Re: X-No-archive considered harmful

gswork_at_mailcity.com
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 07:06:42 -0800

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> If Google didn't heed that header or have some other opt-out
> mechanism, then they surely would have faced legal issues. In
posting
> to Usenet, I surely waive some of my rights granted by copyright,
> since otherwise posts could not be distributed. But I don't see any
> reason to believe that I've granted the right for Google to present a
> permanent public archive of my post.

i'm not sure of the legal aspects, but having posted to a public
facility i don't suppose you can retain exlcusivity on your writings as
far as other people reading it goes.

> I don't see that they have that right even with an opt-out header
> implemented. Their archive includes posts that predate Deja, after
> all: did those folks implicitly grant the archive rights to Google?
> The fact that an archive with holes in it is useless doesn't seem
> relevant. The first question is whether Google has the right to
> publish the archive to begin with.

as with the above, i think it's just there as a public archive, but
probably not stored publicly, the archive itself is probably secreted
away at google, though bits show up all over the place on the www.
Google (well, deja before them) are to be credited with putting it all
together like this.

> Personally, I'm extremely annoyed at Google's recent decision to edit
> posts to obfuscate possible email headers. I sure as hell didn't
give
> them the right to edit my material in their public archive, whether
> it's my From: line or a message-id in the body of a post. I am
> considering using an X-no-archive header to protest this move, but
I'm
> reluctant to do so because I *like* Google's archive and the service
> it provides (even though I don't see how it's consistent with
> copyright law). But I don't like the recent changes.

most folks, at least IT oriented folks, didn't like the changes,
although google has addressed some early problems. i like google's
usenet facility because you can search the archive & 'log on' at any
webbrowser. however, it's worrying to imagine a time in the future
when this great archive might be locked off by making it pay to view.
hope that never happens.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Troll Activity Going Through The Roof!!! Amazing!!!
    ... Google has permitted large numbers of individuals to access usenet who ... this thread is a person who, if you run a search on all his posts in this ... posting volume through the eyes of the Google interface, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Momentum
    ... The fewer the number of substantive posts the less there will be to ... I get lots of feedback from folks who are lurking & lurkers don't show ... Web sites do have more content and more regular users ... Usenet is an invaluable tool. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: What does it mean when a legitimate business uses a "private" IP address?
    ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article ... Rude or insulting posts - I don't see many of those either, ... That browser you are using can be used. ... The main complaint about google _users_ is spam. ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: iso image
    ... On Fri, 05 Oct 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux, in article ... news server, not one of the web interfaces. ... posts from six months to a year earlier. ... Google also intentionally ignores all abuse reports, ...
    (comp.os.linux)