Most of you probably recall my "AFW through the looking glass" thread
earlier this year about a particularly unscrupulous website that stole
alt.food.wine posts and repackaged them (complete with bizarro user
names) as traffic on their own wine forum:

http://tinyurl.com/5zxz2v (Google groups archive of thread)

I had occasion today to Google for my munged Usenet email address, which
invariably turns up various sites using our content. Many of them are
simply Usenet-to-Web portals that acknowledge the source of the posts,
but as usual there are other, less scrupulous sites, that repackage our
posts for display on "their" forums. Here's the current shit list:

www.mombu.com
cookingchat.info
www.a1foodforum.com
forums.travel.com
usesrv.com

As we previously discussed, this is probably a copyright violation of
our copyrighted posts. If anyone feels like pursuing this, feel free.
In any event, this is both sleazy and pathetic, especially those sites
that package 2-3 year old Usenet posts as their own.

Oh well,
Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...

Mark, I tend to disagree with you based upon the "Fair Use" exemption.

Most of what is posted here is simply commentary or opinion.

Since this site is free, and the others are and no money is being made, even
if you could stop what they do, which is doubtful, you could not likely
benefit financially.

However, is you placed music here that you created, then some other site
downloaded and sold it or gave it away...then I think you would have
protection.

This area is in no way my specialty but I do beleive that I am correct that
fair use would apply to our group and most "usenet group" where opinion is
being discussed.

Sorry.

Also, non of our postings would likely be consider for commerial use.
Especially mine.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:53:03 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>
>"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
>
>Mark, I tend to disagree with you based upon the "Fair Use" exemption.
>
>Most of what is posted here is simply commentary or opinion.

How does that differ from what you read about wines in newspapers and
magaizines?

>Since this site is free, and the others are and no money is being made, even
>if you could stop what they do, which is doubtful, you could not likely
>benefit financially.

The two I looked at made money from google ads.

>However, is you placed music here that you created, then some other site
>downloaded and sold it or gave it away...then I think you would have
>protection.
>
>This area is in no way my specialty but I do beleive that I am correct that
>fair use would apply to our group and most "usenet group" where opinion is
>being discussed.

We post to newgroups for discussion on newgroups. You could argue
providing a web interface (read-only or with posted going back to AFW)
to the newgroup is fair use. And google do indeed argue precisely
that.

But to dress AFW up as an independent forum, where replies go back to
the forum is surely not fair use. Especially in the case of the worst
perpetrator that changed the names of all the posters in attempt to
cover up.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

You can argue almost anything...however filing a suit may end the use of AFW
material...but I see no monetary awards.

For the most part, opinion and discussion is not protected. I think for the
most part, non of these postings in our forum would get protection.

That is not to say what the other sites are doing is right. It is
dispicable..but not necessarily a slam dunk either in court. IMO

"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:53:03 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:

> How does that differ from what you read about wines in newspapers and
> magaizines?

This forum and its content is NOT proffesional but mostly that of
conversation and opinion. I think the type of forum would play a role. Its
line message boards for stocks. You make nasty commnets about a CEO or an
officer of a company. If those comments were in a newpaper they may be
considered slander or libel...but is a message board where the conversation
is more like bar talk the courts have decided to allow the type of forum to
play a role as to the seriousness of the violoation. Rarely, in fact never
have I heard of a win. And yes, about 8 years ago I had a case of that type
representing my client. That was the defense taken when a Texas Company
accused my client of Slander. They wanted to penetrate the screen name. We
used a John Doe defense, the ACLU also joined in to protect his first
ammendment case, we eventually lost on the John Doe, the courts wanted his
name. Then when the courts understood the forum, they dismissed the case.
Of course this was only after we paid $5000 for a media attorney specialist
to evaluate the message board and conclude non of the postings would rise to
the level of any form of legitimate journalism or writings.

> The two I looked at made money from google ads.
>
But they are not charging for the material. The fact that they make money
at the site from ads is different than charging $2.00 to read Dale William
insult me and vice versa. Sorry, I don't think that it would yeild any
rewards.


> We post to newgroups for discussion on newgroups. You could argue
> providing a web interface (read-only or with posted going back to AFW)
> to the newgroup is fair use. And google do indeed argue precisely
> that.

Again, you could make that argument and you would be correct. I just don't
see the courts ruling in favor. The internet as a medium and our newsgroups
in my opinion are not perceived as being front and center of the New York
Times. Its more like there were 30 guys discussing a wine in a bar. Now,
if Robert Parker was here, and he posted, and he is a proffessional, then
perhaps he might rise and have claim to a higher level. We would not
likely.


>
> But to dress AFW up as an independent forum, where replies go back to
> the forum is surely not fair use. Especially in the case of the worst
> perpetrator that changed the names of all the posters in attempt to
> cover up.
>
> --

I would imagine that would be one of the most harmful sites if they change
the names. I imagine that would be the place to start if you were going to.
However I am not sure where the site is hosted, and of not in the same
country you better hope the hosting country follows the laws in general of
our country.

One other point, and I have not visited the site that does that, do they
post, or does it allow others to post and someone other than the
owner/operator control what is on the site. That plays a role IMO.

In article >,
Mark Lipton > wrote:

> Most of you probably recall my "AFW through the looking glass" thread
> earlier this year about a particularly unscrupulous website that stole
> alt.food.wine posts and repackaged them (complete with bizarro user
> names) as traffic on their own wine forum:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5zxz2v (Google groups archive of thread)
>
> I had occasion today to Google for my munged Usenet email address, which
> invariably turns up various sites using our content. Many of them are
> simply Usenet-to-Web portals that acknowledge the source of the posts,
> but as usual there are other, less scrupulous sites, that repackage our
> posts for display on "their" forums. Here's the current shit list:
>
> www.mombu.com
> cookingchat.info
> www.a1foodforum.com
> forums.travel.com
> usesrv.com
>
> As we previously discussed, this is probably a copyright violation of
> our copyrighted posts. If anyone feels like pursuing this, feel free.
> In any event, this is both sleazy and pathetic, especially those sites
> that package 2-3 year old Usenet posts as their own.
>
> Oh well,
> Mark Lipton

Mark, is there any legal way to pursue this. I have had many posts
hijacked over the last year and I'm sure Dale is a regular contributor
to these bogus forums unbeknownst to him.

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Most of you probably recall my "AFW through the looking glass" thread
> earlier this year about a particularly unscrupulous website that stole
> alt.food.wine posts and repackaged them (complete with bizarro user names)
> as traffic on their own wine forum:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5zxz2v (Google groups archive of thread)
>
> I had occasion today to Google for my munged Usenet email address, which
> invariably turns up various sites using our content. Many of them are
> simply Usenet-to-Web portals that acknowledge the source of the posts, but
> as usual there are other, less scrupulous sites, that repackage our posts
> for display on "their" forums. Here's the current shit list:
>
> www.mombu.com
> cookingchat.info
> www.a1foodforum.com
> forums.travel.com
> usesrv.com
>
I just checked the latter and immediately noticed filched posts from people
I know on other food groups, as well as the discussions from here on this
very topic.
Graham

Richard Neidich wrote:
> "Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Mark, I tend to disagree with you based upon the "Fair Use" exemption.

Dick, I have no real interest in pursuing any legal action, and in
Internet parlance IANAL, but this is no way conforms to my understanding
of the Fair Use doctrine. Fair use applies to using small amounts of
copyrighted material for one's own use; to qualify, the amount of
material used must be small, no commercial gain can be sought and it
cannot be widely distributed. In all cases, these examples fail all
three criteria.

>
> Most of what is posted here is simply commentary or opinion.

That is of no consequence. The Op-Ed page of every newspaper is also
commentary and opinion, but they are most certainly copyrighted.

>
> Since this site is free, and the others are and no money is being made, even
> if you could stop what they do, which is doubtful, you could not likely
> benefit financially.

Agreed. Damages in copyright law are derived from lost revenue, but
that is a separate issue from the legality/illegality of what they're
doing. A cease and desist order doesn't depend on lost revenue arguments.


> This area is in no way my specialty but I do beleive that I am correct that
> fair use would apply to our group and most "usenet group" where opinion is
> being discussed.

Not according to my understanding. Implicit copyright applies to all
writing in fixed media, and courts have agreed that the Internet
qualifies. I believe that even email has implicit copyright, but I
could be very wrong about that. Certainly, what appears on websites is
copyrighted, provided that the content is original. The same would
apply he as long as what's written originates with the author, it is
protected by copyright. Ironically, protections on the Internet are
even *stronger* than they are in print media thanks to the wonderful
DMCA ;-)

Injudiciously yours,
Mark Lipton



--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

I would assume between fair use and safe harbor there is not much of a case.
Which is different than saying what they do is acceptable. To me the most
aggregious would be the one that changes the names ( I have not seen that
one)

Additionally, when I access this site I access it from Earthlink for a
connection and use outlook express. You can also access from google groups.

I don't know who actually owns the site but after a quick review of the
terms of use I am still not sure that there is a case. And when another
site uses our matierial, such as google groups that implies that it is
google.. Is this Google? I assume google while they may not advertise have
some reason to attract us to their site.

Not my specialty but I still assume fair use combined with safe harbor, that
they are not commerically selling our actual posts....a non issue. I am
sure for $5000-$10000 you can retain a media attorney, (they usually
represent news orgs) and you might win...and the other sites likely are
ordered to remove the posts, an no damages or legal costs.

Just a guess of someone that spent time in courts years back. Just a guess.

Now if you had music or military contract leaking on a site...you got them
dead to right.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:19:34 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>You can argue almost anything...however filing a suit may end the use of AFW
>material...but I see no monetary awards.
>
>For the most part, opinion and discussion is not protected. I think for the
>most part, non of these postings in our forum would get protection.
>
>That is not to say what the other sites are doing is right. It is
>dispicable..but not necessarily a slam dunk either in court. IMO

Like Mark, I am not for a moment suggesting anyone bother to take
legal action. But if anyone did, surely the point would be to get the
blighters to stop rather than seeking damages.

I think a US court would be a lot more lenient than an English one. In
the US creativity is apparently required to make a work copyrightable.
In England it is sufficient to demonstrate skill, labour or judgement
went into the piece, which would be quite easy to do for, e.g., a set
of tasting notes. Of course, working out which country's courts would
try the case would be one of the first problems

IANAL either, but I have made it my business to read a legal textbook
that includes, amongst other things, a thick section on copyright law
and the Internet. An amateur perhaps, but I can read like the next
man. Better than most, I think.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:08:50 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>I would assume between fair use and safe harbor there is not much of a case.
>Which is different than saying what they do is acceptable. To me the most
>aggregious would be the one that changes the names ( I have not seen that
>one)

www.planetdrink.com <spit>

Her's a post I just found supposedly posted by Unlovable Caranda:

========================
Jenny, that is very interesting. It sounds a bit like collecting
stamps or coins. (Or "sigilography," a word I know only from the
Tintin books that I read as a child -- an old professor studied
official seals...)

I have only saved a few wine labels as reminders of the wine. If there
is a larger world of label collecting, if you can say anything more
it, or post further references, I would be grateful. (Maybe others
also.)

Best -- Max Hauser
========================



--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Jul 25, 1:13�pm, Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:19:34 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>
> > wrote:
> >You can argue almost anything...however filing a suit may end the use of AFW
> >material...but I see no monetary awards.
>
> >For the most part, opinion and discussion is not protected. �I think for the
> >most part, non of these postings in our forum would get protection.
>
> >That is not to say what the other sites are doing is right. �It is
> >dispicable..but not necessarily a slam dunk either in court. IMO
>
> Like Mark, I am not for a moment suggesting anyone bother to take
> legal action. �But if anyone did, surely the point would be to get the
> blighters to stop rather than seeking damages.
>
> I think a US court would be a lot more lenient than an English one. In
> the US creativity is apparently required to make a work copyrightable.
> In England it is sufficient to demonstrate skill, labour or judgement
> went into the piece, which would be quite easy to do for, e.g., a set
> of tasting notes. �Of course, working out which country's courts would
> try the case would be one of the first problems
>
> IANAL either, but I have made it my business to read a legal textbook
> that includes, amongst other things, a thick section oncopyrightlaw
> and the Internet. �An amateur perhaps, but I can read like the next
> man. �Better than most, I think.
>
> --
> Steve Slatcherhttp://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

It's clearly not fair use in US either, as it fails on 2 of the usual
4 criteria. It's being used on a commercial site (a site that has
advertising is commercial, it's clear none of those sites is hobby
driven!). . More importantly it fails on the "amount and
substantiality" text, as it's just copying over (using a program,
probably) the entire text of discussion. To qualify under fair use it
has to generally be a sample of the work to make a point. No decent
lawyer would claim this as fair use. But like others, it's probably
not worth pursuing, as thse #$sholes just pop up somewhere new.

The point also is that these sites like Google Groups, or Earthlink
Newgroups all asscess the same data.

The only issue that I would see is that they may/may not define as usenet.

But what is the difference in commerial application? You use commercial as
though a profitable company cannot show because they advertise. IMO that is
NOT the same as commercial use.

If they sell the material...that would be different. Without selling I think
you could use. Just a thought.

I think you guys might want to hire a media attorney and go after it. I
have a few I could recommend if anyone is serious. Also a couple
Intellectual Property Attorneys...but you will have to argue the media
aspect fo the internet. There are some trying, none that I know of that win
money...but it could happen.




"DaleW" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 1:13?pm, Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:19:34 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>
> > wrote:
> >You can argue almost anything...however filing a suit may end the use of
> >AFW
> >material...but I see no monetary awards.
>
> >For the most part, opinion and discussion is not protected. ?I think for
> >the
> >most part, non of these postings in our forum would get protection.
>
> >That is not to say what the other sites are doing is right. ?It is
> >dispicable..but not necessarily a slam dunk either in court. IMO
>
> Like Mark, I am not for a moment suggesting anyone bother to take
> legal action. ?But if anyone did, surely the point would be to get the
> blighters to stop rather than seeking damages.
>
> I think a US court would be a lot more lenient than an English one. In
> the US creativity is apparently required to make a work copyrightable.
> In England it is sufficient to demonstrate skill, labour or judgement
> went into the piece, which would be quite easy to do for, e.g., a set
> of tasting notes. ?Of course, working out which country's courts would
> try the case would be one of the first problems
>
> IANAL either, but I have made it my business to read a legal textbook
> that includes, amongst other things, a thick section oncopyrightlaw
> and the Internet. ?An amateur perhaps, but I can read like the next
> man. ?Better than most, I think.
>
> --
> Steve Slatcherhttp://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

It's clearly not fair use in US either, as it fails on 2 of the usual
4 criteria. It's being used on a commercial site (a site that has
advertising is commercial, it's clear none of those sites is hobby
driven!). . More importantly it fails on the "amount and
substantiality" text, as it's just copying over (using a program,
probably) the entire text of discussion. To qualify under fair use it
has to generally be a sample of the work to make a point. No decent
lawyer would claim this as fair use. But like others, it's probably
not worth pursuing, as thse #$sholes just pop up somewhere new.

"Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,


> >> www.a1foodforum.com

A friend just logged onto this one and her software flagged it as a phishing
site.

Graham

In article <8urik.134748$gc5.47512@pd7urf2no>,
"Graham" > wrote:

> "Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
>
>
> > >> www.a1foodforum.com
>
> A friend just logged onto this one and her software flagged it as a phishing
> site.
>
> Graham

No surprise there. I have found AFW posts now on more than 20 sites and
have not exhausted the search. All of them are commercial sites.

"Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
...
> In article <8urik.134748$gc5.47512@pd7urf2no>,
> "Graham" > wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>>
>>
>> > >> www.a1foodforum.com
>>
>> A friend just logged onto this one and her software flagged it as a
>> phishing
>> site.
>>
>> Graham
>
> No surprise there. I have found AFW posts now on more than 20 sites and
> have not exhausted the search. All of them are commercial sites.

Google's archive is, apparently, the usual source for these "thieves" and
the reason is financial ("populating" a website so they can sell advertising
banner space).
Graham

Great...go hire an attorney and sue. Let us know how much you make on it.
:-)

IMHO, just because they sell advertising does not really make it commerical.

I personally dispute that our conversations are protected by
copyright...they are NOT articles or literature.

But, I sure would like to see someone go after them. So get a lawyer and
sue them all. In the end if you accomplish anything other than a , we will
take down those posts, I would be amazed.

Again, Does Google have the rights to USENET, and if they do, I access our
group from Earthlink. Do thay have the right...both look different. Both
companies make money on their sites...therefore, are they also part of this?
Aren't they commerical?

I don't buy into any of the thought that our posts are protected as our
posts are more conversation.

On Jul 25, 6:54*pm, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> Great...go hire an attorney and sue. *Let us know how much you make on it.
> :-)
>
> IMHO, just because they sell advertising does not really make it commerical.
>
> I personally dispute that our conversations are protected by
> copyright...they are NOT articles or literature.
>
> But, I sure would like to see someone go after them. *So get a lawyer and
> sue them all. *In the end if you accomplish anything other than a , we will
> take down those posts, I would be amazed.
>
> Again, Does Google have the rights to USENET, and if they do, I access our
> group from Earthlink. *Do thay have the right...both look different. *Both
> companies make money on their sites...therefore, are they also part of this?
> Aren't they commerical?
>
> I don't buy into any of the thought that our posts are protected as our
> posts are more conversation.

Might I suggest that if you don't want your comments archieved on
these sites that you either a) set your archieve bit so your posts
don't get archived or b) start a private message board

By using Usenet which is by its very nature open to everyone, you are
forfeiting your right to your comments. You are essentially sending an
email to the world.

Plus technically most of these sites are "archiving" your post, not
stealing it. This is the same thing Google does with google groups,
they archieve their own posts. One of the examples mentioned above
that I looked at clearly states it is a web interface to usenet,
saving people who don't want to spend $25 a month so they can get
usenet spam and discussions like this one.

Since by its very nature anyone can join or read usenet posts, it is
not the place to worry too much about privacy. Now please get back to
talking about something worth stealing, er I mean archiving.

On Jul 25, 10:55�pm, wrote:
> Since by its very nature anyone can join or read usenet posts, it is
> not the place to worry too much about privacy. Now please get back to
> talking about something worth stealing, er I mean archiving.-

Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy? You seem to have
a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
the "noise" factor considerably. The difference between that and
Google groups is that Google makes no attempt to disguise the nature
of the forum, and provides the mechanism to post replies. I certainly
don't feel the neccesity to experiment with those sleazy sites, but I
would bet that if one posts a response to Bi!!'s TN on any of those,
it does not appear on Usenet readers. Please let me know if I am
incorrect. If a site is providing full access to newsgroups, and
doesn't pretend that the forum is their own, I personally would have
no problem with it.

On Jul 25, 9:29Â*pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 10:55�pm, wrote:
>
> > Since by its very nature anyone can join or read usenet posts, it is
> > not the place to worry too much about privacy. Now please get back to
> > talking about something worth stealing, er I mean archiving.-
>
> Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy? You seem to have
> a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
>
> By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> the "noise" factor considerably. The difference between that and
> Google groups is that Google makes no attempt to disguise the nature
> of the forum, and provides the mechanism to post replies. I certainly
> don't feel the neccesity to experiment with those sleazy sites, but I
> would bet that if one posts a response to Bi!!'s TN on any of those,
> it does not appear on Usenet readers. Please let me know if I am
> incorrect. If a site is providing full access to newsgroups, and
> doesn't pretend that the forum is their own, I personally would have
> no problem with it.

> Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy?

Typical usenet response. You pick one word you disagree with and
ignore the meat of the post. The opposite of "private" is public. You
are worried that your content is in the public domain and whether that
means you have a right to it or not. I believe that was the whole
point of all the fair use discussion.

> By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> the "noise" factor considerably.

How do these sites increase the noise? They keep the trolls out of
your group.

On Jul 25, 11:41Â*pm, wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:29Â*pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:55�pm, wrote:
>
> > > Since by its very nature anyone can join or read usenet posts, it is
> > > not the place to worry too much about privacy. Now please get back to
> > > talking about something worth stealing, er I mean archiving.-
>
> > Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy? You seem to have
> > a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
>
> > By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> > the "noise" factor considerably. The difference between that and
> > Google groups is that Google makes no attempt to disguise the nature
> > of the forum, and provides the mechanism to post replies. I certainly
> > don't feel the neccesity to experiment with those sleazy sites, but I
> > would bet that if one posts a response to Bi!!'s TN on any of those,
> > it does not appear on Usenet readers. Please let me know if I am
> > incorrect. If a site is providing full access to newsgroups, and
> > doesn't pretend that the forum is their own, I personally would have
> > no problem with it.
> > Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy?
>
> Typical usenet response. You pick one word you disagree with and
> ignore the meat of the post. The opposite of "private" is public. You
> are worried that your content is in the public domain and whether that
> means you have a right to it or not. I believe that was the whole
> point of all the fair use discussion.
>
> > By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> > the "noise" factor considerably.
>
> How do these sites increase the noise? They keep the trolls out of
> your group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since the conversation here was about copyright, the whole private/
public issue is irrelevant. Copyright is about the rules for material
available publicly in some form, and when it is right to copy it.

By noise I meant that these sites too lazy to come up with their own
content cannibalize the Usenet forums - because if someone does a
websearch for a info on a '76 Dr Fischer Ockfener Bockstein Auslese,
they find dozens of copies of CWDJRXYZ's TN, and there's very little
chance any response they make is seen by the author. They are led to
believe that he posted on that forum. It's sad because it helps kill
Usenet, a rather noble platform for the exchange of ideas IMHO.

Out of curiosity, do you like wine? Or are you posting from a position
of self-interest?

On Jul 25, 10:12*pm, DaleW > wrote:

> By noise I meant that these sites too lazy to come up with their own
> content cannibalize the Usenet forums - because if someone does a
> websearch for a info on a '76 Dr Fischer Ockfener Bockstein Auslese,
> they find dozens of copies of CWDJRXYZ's TN, and there's very little
> chance any response they make is seen by the author. They are led to
> believe that he posted on that forum. It's sad because it helps kill
> Usenet, a rather noble platform for the exchange of ideas IMHO.
>
> Out of curiosity, do you like wine? Or are you posting from a position
> of self-interest?

Below is something that might be worth a try. If it gets cut out on
posts that appear in another group, this is proof that they edit posts
to suit themselves and do not thus "archive" posts as does Google.
Yes, I have found some of my posts to alt.food.wine in other groups.
In one I am listed as a "guest". I don't recall ever visiting that
group before. Perhaps I am showing my age, becoming forgetful,and need
to check with my physician - but I doubt that.

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
posts is copied in part are exactly on another website or Usenet
group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
back several years."

On Jul 25, 10:12Â*pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:41Â*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 9:29Â*pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 25, 10:55�pm, wrote:
>
> > > > Since by its very nature anyone can join or read usenet posts, it is
> > > > not the place to worry too much about privacy. Now please get back to
> > > > talking about something worth stealing, er I mean archiving.-
>
> > > Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy? You seem to have
> > > a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
>
> > > By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> > > the "noise" factor considerably. The difference between that and
> > > Google groups is that Google makes no attempt to disguise the nature
> > > of the forum, and provides the mechanism to post replies. I certainly
> > > don't feel the neccesity to experiment with those sleazy sites, but I
> > > would bet that if one posts a response to Bi!!'s TN on any of those,
> > > it does not appear on Usenet readers. Please let me know if I am
> > > incorrect. If a site is providing full access to newsgroups, and
> > > doesn't pretend that the forum is their own, I personally would have
> > > no problem with it.
> > > Did ANY poster here say they were worried re privacy?
>
> > Typical usenet response. You pick one word you disagree with and
> > ignore the meat of the post. The opposite of "private" is public. You
> > are worried that your content is in the public domain and whether that
> > means you have a right to it or not. I believe that was the whole
> > point of all the fair use discussion.
>
> > > By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> > > the "noise" factor considerably.
>
> > How do these sites increase the noise? They keep the trolls out of
> > your group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since the conversation here was about copyright, the whole private/
> public issue is irrelevant. Copyright is about the rules for material
> available publicly in some form, and when it is right to copy it.
>
> By noise I meant that these sites too lazy to come up with their own
> content cannibalize the Usenet forums - because if someone does a
> websearch for a info on a '76 Dr Fischer Ockfener Bockstein Auslese,
> they find dozens of copies of CWDJRXYZ's TN, and there's very little
> chance any response they make is seen by the author. They are led to
> believe that he posted on that forum. It's sad because it helps kill
> Usenet, a rather noble platform for the exchange of ideas IMHO.
>
> Out of curiosity, do you like wine? Or are you posting from a position
> of self-interest?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am enjoying a nice Shiraz as we speak. And to answer you question,
everyone posts from a position of self-interest, whether it be merely
self-actualization or some commercial advantage. This thread was
archived to Google.com and I found the subject matter interesting.
Usenet is an interesting animal, and the fact that it still exists
represents a bit of an anomaly. Modern forums provide much better
functionality and spam control and yet usenet continues to exist. The
only reasonable explanation is that the Usenet history and archives
have value. This thread should serve as a reminder that nothing said
on the Internet is truly lost, and your words will live forever.
Caveat Poster

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:54:51 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Great...go hire an attorney and sue. Let us know how much you make on it.
>:-)
>
>IMHO, just because they sell advertising does not really make it commerical.

Why does being commercial make any difference to their legal position?
If I ripped off music CDs, would it be any more legally acceptable if
I then gave them away?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:54:51 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:
>
>>Great...go hire an attorney and sue. Let us know how much you make on it.
>>:-)
>>
>>IMHO, just because they sell advertising does not really make it
>>commerical.
>
> Why does being commercial make any difference to their legal position?
> If I ripped off music CDs, would it be any more legally acceptable if
> I then gave them away?
>
> --
> Steve Slatcher
> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher


Steve, I beleive the purpose of commercial would be very important in terms
of any monetary damages. Someone would/should have to prove that because the
post was on one site, but now other sites, that your NON commercial post
somehow damaged you monetarily. So, you might otherwise hire an attorney
and agree in principal that what is done is wrong, but your legal fees will
NOT get recovered. IMO.

"DaleW" > wrote in message
...



Please now, I am fairly certain that Google Groups is a "FOR PROFIT" thus
Commerical site. Just because they are not advertising on the google group
page does NOT make them less commercial. What is your definition of
commercial?


> > By stealing content and passing off as their own, these sites increase
> > the "noise" factor considerably.

Because I am a woos, I don't want to register on one and test it out. But
then you contradict yourself. You CLAIM it will increase noise factor here,
but then come back and say, it would not likely post here from one of those
other sites? Which one is it again?

I am NOT that INTERNET SAAVY...but how do you know for a FACT it is copied?
Could they not point their server to the other and it provides a mirror
image? If it is the same, and the only issue is they show ads on the page,
its not necessarily copied. Does google do the same thing but not show ads?
They offer groups I assume so people will come to their site at google.
Why, cause they likely make money on advertising on searches with pay per
click. On selling demographic info, contact info or other stuff...(Google
is great, what ever they do I am sure is in their terms of use)

For the record, I registered using a gmail account at Mombu, and the first
post did not come here to afw.

One other thing, I don't see that their posts are complete from our group.
I do think they use partial posts.

One other thing, their advertisments are sponsored links from Google it
said. If I understood that correctly.

So, Their replication is NOT affecting this group with additional posters.
"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Most of you probably recall my "AFW through the looking glass" thread
> earlier this year about a particularly unscrupulous website that stole
> alt.food.wine posts and repackaged them (complete with bizarro user names)
> as traffic on their own wine forum:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5zxz2v (Google groups archive of thread)
>
> I had occasion today to Google for my munged Usenet email address, which
> invariably turns up various sites using our content. Many of them are
> simply Usenet-to-Web portals that acknowledge the source of the posts, but
> as usual there are other, less scrupulous sites, that repackage our posts
> for display on "their" forums. Here's the current shit list:
>
> www.mombu.com
> cookingchat.info
> www.a1foodforum.com
> forums.travel.com
> usesrv.com
>
> As we previously discussed, this is probably a copyright violation of our
> copyrighted posts. If anyone feels like pursuing this, feel free. In any
> event, this is both sleazy and pathetic, especially those sites that
> package 2-3 year old Usenet posts as their own.
>
> Oh well,
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:24:06 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Steve, I beleive the purpose of commercial would be very important in terms
>of any monetary damages. Someone would/should have to prove that because the
>post was on one site, but now other sites, that your NON commercial post
>somehow damaged you monetarily. So, you might otherwise hire an attorney
>and agree in principal that what is done is wrong, but your legal fees will
>NOT get recovered. IMO.

Quite. It's the commercial interests of the owner of the copyright
that are key to getting damages paid.

Incidentally, why is it that one seems to have to hire an attorney for
copyright cases, and the dispute seems always to be between the 2
parties concerned. If physical property were stolen I'd expect the
police to catch the perpetrators, and the (in England) the Crown
Prosecution Service to prosecute. Why is it different for
intellectual property?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Here in the US, copyright is not criminal, its civil law. IMHo


"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:24:06 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:
>
>>Steve, I beleive the purpose of commercial would be very important in
>>terms
>>of any monetary damages. Someone would/should have to prove that because
>>the
>>post was on one site, but now other sites, that your NON commercial post
>>somehow damaged you monetarily. So, you might otherwise hire an attorney
>>and agree in principal that what is done is wrong, but your legal fees
>>will
>>NOT get recovered. IMO.
>
> Quite. It's the commercial interests of the owner of the copyright
> that are key to getting damages paid.
>
> Incidentally, why is it that one seems to have to hire an attorney for
> copyright cases, and the dispute seems always to be between the 2
> parties concerned. If physical property were stolen I'd expect the
> police to catch the perpetrators, and the (in England) the Crown
> Prosecution Service to prosecute. Why is it different for
> intellectual property?
>
> --
> Steve Slatcher
> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

That's what I thought too until I was persuaded otherwise by someone a
couple of years back.

A quick google and it seems it is USUALLY civil law, but copyright CAN
be dealt with under criminal law. In the US a civil case would need
to be brought frist, and over here criminal law would only be used for
cases where there is massive fraud.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:52:15 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Here in the US, copyright is not criminal, its civil law. IMHo
>
>
>"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:24:06 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Steve, I beleive the purpose of commercial would be very important in
>>>terms
>>>of any monetary damages. Someone would/should have to prove that because
>>>the
>>>post was on one site, but now other sites, that your NON commercial post
>>>somehow damaged you monetarily. So, you might otherwise hire an attorney
>>>and agree in principal that what is done is wrong, but your legal fees
>>>will
>>>NOT get recovered. IMO.
>>
>> Quite. It's the commercial interests of the owner of the copyright
>> that are key to getting damages paid.
>>
>> Incidentally, why is it that one seems to have to hire an attorney for
>> copyright cases, and the dispute seems always to be between the 2
>> parties concerned. If physical property were stolen I'd expect the
>> police to catch the perpetrators, and the (in England) the Crown
>> Prosecution Service to prosecute. Why is it different for
>> intellectual property?
>>
>> --
>> Steve Slatcher
>> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
>

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Richard Neidich wrote:

> One other thing, I don't see that their posts are complete from our group.
> I do think they use partial posts.

That should be enough to turn you against this use of our posts. It you
write something here with your name on it and then they edit it to be
what they want it to be and leave your name on it, I would think that
you would be screaming. (like the rest of us)

"This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
posts is copied in part are exactly on another website or Usenet
group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
back several years."

Bill, I like the signature statement you use. IF we ALL did that, I think
it would be much harder for someone else to use our posts without LOTs of
EDITING.

But I am not that internet saavy.


"Bill Loftin" > wrote in message
m...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>
>> One other thing, I don't see that their posts are complete from our
>> group. I do think they use partial posts.
>
> That should be enough to turn you against this use of our posts. It you
> write something here with your name on it and then they edit it to be
> what they want it to be and leave your name on it, I would think that
> you would be screaming. (like the rest of us)
>
> "This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
> posts is copied in part are exactly on another website or Usenet
> group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
> not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
> emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
> alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
> back several years."

But he might like to consider redrafting " If this posts is copied in
part are exactly on another website or Usenet group"

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:39:50 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Bill, I like the signature statement you use. IF we ALL did that, I think
>it would be much harder for someone else to use our posts without LOTs of
>EDITING.
>
>But I am not that internet saavy.
>
>
>"Bill Loftin" > wrote in message
om...
>> Richard Neidich wrote:
>>
>>> One other thing, I don't see that their posts are complete from our
>>> group. I do think they use partial posts.
>>
>> That should be enough to turn you against this use of our posts. It you
>> write something here with your name on it and then they edit it to be
>> what they want it to be and leave your name on it, I would think that
>> you would be screaming. (like the rest of us)
>>
>> "This post was made to the Usenet group alt.food.wine only. If this
>> posts is copied in part are exactly on another website or Usenet
>> group, it is not by me and without the consent of this author who does
>> not post on this subject in other groups. Replies to other groups and
>> emails will not be answered. All replies should be to my post at
>> alt.food.wine. For older posts, Google archives nearly all of Usenet
>> back several years."
>

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Bill, I am not happy about the situation, however:

I do not think our posts have the protections of copyright.

Secondly, I think the sites that replicated or somehow mirror image us
likely have little going on for them and we lend them credence by using
their names on our posts.

Third, I see no real damages.

Most of our copyright laws protect works or expression of ideas, real ideas,
not postings of likes/dislikes etc.

Therefore, I don't see any benefits other than your signature on your post.
Can I copy it?

Err
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:55:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>> I don't buy into any of the thought that our posts are protected as our
>> posts are more conversation.
>
>Might I suggest that if you don't want your comments archieved on
>these sites that you either a) set your archieve bit so your posts
>don't get archived or b) start a private message board

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Any figures as to what proportion of news servers respect the
X-No-Archive flag?

The point isn't wheter my silver tongued prose is echoed throughout
the www, but whether the web site that does it has asked my permission
and told readers that it has "borrowed" content from afw without
permission. You're surely not suggesting it's acceptable are you,
because you seem to be. Are you associated with this slimy
organisation?

I think discussion of the legality and the existence of copyright is
largely a waste of hot air. If it has taken until now for film makers
and record producers to "persuade" ISPs to write a polite letter of
remonstration to those blatently stealing material that is equally
clearly subject to copyright,then it's clear that protecting copyright
on the Internet is a very rocky field.

--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

In article >,
IanH > wrote:

> Err
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:55:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >> I don't buy into any of the thought that our posts are protected as our
> >> posts are more conversation.
> >
> >Might I suggest that if you don't want your comments archieved on
> >these sites that you either a) set your archieve bit so your posts
> >don't get archived or b) start a private message board
>
> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> Any figures as to what proportion of news servers respect the
> X-No-Archive flag?
>
> The point isn't wheter my silver tongued prose is echoed throughout
> the www, but whether the web site that does it has asked my permission
> and told readers that it has "borrowed" content from afw without
> permission. You're surely not suggesting it's acceptable are you,
> because you seem to be. Are you associated with this slimy
> organisation?
>
> I think discussion of the legality and the existence of copyright is
> largely a waste of hot air. If it has taken until now for film makers
> and record producers to "persuade" ISPs to write a polite letter of
> remonstration to those blatently stealing material that is equally
> clearly subject to copyright,then it's clear that protecting copyright
> on the Internet is a very rocky field.
>
> --
> All the best
> Fatty from Forges

I am not myself suggesting legal action as it would be monetarily
useless and even legally a stretch. I just resent the use of my posts or
anyone on here to sell advertising space. I do copyright my material
pertaining to my own business and would sue if someone lifted material
from my work and posted or published it as their own.