Copyright of usenet text posts

[quincy]

No photos. On your other post - yes I have a lawyer and this thread was to seek alternative views and I got them.

Yes, this forum is good for providing alternative views.

I wish you luck, johnye, but I understand the type of difficulty you have faced, and will continue to face, in attempting to retrieve and remove material from all of the online locations it may now appear.

Once online, what has been published can travel far and fast and, after ten years, I think the chances of you recapturing your publications are slim. And this is only if you have a legitimate legal reason behind the removal of the material. I am not seeing yet that you have that.

It is good that you have an attorney working with you.

 

[FlyingRon]

I was a USENET poster for decades before it was destroyed by the spammers. JUSTA doesn't apparently understand how it works. There was typically no "terms of service" on the "host" you posted it on. The USENET was a corporative (almost peer-to-peer in those days) messaging system. Nobody even started to worry about copyright issues until people started trying to aggregate data for profit. Even then, it was hardly possible to do anything about it as putting your information on USENET was tantamount to broadcasting to every other USENET site/user in the world.

Yes, you can probably legally submit DMCA requests to every site that now archives old USENET postings. The problem, is you can spend the rest of your life hunting these things down and killing them and there will still be more. I've only done it on a few places (especially ones who have taken longer articles that I wrote and posted them with my name/etc... removed from them).

 

[justalayman]

FlyingRon;3224567]I was a USENET poster for decades before it was destroyed by the spammers. JUSTA doesn't apparently understand how it works. There was typically no "terms of service" on the "host" you posted it on.

You are correct that my knowledge on usenet is limited but that still does not change my advice. It is still correct. If there were no terms of service that would mean OP retained ALL copyrights and as such would retained his rights and control.


as he has been told multiple times though is expressing that control. Given that his works may be stored at any of thousands of individual user machines, enforcing any control is usually an exercise in futility.

from usenet:

Usenet is a collection of newsgroups where the users can post messages and these posted messages are distributed via Usenet servers. Each server holds these posted messages for a certain period of time. This period of time is also known as retention time. Usenet can be compared with an internet forum, but the main difference is that the messages are not stored in one server and are only available for a certain amount of time. A user posts a message in a certain channel (e.g. newsgroup) and then this message will be distributed via the different newsgroup servers. The other users can login anytime to one of these servers via special software (newreader) and see all new messages in that channel. They can also reply to the newly posted messages and these new posts will also be distributed via Usenet servers. If the retention time of a certain server is 30 days, then these messages will be available just for 30 days in that server.

There has to be ISP involvement as well. You don't get to just "plug in" to the internet without an ISP, well, unless they themselves become an internet node. Per usenet's own statement, they have servers as well.

 

[FlyingRon]

Y
There has to be ISP involvement as well. You don't get to just "plug in" to the internet without an ISP, well, unless they themselves become an internet node. Per usenet's own statement, they have servers as well.

USENET predates the (widely accessible) internet. It was peer-to-peer. It was a combination of dial up lines using UUCP that one machine called the other (while they use the term server, these were also the end user machines) and some internal networks of places like Bell Labs and the military. USENET predates today's idea of an ISP by years.

Google shows archives of posts of mine on the USENET going back to 1983 (possibly there are older ones). The first "commercial" ISPs didn't exist until the 90's

 

[justalayman]

I understand peer to peer and the only true peer to peer is a direct connection from user A to user B. At one time that was probably the method of usenet but in reality, even they have moved beyond that as proven by the fact I can download the necessary software on the internet using my ISP and connect to usenet after that point, through my ISP. True peer to peer is no different than A calling B on the phone and telling B a story. So B now has the story but it is not accessible on any "system" but B can call C and tell C the story and on and on.

As soon as you place an intermediary (ISP node but not server) in the mix, you have lost all actual control of the data. A ISP node can store any data that passes through its system even though there is no actual storage provided and the transfer is essentially instantaneous. A server takes that a step further and stores the data as an intermediary with the intent of another user accessing the data on the server.

so, if this is all truly an early style usenet system (true peer to peer), then there is no concern of this being published on the internet since there is no connection to the internet and as such, no DMCA notice possible since the data is not published on a server that would be subject to the demands of the notice. In fact, unless the user allows somebody to know he has the data stored on his own system, the OP has no idea if he actually has retained the data.



So, has this gone beyond a true peer to peer usenet system where the data is not actually accesible to another user without specific permission and become an internet issue or not.


And yes, I know many of you are much more educated than I on the functions of the internet but when you remove the technical aspects and get to the architectural construction of the system, the underlying system is not that difficult to see and speak of.

 

[quincy]

I understand peer to peer and the only true peer to peer is a direct connection from user A to user B. At one time that was probably the method of usenet but in reality, even they have moved beyond that as proven by the fact I can download the necessary software on the internet using my ISP and connect to usenet after that point, through my ISP. True peer to peer is no different than A calling B on the phone and telling B a story. So B now has the story but it is not accessible on any "system" but B can call C and tell C the story and on and on.

As soon as you place an intermediary (ISP node but not server) in the mix, you have lost all actual control of the data. A ISP node can store any data that passes through its system even though there is no actual storage provided and the transfer is essentially instantaneous. A server takes that a step further and stores the data as an intermediary with the intent of another user accessing the data on the server.

so, if this is all truly an early style usenet system (true peer to peer), then there is no concern of this being published on the internet since there is no connection to the internet and as such, no DMCA notice possible since the data is not published on a server that would be subject to the demands of the notice. In fact, unless the user allows somebody to know he has the data stored on his own system, the OP has no idea if he actually has retained the data.



So, has this gone beyond a true peer to peer usenet system where the data is not actually accesible to another user without specific permission and become an internet issue or not.


And yes, I know many of you are much more educated than I on the functions of the internet but when you remove the technical aspects and get to the architectural construction of the system, the underlying system is not that difficult to see and speak of.

I can understand why someone would want certain material removed from its place online (especially so if our original poster is who I think he could be). As difficult as it can be today to remove unwanted material published on the internet, however, it is far more complicated when the published papers were published long ago when there was little control over distribution.

It still remains, despite the additional interesting information on Usenet, and FlyingRon's story of limited success in having some of his own material removed, next to impossible to retrieve early writings. And I think johnye has overseas publications with which to contend.

 

[johnye]

And this is only if you have a legitimate legal reason behind the removal of the material. I am not seeing yet that you have that.

Ok here it is - 10 years back I posted about my girlfriend's indiscretions in anger and broke up. Somehow we got back together and got married. Ever since I've been successful removing the posts from the most visible places. There's one more visible place left which doesn't listen to me since few years now. I'm only trying to have them change their mind. Of course I do realize that there's no way to remove the posts from all places.

 

[quincy]

Ok here it is - 10 years back I posted about my girlfriend's indiscretions in anger and broke up. Somehow we got back together and got married. Ever since I've been successful removing the posts from the most visible places. There's one more visible place left which doesn't listen to me since few years now. I'm only trying to have them change their mind. Of course I do realize that there's no way to remove the posts from all places.

Oh. Well then you are definitely not who I figured you could be, nor are your postings the type I imagined.

In fact, your postings are not the type I can imagine being worth the time, money and effort of chasing down.

If you are married now, and the marriage is solid, why is it that you are concerned about silliness you wrote years ago? Do you seriously believe your wife will not forgive you for being angry about your break up way back then if you were honest about it now?

Whatever you decide to do about your early postings, I wish you good luck with everything, johnye.

 

[justalayman]

It still remains, despite the additional interesting information on Usenet, and FlyingRon's story of limited success in having some of his own material removed, next to impossible to retrieve early writings.

absolutely

as I said, i am not all that familiar with usenet (although before the advent of PC's as we know them our high school purchased time from a local university (anybody remember the old acoustic coupler modems)), but the wiki page shows an architecture where there are actually servers. I suspect it was more of a "mini" internet than an actual true peer to peer system.

 

[johnye]

You are correct that my knowledge on usenet is limited but that still does not change my advice. It is still correct. If there were no terms of service that would mean OP retained ALL copyrights and as such would retained his rights and control.

Justalayman and others, can you guys elaborate.. There is quite some abusive language and angry arguments with several other posters. These are no 'works' as such. Does my copyright still apply on my own posts? My lawyer tells me that he doesn't believe and that there are any copyrights here. Thanks.

as he has been told multiple times though is expressing that control. Given that his works may be stored at any of thousands of individual user machines, enforcing any control is usually an exercise in futility.

As I said many times - I'm only trying to minimize damage, and not trying get the stuff deleted from every nook and corner.

 

[justalayman]

johnye;3224622]Justalayman and others, can you guys elaborate.. There is quite some abusive language and angry arguments with several other posters. These are no 'works' as such. Does my copyright still apply on my own posts? My lawyer tells me that he doesn't believe and that there are any copyrights here. Thanks.

there are works as that is simply a term to refer to your postings.

As I said many times - I'm only trying to minimize damage, and not trying get the stuff deleted from every nook and corner.

so, is this guy publishing this stuff, allowing access to it it or is it just that he has retained the data and you somehow know this to be factual?


If he is posting it or simply allowing it to be accessed, then what system us being used to publish it or allow access to it?

and even with a DMCA take down, the data does not necessarily get deleted. It is simply removed from publication.

 

[quincy]

Justalayman and others, can you guys elaborate.. There is quite some abusive language and angry arguments with several other posters. These are no 'works' as such. Does my copyright still apply on my own posts? My lawyer tells me that he doesn't believe and that there are any copyrights here. Thanks.

As I said many times - I'm only trying to minimize damage, and not trying get the stuff deleted from every nook and corner.

Huh?

What abusive language and angry arguments? What posters?

You 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.

The best option for many copyright holders, therefore, will be to file a DMCA takedown notice - which will temporarily remove from online the infringed material. The alleged infringer will be notified of the takedown notice and can dispute it, saying they did not infringe. If the copyright holder does not then file suit against this alleged infringer shortly thereafter, the material can be returned to its former place online.

 

[johnye]

Yes, you can probably legally submit DMCA requests to every site that now archives old USENET postings. The problem, is you can spend the rest of your life hunting these things down and killing them and there will still be more. I've only done it on a few places (especially ones who have taken longer articles that I wrote and posted them with my name/etc... removed from them).

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

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

 

[johnye]

so, is this guy publishing this stuff, allowing access to it it or is it just that he has retained the data and you somehow know this to be factual?

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

 

[justalayman]

here's the deal john.

if you have not registered your works, you aren't going anywhere with the copyright thing. if you register them, well, that requires sending a copy of them to the copyright office.

and doesn't that kind of defeat your intent? You know, since there will be a copy of what you are trying to delete that will remain regardless of what the usenet guy does?