has uploaded binaries to, are third parties redistributing the kernel, and, as such, must abide by the GPL. The fact that they haven't is more due to the fact that Linus doesn't really care.
Do you understand the words coming from my fingers and onto your screen?
You're saying that giving out copies of, say, my work to anyone who cares to search isn't unlimited distribution? This sounds off to me.
The problem I'm trying to point at applies equally well to anyone who archives usenet posts. Google is simply an easy target for lawsuits and the obvious subject of discussion.
An implied copyright license is a license created by law in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties. Implied licenses arise when the conduct of the parties indicates that some license is to be extended between the copyright owner and the licensee, but the parties themselves did not bother to create a license. This differs from an express license in that the parties never actually agree on the specific terms of the license. The purpose of an implied license is to allow the licensee (the party who licenses the work from the copyright owner) some right to use the copyrighted work, but only to the extent that the copyright owner would have allowed had the parties negotiated an agreement. Generally, the custom and practice of the community are used to determine the scope of the implied license.
That doesn't let google off, unfortunately.
Suppose my (fictional) license says "This post cannot be distributed by Google, Inc." Then they go and archive it. No implied licence will save Google.
The point being, if I'm not willing to let Google serve my content, they aren't allowed to under this doctrine.
I really don't understand how you keep getting insightful karma when you completely miss the point. Please find an authoritative document stating that anything posted on usenet must be issued under a license that provides unlimited distribution to all. Otherwise, you're talking out of your butt, and I've got Federal law in my corner.
My mistake. Being in the public domain is not required for "unlimited" redistribution. But I still don't know of a law or policy that says that everything on usenet must be released under a license which permits unlimited redistribution.
To answer your question, there is no law or document that I know of that says that usenet posts are automatically part of the public domain, which is what would be required for "unlimited" distribution. Feel free to point me to an authoritative source if you know of any.
In the meantime, I'll give you the example that motivated my comments. Parts of the Linux kernel are stored in the Google Groups archive. Does this mean that the GPL for Linux has been invalidated? Of course not. It means that Google must respect the GPL vis a vis the messages containing GPLed code. Before this case, the precedent was that if Google didn't, and Linus was feeling unrealistically cranky, he could sue for copyright infringment.
(If you really must, think about a different usenet service provider offering binaries of Debian or something)
Because as a copyright holder I have the right to dictate the terms of redistribution of my content, and I want to? Why are Google's rights so sacred while mine are being trampled on?
Here's a happy little example: some parts of the Linux kernel are stored in google groups. Does that mean that the GPL is invalidated? Or does it mean that Google has to comply with the GPL vis a vis the messages containing it? (Hint: the answer is the latter)
Wow, the google fanboys are out in force tonight. Storage and redistribution are not the same thing, no matter how much you'd like it to be. For instance, I have a very large archive of MP3s from CD's I've bought. I cannot legally redistribute them without the copyright holder's consent.
When you contract with a carrier of a wide-open public medium to deliver your message to the world, you have no right to expect that another carrier of that medium won't deliver to someone you didn't expect, or in a form you didn't anticipate.
Of course, this is why redistribution of NFL telecasts is perfectly legal. Because the NFL doesn't have the right to dictate the terms of their content's redistribution. Indeed, they wouldn't sue you for redistribution without written consent of both the NFL and the television station broadcasting the content. A similar example can be made with reference to radio, music, and the RIAA.
Sorry, you're wrong. As a copyright holder, I do have the right to dictate how my content is distributed.
This is in fact why google got burned for images.google.com, as mentioned in the article.
Archiving and redistributing aren't the same thing. What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?
However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on Friday that under case law, Google's activities, akin to those of an Internet Service Provider, do not constitute infringement.
"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," the court said.
Strange. While Google Groups provide a valuable service, I don't see how creating an archive of billions of copyrighted works makes Google immune from individual lawsuits. Could I compile and serve a complete archive of everything available from the Pirate Bay and get the same protection? I wouldn't think so.
Nothing I've said is incompatible with that. Indeed, states have governments too. Perhaps I was unclear when I referred to 50 state governments and the federal government as "the government", but that is common usage, and is rooted in the way these 51 governments operate. The federal government (very) often uses finance to control decision-making at the state level. The most blatant recent example I can think of is the D.O.T. threatening to withhold federal highway funds from any state that didn't change the drinking age to 21 and the maximum allowable BAC to.08 or lower. The federal government doesn't have to make laws to limit your rights. They can do it by proxy.
Do you have a point you're trying to make? (I don't mean to sound harsh. I would just rather not dance around anything you might have in mind.)
I would like to gently suggest that what you want misses the point of Linux. If installing was just a matter of pushing a single button, then you wouldn't have any choice about how your system is run. There would be no partitioning your drives like you want, specifying network peculiarites, etc. There would not be the freedom to hack your system like you choose, less freedom to play 'what if' with settings and so on.
I respectfully disagree. There are already hundreds of different distros, each making its own configuration choices, so you won't have to. Indeed, by the very fact that linux is open source, you could modify and compile the code to your liking. But few do it, since it's time consuming and there are much better options.
My point is that there are many different distros, each meeting particular needs. There's no reason why there can't be one, or several, meeting beginner's needs. Of course, a beginner would be in no position to choose between several, but that's besides the point.
The Constitution grants us certain rights that the government, by virtue of the Constitution, cannot take away. If a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, the government can take it away.
Don't be retarded. They already tell you what you can and can't do with any firearms you might own. They already tell you that you can't drive your car on the sidewalk and hit four pedestrians. They already tell you that your home needs to pass city code inspections before a remodel is complete. There are very good reasons for each of those. The government even prohibits suicide.
The question now becomes, "What makes wealth so different that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate its use?"
Keep in mind, as well, that the constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
The prohibition I mentioned is with regards to redistributing material that has been format shifted. For example, if Company, Inc. has permission to distribute music via MP3, it doesn't mean they have permission to broadcast the same music via radio. Format shifting in and of itself is fair use under current case law.
Two things motivated my interest in this case. First is that Google lost its case regarding Google Images, as mentioned in TFA, due to arguments similar to mine. Second is that many works in usenet are copyrighted using relatively strong licenses, such as the GPL, that could potentially cause trouble for automated services like these, or GPL licensed works, should the shit hit the fan.
[1] Given my arguments. This isn't a normative 'should'.
You sound much more reasonable over here than in the other thread. I'll do more research on implied licenses.
I don't like it either, but that's how it works.
The kernel is a good case, because it shows that posting on usenet is not in and of itself enough to invalidate the license under which material was released, regardless of the medium. Google, and every usenet host outside of the one(s) Linus has uploaded binaries to, are third parties redistributing the kernel, and, as such, must abide by the GPL. The fact that they haven't is more due to the fact that Linus doesn't really care.
Do you understand the words coming from my fingers and onto your screen?
Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent.
The problem I'm trying to point at applies equally well to anyone who archives usenet posts. Google is simply an easy target for lawsuits and the obvious subject of discussion.
That doesn't let google off, unfortunately.
Suppose my (fictional) license says "This post cannot be distributed by Google, Inc." Then they go and archive it. No implied licence will save Google.
The point being, if I'm not willing to let Google serve my content, they aren't allowed to under this doctrine.
I really don't understand how you keep getting insightful karma when you completely miss the point. Please find an authoritative document stating that anything posted on usenet must be issued under a license that provides unlimited distribution to all. Otherwise, you're talking out of your butt, and I've got Federal law in my corner.
Furthermore, when I entered into an agreement with my ISP, granting them redistribution rights, I entered into no such agreement with Google.
Is the Linux kernel a "dubious opinion"? I don't appreciate your ad hominem, especially when I've given examples grounded in law.
My mistake. Being in the public domain is not required for "unlimited" redistribution. But I still don't know of a law or policy that says that everything on usenet must be released under a license which permits unlimited redistribution.
To answer your question, there is no law or document that I know of that says that usenet posts are automatically part of the public domain, which is what would be required for "unlimited" distribution. Feel free to point me to an authoritative source if you know of any.
In the meantime, I'll give you the example that motivated my comments. Parts of the Linux kernel are stored in the Google Groups archive. Does this mean that the GPL for Linux has been invalidated? Of course not. It means that Google must respect the GPL vis a vis the messages containing GPLed code. Before this case, the precedent was that if Google didn't, and Linus was feeling unrealistically cranky, he could sue for copyright infringment.
(If you really must, think about a different usenet service provider offering binaries of Debian or something)
You say I can't, and give me an analogy. Fine, I get it. Now tell me why I can't. Copyright law says I can.
Here's a happy little example: some parts of the Linux kernel are stored in google groups. Does that mean that the GPL is invalidated? Or does it mean that Google has to comply with the GPL vis a vis the messages containing it? (Hint: the answer is the latter)
When you contract with a carrier of a wide-open public medium to deliver your message to the world, you have no right to expect that another carrier of that medium won't deliver to someone you didn't expect, or in a form you didn't anticipate.
Of course, this is why redistribution of NFL telecasts is perfectly legal. Because the NFL doesn't have the right to dictate the terms of their content's redistribution. Indeed, they wouldn't sue you for redistribution without written consent of both the NFL and the television station broadcasting the content. A similar example can be made with reference to radio, music, and the RIAA.
Sorry, you're wrong. As a copyright holder, I do have the right to dictate how my content is distributed.
This is in fact why google got burned for images.google.com, as mentioned in the article.
Archiving and redistributing aren't the same thing. What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?
Do you have a point you're trying to make? (I don't mean to sound harsh. I would just rather not dance around anything you might have in mind.)
I respectfully disagree. There are already hundreds of different distros, each making its own configuration choices, so you won't have to. Indeed, by the very fact that linux is open source, you could modify and compile the code to your liking. But few do it, since it's time consuming and there are much better options.
My point is that there are many different distros, each meeting particular needs. There's no reason why there can't be one, or several, meeting beginner's needs. Of course, a beginner would be in no position to choose between several, but that's besides the point.
The Constitution grants us certain rights that the government, by virtue of the Constitution, cannot take away. If a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, the government can take it away.
Mr. "Dada" is evidence that Ayn Rand rots your brain.
The question now becomes, "What makes wealth so different that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate its use?"
Keep in mind, as well, that the constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth.
Grow a pair, you sissy.