Rec Bikes Tech's other incarnation

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books, with
content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of Usenet FAQs.
We planned to attribute as best we could, but not actually pay
authors. Some big companies were interested and it could have been quite
lucrative. But we all decided the copyright landscape was a minefield --
especially back then.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large
number of ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell
advertising. Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear
to have been changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But
this still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in
court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved"
notice in your postings, such as one where attribution is required.
If the name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

You don't need to declare a copyright to have copyright protection, at
least from my last reading of copyright law.

Quoted message said:

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books,
with content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of
Usenet FAQs. We planned to attribute as best we could, but not
actually pay authors. Some big companies were interested and it
could have been quite lucrative. But we all decided the copyright
landscape was a minefield -- especially back then.

It's a bugger minefield now, since "intellectual property rights" have
been dramatically strengthened in the US and Europe in the past 10
years. Intellectual property is a problematic concept at best and is
a sad muddle of copyright, trademark and patent protections, with laws
written at the behests of the drug industry, software industry and
music/motion picture industries in particular. In the latter cases,
the fact that they have failed to deal effectively with the digital
age has resulted in increasingly draconian laws- rather than fix
their business model, they would rather punish their customers and
deny them fair use.

An interesting textbook being used in law schools around the country
is Richard Stallman's _Free Software, Free Society_. Worth a read and
thought provoking, even if he doesn't convince you.

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books, with
content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of Usenet FAQs.
We planned to attribute as best we could, but not actually pay
authors. Some big companies were interested and it could have been quite
lucrative. But we all decided the copyright landscape was a minefield --
especially back then.

Matt O.

Let's see what happens. I wouldn't mind my posts being reprinted, but
I do object to them being used for profit. That is, profit that
excludes me.

Jeffrey Starr
All rights to the above text is reserved. No use
without express written permission.

Jeff Starr said:

Let's see what happens. I wouldn't mind my posts being reprinted, but
I do object to them being used for profit. That is, profit that
excludes me.

Jeffrey Starr
All rights to the above text is reserved. No use
without express written permission.

Sounds reasonable.
--
"Let's see what happens. I wouldn't mind my posts being reprinted, but
I do object to them being used for profit. That is, profit that
excludes me."

Tim McNamara said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large
number of ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell
advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice
in your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

You don't need to declare a copyright to have copyright protection, at
least from my last reading of copyright law.

This is true, but stating your copyright from the outset serves a couple
of purposes. It may warn off potential infringers. It establishes a
creation date. Finally, it asserts that your material has some value, so
you have a basis for for claiming damages.

Also, I don't want to reserve all rights, which is the standard copyright.

Quoted message said:

It's a bugger minefield now, since "intellectual property rights" have
been dramatically strengthened in the US and Europe in the past 10
years. Intellectual property is a problematic concept at best and is a
sad muddle of copyright, trademark and patent protections, with laws
written at the behests of the drug industry, software industry and
music/motion picture industries in particular. In the latter cases, the
fact that they have failed to deal effectively with the digital age has
resulted in increasingly draconian laws- rather than fix their business
model, they would rather punish their customers and deny them fair use.

....and protect themselves against competition from upstarts.

What happened to promoting the progress of science and the useful arts?
Instead we get Halloween XVIII, and remakes of Oceans 11.

Quoted message said:

An interesting textbook being used in law schools around the country is
Richard Stallman's _Free Software, Free Society_. Worth a read and
thought provoking, even if he doesn't convince you.

I'm a big Lessig fan myself.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books, with
content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of Usenet FAQs.
We planned to attribute as best we could, but not actually pay
authors. Some big companies were interested and it could have been quite
lucrative. But we all decided the copyright landscape was a minefield --
especially back then.

Matt O.

I just took a look, they seem to be picking and choosing. They are not
taking all current posts, as this thread is absent.

Maybe if we all put a copyright message at the bottom of our posts,
they will stop. And, it might discourage others.

Jeffrey Starr
All rights to the above text is reserved. No use
outside of rec.bicycle.tech, without express written
permission.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Jeff Starr <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large
number of ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell
advertising. Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear
to have been changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But
this still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in
court.

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved"
notice in your postings, such as one where attribution is required.
If the name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books,
with content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of
Usenet FAQs. We planned to attribute as best we could, but not
actually pay
authors. Some big companies were interested and it could have been
quite lucrative. But we all decided the copyright landscape was a
minefield -- especially back then.

Matt O.

I just took a look, they seem to be picking and choosing. They are not
taking all current posts, as this thread is absent.

Maybe if we all put a copyright message at the bottom of our posts,
they will stop. And, it might discourage others.

Jeffrey Starr
All rights to the above text is reserved. No use
outside of rec.bicycle.tech, without express written
permission.

You may want to reflect on that, as you have purloined the writings of
another (to whom you replied) by including his text.

Actually, the real question may have more to do with the implicit donation
into the public domain by using a medium where it is commonplace to use the
writings of another. And I, of course, stole from both of you. IP has
become sick but profitable law.
--
Sandy
--
Mobilité et stabilité ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avançant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)

Sandy said:

You may want to reflect on that, as you have purloined the writings of
another (to whom you replied) by including his text.

It's quoted and attributed in a fair use manner.

Quoted message said:

Actually, the real question may have more to do with the implicit
donation into the public domain by using a medium where it is
commonplace to use the writings of another.

Commonplace, but as yet mostly untested in court. A copyright
statement may be an effective counter to an implicit donation argument.
We don't know for sure, but neither do they -- which may be enough
deterrent for them.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

Everything you write is under your copyright, by definition. No need for
notices.

Quoted message said:

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

Please god don't. There's enough [censored] in these newsgroups without adding
10 lines per posting.

Jasper

Sandy said:

Actually, the real question may have more to do with the implicit donation
into the public domain by using a medium where it is commonplace to use the
writings of another. And I, of course, stole from both of you. IP has
become sick but profitable law.

Posting to usenet does *not* imply donating to the public domain. It
implies permission to distribute and copy the message in the regular
process of usenet (given the way it functions), and it implies permission
to quote and it and use those quotes in postings that are similarly widely
distributed. But that's not public domain by a long shot.

Jasper

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

Why does it 'stink'? If the idea is to spread info about bikes, who
cares? I don't.

Quoted message said:

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

I was once involved with a publisher for a series of howto books, with
content taken from Usenet -- basically a print version of Usenet FAQs.
We planned to attribute as best we could, but not actually pay
authors. Some big companies were interested and it could have been quite
lucrative. But we all decided the copyright landscape was a minefield --
especially back then.

Matt O.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:22:11 -0500, Matt O'Toole
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about this -- put a Creative Commons "some rights reserved" notice in
your postings, such as one where attribution is required. If the
name-changers try it again, sue their sorry asses.

Please god don't. There's enough [censored] in these newsgroups without adding
10 lines per posting.

If you really feel the need for a copyright notice, make it a header
line inserted by your newsreader. The Organization: header seems
reasonable, e.g. "Organization: Copyright 2006 Joshua Putnam,
reproduction beyond Usenet Store-and-Forward Prohibited."

There have been cases of magazine and book publishers getting in
trouble for stealing Usenet posts as articles, on the mistaken
assumption they were public domain. (Can't remember whose touring
travelogs were used that way back in the mid-90s.)

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Mark Janeba said:

http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html

Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

Why does it 'stink'? If the idea is to spread info about bikes, who
cares? I don't.

I object to someone making money from what is not his.
There is a word for it.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Matt O'Toole said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 09:09:07 -0800, Mark Janeba wrote:

>http://www.briefreporter.com/bicycles-technical-vf19.html
>
>Looks to me like another case of "borrowed" postings. The large number of
>ads makes me think the postings were "borrowed" to sell advertising.
> Unlike the last case, though, the names don't appear to have been
> changed.

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

Why does it 'stink'? If the idea is to spread info about bikes, who
cares? I don't.

I object to someone making money from what is not his.
There is a word for it.

Which word did you have in mind?
Banking? realty? subleasing? sharecropping? driving a taxi under lien?
(sorry, the last one isn't one word) :-)

Mark (whose grandfather was a sharecropper for a time)

In article <[email hidden]>, Qui

si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But this
still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in court.

Why does it 'stink'? If the idea is to spread info about bikes, who
cares? I don't.

That was my initial view also - after all the posts are being
attributed to their authors. But upon further reflection, I find it
disturbing that someone can profit from the knowledge and experience
residing herein without consent. Perhaps even more disturbing, that
these posts are worth anything at all! ;-)

Rather than mirror r.b.t an approach aimed at profiting from online
expertise should involve creating a separately administered forum such
those available at roadbikereview.com or bikeforums.net.

Luke

Jasper Janssen said:

Posting to usenet does *not* imply donating to the public domain. It
implies permission to distribute and copy the message in the regular
process of usenet (given the way it functions), and it implies permission
to quote and it and use those quotes in postings that are similarly widely
distributed. But that's not public domain by a long shot.

This is my (layman's) opinion too, but has it been tested in court
anywhere?

Matt O.

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Qui

si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

I guess it's public if it's posted without copyright notice. But
this still stinks. The thing is, I bet it's never been tested in
court.

Why does it 'stink'? If the idea is to spread info about bikes, who
cares? I don't.

That was my initial view also - after all the posts are being attributed
to their authors. But upon further reflection, I find it disturbing that
someone can profit from the knowledge and experience residing herein
without consent. Perhaps even more disturbing, that these posts are
worth anything at all! ;-)

If they're worth anything at all, then my posts belong to me. These
other folks should come up with their own stuff. Create and add value,
or die.

Quoted message said:

Rather than mirror r.b.t an approach aimed at profiting from online
expertise should involve creating a separately administered forum such
those available at roadbikereview.com or bikeforums.net.

Like I said...

Matt O.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Matt O'Toole <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Posting to usenet does *not* imply donating to the public domain. It
implies permission to distribute and copy the message in the regular
process of usenet (given the way it functions), and it implies
permission to quote and it and use those quotes in postings that are
similarly widely distributed. But that's not public domain by a long
shot.

This is my (layman's) opinion too, but has it been tested in court
anywhere?

Matt O.

Well, public domain is a tricky area. If, as JJ posited, there is an
implicit permission to copy and distribute, it fails to remain personal IP.
There is not, so far as I have seen, a case which tests this Usenet limits,
but private correspondence, _not_ intended for wide distribution, is subject
to use inconsistent with IP property rules. For example, employee use of
company e-mail facilities to send personal mail, typically vitiates the
rights of privacy, and those writings can be used by the employer (parts of,
and under special circumstances) directly against the employee. In Europe,
this can amount to a battle between protecting the human rights of
individuals to their personal liberties (especially of expression) and the
corporate right to have its resources used exclusively for corporate
purposes.

The best defense against copyright claims, in this forum, is their inherent
lack of originality or uniqueness. This is often seen where someone parrots
an "authority" in order to gain peer acceptance. The thoughts offered are
far from original - can even be directly derived from texts previously
having IP characteristics - and threaten the integrity of the source
copyright materials.

A significant element undermining IP rights is the transborder nature of
publication, where rights in one jurisdiction may well not obtain protection
elsewhere. But law is a lot more boring that riding, so let me get the bike
ready for the morning ride ...
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

Cyclingforums.com does the same thing. In other groups you have the
talkaboutxxx.com taking usenet groups and putting it in their shell. It
seems that you can somehow post through these - but I don't know if it
actually gets to usenet. But it is a way for "free" to view some
usenet groups if you don't have another way for free.