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
-- 
   So you found your solution
   What will be your last contribution?
   -- Supertramp (Fool's Overture)

On Jan 4, 1:35=A0pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-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.
>
> 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.

user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com> writes:
[...]
> 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.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <kst-u@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

user923005 wrote:
> On Jan 4, 1:35 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-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.
>>
>> 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.

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

-- 
Ian Collins.

On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-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.
>
> 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?

vippstar@gmail.com wrote:
> rober...@ibd.nrc-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.
>>
>> 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?

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.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

vippstar@gmail.com wrote:
) On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-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

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

OBJECTMIX.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
MEGASOLUTIONS.NET@domainsbyproxy.com

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.
-- 
Flash Gordon

vippstar@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Black Or White? Hedgehog
A rock is not a fact. A rock is a rock.

vippstar@gmail.com wrote:
> rober...@ibd.nrc-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.
>>
>> 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?

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.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:45:25 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
> 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.

In article <b246d$477fc306$541dfcd3$31629@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
=?UTF-8?q?Harald_van_D=C4=B3k?=  <truedfx@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:45:25 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
>> 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

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.
-- 
  "Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
  been already of old time, which was before us."    -- Ecclesiastes

user923005 wrote:
> 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.... :-)

-- 
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

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

<snip>

> 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.
-- 
Flash Gordon

In article <saa455xbf7.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
 Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> Doing a whois on these sites gives the following contact details. I 
> suggest that people complain to them
> 
> OBJECTMIX.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
> MEGASOLUTIONS.NET@domainsbyproxy.com
> 
> 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 their_domain@domainsbyproxy.com for 
their contact address.

-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <477FB425.92BFF6B2@yahoo.com>,
 CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

In article <13o04j52m5npt4f@corp.supernews.com>,
 Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

> user923005 wrote:
> > 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.... :-)

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.

-- 
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
> 
> The laws and courts of almost every country in the world disagree
> with you.

True.  However the writers should so consider it.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
> > CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 ...
> > 
> > The laws and courts of almost every country in the world disagree
> > with you.
> 
> 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

Richard Bos wrote:
> 
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 ...
>>>
>>> The laws and courts of almost every country in the world disagree
>>> with you.
>>
>> 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.

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'.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com