OT: postings quoted without attributions

[Walter Roberson]

I have noticed that some web sites are importing discussions from
comp.lang.c and using them without attribution -- with the original
posting headers stripped off, so that authorship becomes unknown.
The effect is that the sites gain from our efforts, without even
crediting us for our work.

Importing Usenet discussions could -potentially- be considered
as "fair use" in some circumstances, but in all countries whose
copyright laws I have looked at, "fair use" only applies when the
source of the material is properly attributed.

Below are two examples. I have not been able to find contact
information for either site.


http://objectmix.com/c/33140-shutil-copy-c.html

http://www.megasolutions.net/c/Mechanics-of-calculating-structure-member-offsets-24233.aspx

 

[user923005]

I have noticed that some web sites are importing discussions from
comp.lang.c and using them without attribution -- with the original
posting headers stripped off, so that authorship becomes unknown.
The effect is that the sites gain from our efforts, without even
crediting us for our work.

Importing Usenet discussions could -potentially- be considered
as "fair use" in some circumstances, but in all countries whose
copyright laws I have looked at, "fair use" only applies when the
source of the material is properly attributed.

Below are two examples. I have not been able to find contact
information for either site.

http://objectmix.com/c/33140-shutil-copy-c.html

http://www.megasolutions.net/c/Mechanics-of-calculating-structure-mem...

I guess that a few gentle nudges will eventually get Gordon to leave
the attributions in.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I guess that a few gentle nudges will eventually get Gordon to leave
the attributions in.

Neither gentle nudges nor reasoned arguments nor flames have done so.

 

[Ian Collins]

I guess that a few gentle nudges will eventually get Gordon to leave
the attributions in.

I doubt it, we tried before but he arrogantly refuses to conform to
Usenet protocol. The killfile is easier.

 

[vippstar]

I have noticed that some web sites are importing discussions from
comp.lang.c and using them without attribution -- with the original
posting headers stripped off, so that authorship becomes unknown.
The effect is that the sites gain from our efforts, without even
crediting us for our work.

Importing Usenet discussions could -potentially- be considered
as "fair use" in some circumstances, but in all countries whose
copyright laws I have looked at, "fair use" only applies when the
source of the material is properly attributed.

Below are two examples. I have not been able to find contact
information for either site.

Why does it matter to you?
Would you prefer it if what is said here was accessible only by those
who have heard of usenet and comp.lang.c?

 

[CBFalconer]

Why does it matter to you? Would you prefer it if what is said here
was accessible only by those who have heard of usenet and comp.lang.c?

I can see Walter Robersons complaint, but I don't think it is worth
while getting excited over. As far as I am concerned once some
collection of words is published on Usenet those have been put in
the public domain. It would just be polite of those web sites to
include proper attributions.

 

[Willem]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
) On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, (e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
) wrote:
)> I have noticed that some web sites are importing discussions from
)> comp.lang.c and using them without attribution -- with the original
)> posting headers stripped off, so that authorship becomes unknown.
)> The effect is that the sites gain from our efforts, without even
)> crediting us for our work.
) <snip>
)
) Why does it matter to you?
) Would you prefer it if what is said here was accessible only by those
) who have heard of usenet and comp.lang.c?

I'll make a wild guess and claim that he would prefer it if what is said
here is accessible to as many people as possible, but *with* proper
attribution.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Flash Gordon]

Walter Roberson wrote, On 04/01/08 21:35:

I have noticed that some web sites are importing discussions from
comp.lang.c and using them without attribution -- with the original
posting headers stripped off, so that authorship becomes unknown.
The effect is that the sites gain from our efforts, without even
crediting us for our work.

Importing Usenet discussions could -potentially- be considered
as "fair use" in some circumstances, but in all countries whose
copyright laws I have looked at, "fair use" only applies when the
source of the material is properly attributed.

I agree.

Below are two examples. I have not been able to find contact
information for either site.


http://objectmix.com/c/33140-shutil-copy-c.html

http://www.megasolutions.net/c/Mechanics-of-calculating-structure-member-offsets-24233.aspx

Doing a whois on these sites gives the following contact details. I
suggest that people complain to them

(e-mail address removed)
(e-mail address removed)

I find it highly suspicious that both happen to be registered through
the same place, but it could just be coincidence.

For anyone wishing to take it further than this the next step would be
going here and complaining by post or using the complaints form
http://domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx?prog_id=#

Obviously the more people who complain the more likely it is that
something will be done.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Why does it matter to you?
Would you prefer it if what is said here was accessible only by those
who have heard of usenet and comp.lang.c?

No; but if it comes through CLC, then it gets archived and accessible
through the magic of Google, so website ripoffs aren't a requirement
for global accessibility.

 

[CBFalconer]

Why does it matter to you? Would you prefer it if what is said
here was accessible only by those who have heard of usenet and
comp.lang.c?

I have no idea what those URLs are, and how they are organized.
However, besides the fact that any material posted on Usenet is
automatically public domain, such sites may well function to remove
the crud (such as McCormack - Twink - Navia correspondence) and
better organize subjects.

 

[Harald van Dijk]

However,
besides the fact that any material posted on Usenet is automatically
public domain,

You're absolutely free to place whatever you've posted to Usenet in the
public domain, but it does not happen automatically, and you should
certainly not assume that just because someone else posted code to
Usenet, you're entitled to use it in whatever manner you want.

 

[Walter Roberson]

You're absolutely free to place whatever you've posted to Usenet in the
public domain, but it does not happen automatically

Quite right. Under the Bourne Convention on Copyright, original works
are automatically copyrighted by their authors upon first publication.
Posting to an unlimited distribution mechanism such as Usenet
does constitute publication. Works are only in the public domain
upon expiration of copyright, or upon *explicit* release to the public
domain without reservation, or in some special cases such as the
publications by -some- governments are automatically public domain
because said governments made a law to that effect.

Thus, Usenet postings that are original works are copyright by their
authors unless the authors specifically say otherwise.

Reproduction of Usenet postings has a shadowy legal status, but to the
extent that it is legal, it is permitted under "fair use" clauses, the
details and boundaries of which vary from country to country.
Reproduction without attribution of authorship is not "fair use" in any
country whose copyright laws I have examined. "Fair use" is typically
only deemed for reproduction of selected extracts; legal details vary, but
a limit of about 10% of the work is a common legal guideline.
Reproduction of -entire- copyrighted works (i.e., entire Usenet postings)
would be "fair use" only under a very narrow criteria: when the
entire work is the subject of "scholarly" analysis and criticism.

Is the collection of Usenet postings by Google legal? That isn't
clear; Google's presentation of advertising upon the collection
damages their legal case. But it is clear that a collection of postings
that strips off the authorship information is not fair use.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I guess that a few gentle nudges will eventually get Gordon to leave
the attributions in.

Hasn't worked for the last N years, so doubt it will suddenly start
working now....

 

[Flash Gordon]

Walter Roberson wrote, On 05/01/08 18:50:

Is the collection of Usenet postings by Google legal? That isn't
clear; Google's presentation of advertising upon the collection
damages their legal case. But it is clear that a collection of postings
that strips off the authorship information is not fair use.

Google can claim to be part of the Usenet and say that you are giving
them permission to include your works implicitly on that basis. The same
with other web portals that provide access with proper attribution and
the ability to reply with the replies being fed back in to Usenet. Thus
they can argue that fair usage does not come in to play. This sites
which were in the initial post here do not have that defence.

 

[Tim Smith]

Doing a whois on these sites gives the following contact details. I
suggest that people complain to them

(e-mail address removed)
(e-mail address removed)

I find it highly suspicious that both happen to be registered through
the same place, but it could just be coincidence.

Anyone who registers a domain through Godaddy and elects the option to
hide their contact info ends up with (e-mail address removed) for
their contact address.

 

[Tim Smith]

I have no idea what those URLs are, and how they are organized.
However, besides the fact that any material posted on Usenet is
automatically public domain, such sites may well function to remove

The laws and courts of almost every country in the world disagree with
you.

 

[Tim Smith]

Hasn't worked for the last N years, so doubt it will suddenly start
working now....

If one wanted to take it up a notch, one could send a DMCA takedown
notice to the ISP. That would get the unattributed material removed, at
least for a while (to obtain the safe harbor that keeps the ISP out of
trouble, the ISP has to take down the material right away, and then they
contact the site owner, who can tell them to put it back up).

If the site is taking posts from many people, and removing attributions,
and many of those people sent takedown notices for each of their posts,
the ISP would probably get real tired of dealing with it real quick, and
tell the site to put in the damn attributions.

 

[CBFalconer]

The laws and courts of almost every country in the world disagree
with you.

True. However the writers should so consider it.

 

[Richard Bos]

True. However the writers should so consider it.

Should they? I will not. What I post to Usenet is still my copyrighted
material. By tradition (and by necessity), everybody has the right to
quote that material in their replies - that is, replies to a Usenet post
fall under fair use, because of the nature of the medium - but that does
not mean that it is in the public domain for any other purpose. For
example, I would not look kindly upon someone taking stuff I post to
Usenet, stripping off all the names, printing it on a T-shirt, and
selling that for profit.

Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

Should they? I will not. What I post to Usenet is still my
copyrighted material. By tradition (and by necessity), everybody
has the right to quote that material in their replies - that is,
replies to a Usenet post fall under fair use, because of the
nature of the medium - but that does not mean that it is in the
public domain for any other purpose. For example, I would not
look kindly upon someone taking stuff I post to Usenet,
stripping off all the names, printing it on a T-shirt, and
selling that for profit.

Well, you do make a case (although unlikely). Of course the
appropriate action is not to post messages that you do not want so
treated, for some value of 'so'.