Copyright of usenet text posts

[FlyingRon]

Do you mean I've got a valid copyright on my own usenet text posts, whatever it's content is?

You certainly do.

How about other people's posts who have quoted me in their responses? Do I own copyright to their quoted part too?

Yes.

 

[quincy]

I think that you may have to accept the fact that you wrote stupid stuff ten years ago when you were less mature than you are now, and let it go, and move on. No other action in your described situation seems to make much sense.

 

[quincy]

You certainly do.

Yes.

Again, this is technically, only. Don't get your hopes up that you can sue anyone for infringement when we quote your posts.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm not sure why registration even came up here. As pointed out, if there are one or two places he finds annoying a DMCA complaint will probably work. Otherwise, the sad fact is that USENET archives are so pervasive out there (starting with but not limited to google itself) that he's never going to erase all of them.

Amusingly googling my name alternates finding old USENET posts stuffed all over the place, people with certain LINUX / UNIX docs online (my name appears in some of the shell docs), the original internet RFCs (appear there too) and some more recent business and social media posts.

 

[TigerD]

They are making available these text messages on their usenet news servers for their paid members to download and read.

Why would anybody pay to read your angry rant about a philandering ex from 10 years ago?

Even for someone researching stupid internet behavior, your posting is just a data point. The only way this becomes relevant is if you or her are or plan to be public figures in near future.

DC

 

[quincy]

Why would anybody pay to read your angry rant about a philandering ex from 10 years ago?

Even for someone researching stupid internet behavior, your posting is just a data point. The only way this becomes relevant is if you or her are or plan to be public figures in near future.

DC

I think, DC, that a philandering past or present is a requirement for public figures.

 

[johnye]

Huh?

What abusive language and angry arguments? What posters?

Well some anonymous usenet posters had started making jokes about my post and I had lost my temper badly. I wan't thinking right. Never mind the details.

Huh?

ou technically have an automatic copyright in anything you write, if what you write is original and creative enough. Most people are not all that creative and original when writing, however.

If what is created is not original and creative enough to warrant registration with the copyright office prior to or shortly after infringement (and registration is necessary before an infringement suit can be filed), there are no statutory damages available to the copyright holder (and it will be the statutory damages that often make an infringement suit worth the high cost of pursuing).

Without statutory damages available in an infringement action, you must prove you have suffered actual damages (provable economic losses) or prove that profits have been made by the infringer when using your work. These profit/loss damages, if awarded, can be nominal at best.

So, if someone's creative or original works or words are purloined and copied or passed on to others or published online, there is often no reason for the creator of the work or words to sue over the infringement. The costs of pursuing such an action (even the cost of registering the works/words) can far outweigh any benefits realized.

Here there are two parties, just me and a commercial service provider who's hosting my posts for profit. So technically if I send them a DMCA takedown and if they refuse to take down then that means they turn into a purposeful and deliberate infringer of my ""automatic copyright"", right ? At least that means that they're now breaking the law, right ?

 

[johnye]

Why would anybody pay to read your angry rant about a philandering ex from 10 years ago?

Ask yourself why people like to pay for tabloids full of robberies, deaths, suicides and ugly divorces (not just of public figures).

The only way this becomes relevant is if you or her are or plan to be public figures in near future.

DC

Not really. Aggressive background checks are normal these days whatever opportunities come your way.

 

[quincy]

Well some anonymous usenet posters had started making jokes about my post and I had lost my temper badly. I wan't thinking right. Never mind the details.

Jokes are sometimes taken too far. So, however, are tempers.

Here there are two parties, just me and a commercial service provider who's hosting my posts for profit. So technically if I send them a DMCA takedown and if they refuse to take down then that means they turn into a purposeful and deliberate infringer of my ""automatic copyright"", right ? At least that means that they're now breaking the law, right ?

If you file a DMCA takedown notice, advising the service provider that your words are being infringed, several things can happen.

One, the ISP can ignore the DMCA notice entirely and do nothing - and they lose their "safe harbor" immunity by doing so, and you can potentially include the ISP in any infringement suit you decide to file.

Two, the ISP removes the material you say is infringing on your copyrights when they receive your DMCA notice (preserving their immunity and eliminating them as a defendant/co-defendant in any contemplated infringement suit) and the ISP then notifies your alleged infringer that the material has been removed.

Three, the alleged infringer can do nothing and the material remains offline. Or the alleged infringer can dispute the infringement by submitting a DMCA counter-notice.

Four, if the alleged infringer disputes the infringement notice, stating s/he did not infringe on anyone's copyrights, you can do nothing and the material can be returned to its place online. Or you can file suit against your infringer.

Refer to my other post for what you must do before filing suit and for the reasons why many copyright holders will not take any action past the DMCA notice.

If your words are worth the expense of pursuing a legal action over, prepare first to send a settlement demand letter, asking for removal and perhaps some monetary compensation. Then prepare to register what you wrote and prepare to file suit. These are the ways you enforce your copyrights.

Good luck.

 

[johnye]

If you file a DMCA takedown notice, advising the service provider that your words are being infringed, several things can happen.

One, the ISP can ignore the DMCA notice entirely and do nothing - and they lose their "safe harbor" immunity by doing so, and you can potentially include the ISP in any infringement suit you decide to file.

Two, the ISP removes the material you say is infringing on your copyrights when they receive your DMCA notice (preserving their immunity and eliminating them as a defendant/co-defendant in any contemplated infringement suit) and the ISP then notifies your alleged infringer that the material has been removed.

Three, the alleged infringer can do nothing and the material remains offline. Or the alleged infringer can dispute the infringement by submitting a DMCA counter-notice.

Four, if the alleged infringer disputes the infringement notice, stating s/he did not infringe on anyone's copyrights, you can do nothing and the material can be returned to its place online. Or you can file suit against your infringer.

Refer to my other post for what you must do before filing suit and for the reasons why many copyright holders will not take any action past the DMCA notice.

If your words are worth the expense of pursuing a legal action over, prepare first to send a settlement demand letter, asking for removal and perhaps some monetary compensation. Then prepare to register what you wrote and prepare to file suit. These are the ways you enforce your copyrights.

Good luck.

Thanks this gives me a clear insight.

 

[justalayman]

Well some anonymous usenet posters had started making jokes about my post and I had lost my temper badly. I wan't thinking right. Never mind the details.

?

Oh, so it's not the old posts that are the problem but something you posted more recently in response to the taunts?

 

[johnye]

Oh, so it's not the old posts that are the problem but something you posted more recently in response to the taunts?

No, it's the old posts, everything happened back then.

 

[justalayman]

No, it's the old posts, everything happened back then.

so, what were the terms of use at the time of posting?

and did you transfer the works to an individual or to a server?

and the rights conveyed, were they to an individual or the operator of a server?




Since you said money was no object, you can likely have a lot done, unless they have a lot more money. I am sure somebody will point you to a lawyer willing to accept a 7 figure payment to help you out if you really want to do something about this.

 

[FlyingRon]

As stated, I've filed DMCA takedowns for articles that were lifted from my USENET posts back decades ago. I have been 100% successful in each ISP I've filed against.

Again, JUSTA, there was unlikely to be any assignment of rights, implied or other, or terms of service. Back when the USENET was in it's prime, such issues were completely absent. USENET again is pretty much peer-to-peer. Messages were inserted via protocols very similar to sending email (in some cases it was email).

 

[johnye]

As stated, I've filed DMCA takedowns for articles that were lifted from my USENET posts back decades ago. I have been 100% successful in each ISP I've filed against.

Gives me some hope with the adamant ISP because I've always taken a non DMCA route with them till yet, like a polite request.