Forum Moderators: not2easy
I would guess that posting the origional post's email info, but what about posts that are roll-ups? Is the email even nec?
By posting to the usenet, they are giving permission only for that content to be used on the Usenet. They are not giving you permission to put it on your website, and they are certainly not giving you permission to modify the work. (remove the basic header information)
In the case of Google, they are a web-based usenet client that reads and posts to their usenet server. That server just happens to never expire posts.
If you are thinking about just using a few specific posts, you are likely violating copyright, but in most cases you would also be safe to do so. But even so, you are doing it at your own risk.
Actually, now that I think about it, it seems to me that any usenet post from before March 1, 1988 that does not have a copyright notice would be considered in the public domain in the US. I'm not sure how that would apply to posts from other countries.
You'll notice that Google doesn't put AdWords next to Usenet posts.
They do however put them next to subject lines. I guess they feel this all works because of fair use.
In the case of Google, they are a web-based usenet client that reads and posts to their usenet server.
it seems to me that any usenet post from before March 1, 1988 that does not have a copyright notice would be considered in the public domain in the US
I know this sounds a little goofy, but copyright rules use very specific criteria for what is considered published. For example, having music in a movie does not constitute publishing of the music.
Again, though, this matter can only be settled by a court of law.
I disagree. I think Google wontonly violates copyright
As long as you didn't claim ownership/authorship of the messages (perhaps add a header of 'interesting usenet postings') then I would think you are ok , but IANAL.
Sure they do.
I have an adwords campaign that probably gets 10% of it clicks through the google groups ads.
Before Berne, you actually owned all rights to what you wrote until the time that it was published, as a sort of natural copyright. By publishing your work with a copyright notice you gave up ownership in exchange for a limited monopoly.
Sending your work to a limited, controlled, private distribution was not considered publishing.
On the other hand, Usenet was not limited or controlled, and only in the very early days could it be considered private.
And I would absolutely love to hear your case against dejanews being a news client that uses a news server without expiration of articles. The fact that you can read post and make posts makes it a news client. What else is it if it is not a client?
I think the current laws regarding copyright are somewhat orthogonal to the concepts of usenet forums.
The internet has raised a lot of new questions regarding copyright law that the original writers never concieved of. Some day, challenges will arise and a certain degree of clarity will occur.
And it is almost impossible to imagine any way to display an entire copyrighted message that would be covered under Fair Use where it is not in the forum where the rights holder originally posted it.
Google is supplying access to usenet, they are basically a common carrier in this case. If you take a message from where it was posted, and make a copy onto your website, you are infringing. You must take actions to make it fair use, which would include using only as much as was necessary for your commentary.
