Why?

Probably trying to drive eyeballs to his website to try to get

In article <13tblabglkatnf5@corp.supernews.com>, Skywise wrote:
Why?

Probably trying to drive eyeballs to his website to try to get
ad-clicks.
(Obviously, I've not contemplated a contribution to his
weblogs.)

Is anyone else tried of their usenet posts being used as fodder for
someone else's blog and hit counter?

5 years ago it was email addresses being harvested for driving

In article <85f2v3tihfrk56hhga8hidt4b3rdlh7qn8@4ax.com>, Bob Officer
wrote:
Is anyone else tried of their usenet posts being used as fodder for
someone else's blog and hit counter?

5 years ago it was email addresses being harvested for driving
spam engines. Next year it'll probably be drive-by thought scanning
pushing pills to your front door. Mr Ugggh, our common Neolithic
forebear was probably ticked off with these people drawing his picture
on the cave walls.

A few years back I traced down some of these usenet articles which
were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

The file of Kook Letters was funny.

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

I've seen what seem to be forum-to-and-from-usenet situations

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

I don't think it's public domain - as in "contents can be re-used

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

Bob, what's the legal precedent for this?

I'm not contradicting your position, just wanting to learn.

That does sound very odd too.

Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in
news:evddv31t5oiuhdijlc2lrdssmq21jcjsup@4ax.com:

A few years back I traced down some of these usenet articles which
were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

The file of Kook Letters was funny.

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

Bob, what's the legal precedent for this?

I'm not contradicting your position, just wanting to learn.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:35:16 GMT, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Skywise
into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in
news:evddv31t5oiuhdijlc2lrdssmq21jcjsup@4ax.com:

A few years back I traced down some of these usenet articles which
were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

The file of Kook Letters was funny.

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

Bob, what's the legal precedent for this?

I'm not contradicting your position, just wanting to learn.

basic copyright and the DMCA.

All you need to do is word the DMCA demand letter correctly and show
you are the rightfully owner. Since usenet is not public domain, it
is completely copyright by the writer of the words..

The user then has to show he has right to use the work on his web
pages to his provider. It is easiest when there is no route to the
usenet from the private web forums.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:21:44 -0700, Bob Officer
bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:

basic copyright and the DMCA.

All you need to do is word the DMCA demand letter correctly and show
you are the rightfully owner. Since usenet is not public domain, it
is completely copyright by the writer of the words..

The user then has to show he has right to use the work on his web
pages to his provider. It is easiest when there is no route to the
usenet from the private web forums.

Should add that it would be a good idea to consult an
intellectual property attorney. By the simple act of posting to
Usenet you are implicitly accepting that your words will appear
in many places and I don't reckon it's been established yet how
freely they may be quoted in other parts of the Internet.

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in news:9dhqv350l0pv8hhoibvidm84j27nu439ep@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:21:44 -0700, Bob Officer
bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:

Snipola

basic copyright and the DMCA.

All you need to do is word the DMCA demand letter correctly and show
you are the rightfully owner. Since usenet is not public domain, it
is completely copyright by the writer of the words..

The user then has to show he has right to use the work on his web
pages to his provider. It is easiest when there is no route to the
usenet from the private web forums.

Should add that it would be a good idea to consult an
intellectual property attorney. By the simple act of posting to
Usenet you are implicitly accepting that your words will appear
in many places and I don't reckon it's been established yet how
freely they may be quoted in other parts of the Internet.

I think the point Bob is making is if the website in question
is using your words to post messages to it's forums, but any
replies made on that forum do not propogate back to usenet.
In other words, the forum is not acting as a usenet service
provider.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:21:44 -0700, Bob Officer
bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:35:16 GMT, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Skywise
into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in
news:evddv31t5oiuhdijlc2lrdssmq21jcjsup@4ax.com:

A few years back I traced down some of these usenet articles which
were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

The file of Kook Letters was funny.

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

Bob, what's the legal precedent for this?

I'm not contradicting your position, just wanting to learn.

basic copyright and the DMCA.

All you need to do is word the DMCA demand letter correctly and show
you are the rightfully owner. Since usenet is not public domain, it
is completely copyright by the writer of the words..

The user then has to show he has right to use the work on his web
pages to his provider. It is easiest when there is no route to the
usenet from the private web forums.

Should add that it would be a good idea to consult an
intellectual property attorney. By the simple act of posting to
Usenet you are implicitly accepting that your words will appear
in many places and I don't reckon it's been established yet how
freely they may be quoted in other parts of the Internet.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:41:46 -0700, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Hatunen
hatunen@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:21:44 -0700, Bob Officer
bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:35:16 GMT, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Skywise
into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in
news:evddv31t5oiuhdijlc2lrdssmq21jcjsup@4ax.com:

A few years back I traced down some of these usenet articles which
were used as content fodder. One *site* they were used as if they
were posted to a private forum. It took four days and a DMCA demand
latter to shut the site down.

The file of Kook Letters was funny.

Another site, was going to take me to court claiming usenet is all
public domain. The site owners own lawyer wrote the letter offering a
settlement the next day.

A third site was using the edited articles, often changing the
complete meaning. The site is now missing completely.

Bob, what's the legal precedent for this?

I'm not contradicting your position, just wanting to learn.

basic copyright and the DMCA.

All you need to do is word the DMCA demand letter correctly and show
you are the rightfully owner. Since usenet is not public domain, it
is completely copyright by the writer of the words..

The user then has to show he has right to use the work on his web
pages to his provider. It is easiest when there is no route to the
usenet from the private web forums.

Should add that it would be a good idea to consult an
intellectual property attorney. By the simple act of posting to
Usenet you are implicitly accepting that your words will appear
in many places and I don't reckon it's been established yet how
freely they may be quoted in other parts of the Internet.

If one posts on usenet, it is an understanding that ones words are
permitted to be retransmitted by NNTP/UUpc to other usenet servers
for display and read, and so other may comment.

There is no understanding that one will see one's work used to
populate a web page, or a private forum, with no usenet connection or
no "comment" by the person using your usenet articles.

( I understand
part of Google's TOS releases ones copyright to them in exchange for
posting rights). In one of the cases I mention the forum owner tried
to misrepresent the posting were all his private forum.

Remember it is **not a fact** that usenet is "public domain".

Should add that it would be a good idea to consult an
intellectual property attorney. By the simple act of posting to
Usenet you are implicitly accepting that your words will appear
in many places and I don't reckon it's been established yet how
freely they may be quoted in other parts of the Internet.