Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network posted under
the subject: New to Here (testing). A couple of regulars responded
with the regular "spam slap," but for the hell of it, I clicked on his
link and was appalled to find that the entire content of our RFC
Usenet group has been pirated.

I posted the following last night, but think it got lost in the
thread:

"While his little Freudian slip indicates that he's more interested
in
"receipts" than "recipes," this cretin isn't just a run of the mill
spammer. He's actually hijacked RFC's content and is posting it as
the content of his site - with no reference whatsoever to the source
of his postings.

With a fraudulent "membership" consisting of Usenet's RFC
participants
- without their knowledge or permission - he can pump up his numbers
for ad sales. We're all there and if I didn't know better I'd think
this shmuck had a lively little forum going.

To add insult to injury, he's also "thoughtfully" included a
copyright
kicker to the site - which I interpret as an attempt to claim
ownership of our postings. Not pretty."

I've complained to Google Ads, but beyond that I'm not sure how to
proceed. Would like input from the rest of you - I, for one, have no
desire to fund some lazy creep's life of leisure with every post to
RFC!

Nancy T

ntantiques wrote:
> Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network posted under
> the subject: New to Here (testing). A couple of regulars responded
> with the regular "spam slap," but for the hell of it, I clicked on his
> link and was appalled to find that the entire content of our RFC
> Usenet group has been pirated.
>
> I posted the following last night, but think it got lost in the
> thread:
>
> "While his little Freudian slip indicates that he's more interested
> in
> "receipts" than "recipes,"

"Receipts" is actually an old term for recipes. You'll frequently find
mention of "receipts" rather than recipes in old cookery (that's an old
term, too) books.

> spammer. He's actually hijacked RFC's content and is posting it as
> the content of his site - with no reference whatsoever to the source
> of his postings.
>
I, for one, didn't not notice it. I simply didn't reply to the post. It
was obvious he wasn't going to stick around for the fallout.

> To add insult to injury, he's also "thoughtfully" included a
> copyright
> kicker to the site - which I interpret as an attempt to claim
> ownership of our postings. Not pretty."
>
He can't copyright something I have copyrighted or something you have
copyrighted just by adding a copyright symbol (R) in a circle.

> I've complained to Google Ads, but beyond that I'm not sure how to
> proceed. Would like input from the rest of you - I, for one, have no
> desire to fund some lazy creep's life of leisure with every post to
> RFC!
>
> Nancy T

Nancy, complaining to Google is like whistling into the wind. The folks who
own Google don't care. Just don't go to the web site and give him the
clicks he's after.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> ntantiques wrote:
>> Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network posted under
>> the subject: New to Here (testing). A couple of regulars responded
>> with the regular "spam slap," but for the hell of it, I clicked on his
>> link and was appalled to find that the entire content of our RFC
>> Usenet group has been pirated.
>>
>> I posted the following last night, but think it got lost in the
>> thread:
>>
>> "While his little Freudian slip indicates that he's more interested
>> in
>> "receipts" than "recipes,"
>
> "Receipts" is actually an old term for recipes. You'll frequently find
> mention of "receipts" rather than recipes in old cookery (that's an old
> term, too) books.
>
>> spammer. He's actually hijacked RFC's content and is posting it as
>> the content of his site - with no reference whatsoever to the source
>> of his postings.
>>
> I, for one, didn't not notice it. I simply didn't reply to the post. It
> was obvious he wasn't going to stick around for the fallout.
>
>> To add insult to injury, he's also "thoughtfully" included a
>> copyright
>> kicker to the site - which I interpret as an attempt to claim
>> ownership of our postings. Not pretty."
>>
> He can't copyright something I have copyrighted or something you have
> copyrighted just by adding a copyright symbol (R) in a circle.
>
>> I've complained to Google Ads, but beyond that I'm not sure how to
>> proceed. Would like input from the rest of you - I, for one, have no
>> desire to fund some lazy creep's life of leisure with every post to
>> RFC!
>>
>> Nancy T
>
> Nancy, complaining to Google is like whistling into the wind. The folks who
> own Google don't care. Just don't go to the web site and give him the
> clicks he's after.
>
> Jill
>
>


I sent him a note telling him he is in violation of DMCA, and more
importantly I copied and
(owners of the Food Network trademark)

I suspect the real Food Network will shut him down in a day or two.

Best regards,
Bob

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:45:02 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>I sent him a note telling him he is in violation of DMCA, and more
>importantly I copied and
>(owners of the Food Network trademark)
>
>I suspect the real Food Network will shut him down in a day or two.
>
Good job bob, that nformation needed to be posted! As far as I could
tell, google wasn't involved other than adwords and they are only
responsible for the content of adwords. Food Network will not like
someone using their name in any way, shape or form and they have
lawyers to make sure no one does.

--
See return address to reply by email

On 2007-03-15, l, not -l > wrote:

> This is getting confusing; first we had Bob, then notbob, then the other
> bob, and alphabet-soup (zxcv)bob - now, good job bob. 8-{

This from "l, not -l".

The next obvious incarnation would be bobjob.

nb

notbob said...

> On 2007-03-15, l, not -l > wrote:
>
>> This is getting confusing; first we had Bob, then notbob, then the other
>> bob, and alphabet-soup (zxcv)bob - now, good job bob. 8-{
>
> This from "l, not -l".
>
> The next obvious incarnation would be bobjob.
>
> nb


And what then... blowjobbob?

Andy

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:37:13 -0500, notbob wrote:
>
> > On 2007-03-15, l, not -l > wrote:
> >
> > > This is getting confusing; first we had Bob, then notbob, then
> > > the other bob, and alphabet-soup (zxcv)bob - now, good job bob.
> > > 8-{
> >
> > This from "l, not -l".
> >
> > The next obvious incarnation would be bobjob.
>
> I figure the next Bob will just spell it backwards.
>
> -sw

Next? I've been doing that for years.
..sraey rof taht gniod neeb ev'I ?txeN

BOB
and ya never noticed :-(

On Mar 14, 11:45?pm, zxcvbob > wrote:

>
> I sent him a note telling him he is in violation of DMCA, and more
> importantly I copied and
> (owners of the Food Network trademark)
>
> I suspect the real Food Network will shut him down in a day or two.

Bob,

Appreciate your helpful response - s, sf's and jacqui{JB}'s as well.
Maybe we can get this guy to consider another means of support.
Nothing ventured...

Nancy T

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:45:02 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:
>
>> I sent him a note telling him he is in violation of DMCA,
>
> He is?
>
>> and more
>> importantly I copied and
>> (owners of the Food Network trademark)
>>
>> I suspect the real Food Network will shut him down in a day or two.
>
> Why? FoodTV can't do anything to him. They can make their
> lawyers bark, but they have no legal basis for asking him to cease
> and desist. He is not claiming any affiliation to The Food
> Network. If Food Network doesn't want people using similar domain
> names, then they need to buy and register them.
>
> Food Network doesn't even own the domain "food-network.com".
>
> -sw


Create a web domain that resembles "McDonalds" and see what happens.
Especially if the page is devoted to something like French Fries.

Bob

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> I stand corrected on foodnetwork.com. It appears it registered
> to scripps. I could swear it was an empty website yesterday.

Maybe they saw your posting.

"ntantiques" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network
> posted under the subject: New to Here (testing). A couple
> of regulars responded with the regular "spam slap," but for
> the hell of it, I clicked on his link and was appalled to find
> that the entire content of our RFC Usenet group has been pirated.

Not pirated so much as he's created (yet another) lame web-interface for
Usenet. A year or two ago, there was one called "talk about" (I don't
remember the exact web address), which was injecting seriously
Usenet-clueless people into many of the groups I was reading at the time.
It was seriously annoying, not because "talk about" was archiving messages
without permission (hell, Google does that), but because they weren't
giving their users any kind of heads-up about where they were actually
posting. It was a rude awakening for many of them who were used to the
"kinder, gentler" nature of many web-based forums.

Complaining to his upstream host may be helpful (depending); complaining
directly to him may also be effective. One way or another, though, I
doubt he'll last long.

For anyone who wants to complain, here's the whois information from
samspade.org:

Domain Name: FOOD-NETWORK.US
Domain ID: D12078067-US
Sponsoring Registrar: DYNADOT LLC
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 472
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID: C-7707
Registrant Name: Greg Allen
Registrant Address1: Po box 1304
Registrant City: Joshua
Registrant State/Province: Tx
Registrant Postal Code: 76039
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Country Code: US
Registrant Phone Number: 1.6272092102
Registrant Email:

HTH
-j

jacqui{JB} wrote:

> "ntantiques" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network
> > posted under the subject: New to Here (testing). A couple
> > of regulars responded with the regular "spam slap," but for
> > the hell of it, I clicked on his link and was appalled to find
> > that the entire content of our RFC Usenet group has been pirated.
>
> Not pirated so much as he's created (yet another) lame web-interface
> for Usenet. A year or two ago, there was one called "talk about" (I
> don't remember the exact web address), which was injecting seriously
> Usenet-clueless people into many of the groups I was reading at the
> time. It was seriously annoying, not because "talk about" was
> archiving messages without permission (hell, Google does that), but
> because they weren't giving their users any kind of heads-up about
> where they were actually posting. It was a rude awakening for many
> of them who were used to the "kinder, gentler" nature of many
> web-based forums.

Har, that's for sure. Usually followed by, "Help, Moderator, do
something!!1"

We had to 'splain that there ain't no moderation around here, in any
form




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

ntantiques said...

> I've complained to Google Ads, but beyond that I'm not sure how to
> proceed. Would like input from the rest of you - I, for one, have no
> desire to fund some lazy creep's life of leisure with every post to
> RFC!
>
> Nancy T


You just now caught on???

Usenet doesn't come with a TOS clause. It's anarchy, babe!!!

You ever noticed the porn that pays for the internet???

Andy

On 2007-03-15, ntantiques > wrote:
> Last night a lame spammer calling himself Food Network posted under

He isn't the first, he won't be the last. I suggest we all make a
website with rfc as a forum. Might as well make some revenue off
all the posts we've made over the years.

nb