That everything posted here shows up on gardenbanter.co.uk? At least they do attribute the posts to r.g.e and the original author . I did a web search a little while ago on "mattie beane beans" and was very surprised to find my posts here on their website .
Yes.
It's been that way for a very, very long time and that is also why there have been many comments made by people here about gardenbanter and how we are unable to see pics that are attached if people post through gardenbanter.
I was just wondering , if I were to add a copyright statement about no reproduction of my posts without my permission , ya think they'd honor that ?
Based on a problem we've had for years on the rec.arts.textile.* hierarchy, I'd say probably not.
A website called "sewgirls" started hijacking posts made in those newsgroups *without* attributions to Usenet or the groups. Of course, it was a for-profit site with tons of ads and a lot of clueless users who didn't realize that the posts they made to the website were being re-posted to the newsgroups. And they wondered why they weren't getting answers to their questions. There was no other original content on the site, just the stolen postings without attributions...and lots and lots of ads.
One of the women in the needlework group had a lawyer friend fire off a letter to the sewgirls website's owner(s) with a cease and desist demand. They removed *her* postings from their site, but continued to poach everyone else's even after we all started putting copyright notices on our posts AND specifically informing readers that if they were seeing our posts anywhere except on the Usenet group (specifically mentioning the sewgirls site), it was being done without the permission of the author.
The website later changed their name to something else rather than sewgirls, but with the same M.O. We still occasionally see postings forwarded from the new site show up in our newsgroups and our posts showing up on their website, again despite the notices. We try to keep newbies from responding to these, but with mixed success.
Make easy money on the WWW! Just steal content and piss off a lot of people in the process.
Nyssa, who really dislikes people who not only try to take credit for others' work but also make money from doing so
There are many Usenet mirror sites out there. It is fusttrating when searching for something and just finding the same text on 17 different sites.
Usenet works by copying posts from one host to another, to another, and so forth. If you do not want your words copied, do not post them to Usenet.
Yes , I know this . But gardenbanter is NOT usenet . See Nyssa's post immediately above yours about some websites using non-attributed content to make money without the consent of the author . At least it appears that gardenbanter isn't making money from us .
When Usenet was in its heyday, there were any number of sites that just lifted an entire group and tossed it into a forum format. Now that Usenet has waned, there are many fewer of these - a handful here and there.
Boron
Google Groups is not Usenet, either. Neither was DejaNews. There is nothing new about this.
These days, just about anything you post anywhere is fair game for copying and making a profit, if possible. The laws have not kept up with the technology and interpretations of them have varied from case to case and social media outlet to social media outlet.
This was just in the news lately, based on a little sentence buried in Instagram's EULA or equivalent: "Once you have shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others."
Usenet has enough trouble staying alive. The more it is out there, the more a younger demographic gets to know it exists and maybe reads or posts once in a while.
You are missng the point. Usenet is store-and-forward, no more, no less. The user interface is independent. There have been Usenet gateways (BBS, Fido, news by mail, etc.) for nearly as long as there has been Usenet. Web gateways have been around (and been annoying) for as long as there have been commercial Internet connections.
Gateways with clueless users are an annoyance, but they are not going away. And there is no one with standing to take action against gardenbanter on behalf of all of Usenet, or all of a newsgroup.
But the problem is with the sewgirls and similar websites is that they make NO mention of Usenet or where the posts are really coming from. The youngsters (or older) won't know that Usenet exists or what it does/where to find it if the attributions don't mention it or the specific newsgroups it's farming for content.
It would be great if they did and the users could cut out the middleman plus find lots more newsgroups that might be interesting to them. As it is, they'll never find out through these commercial web forums.
Nyssa, who prefers the less-overhead, plain text world of straight unadulterated Usenet
You should post and read in any way you prefer, but as I mentioned, by example, Google Groups makes no mention of Usenet, either. Why single out sewgirls?
I assure you Google will maintain Groups only so long as they can monetize it in some way. They have been derelict in their initial promises to maintain old Deja as an archive and continue such a function once they took it over
If you or anyone else is posting things to Usenet that is felt to be so valuable and are unhappy with Garden Banter or Sewgirls picking up the mentions, then really, Usenet has never been for you. I only go back 17+ years on Usenet, but the copying of groups has always been a topic, as has poster opinions as to whether it is a good idea or bad.
I do not think Usenet has been damaged by the copying forums, and I cannot prove any benefit has devolved, but hope there is a chance someone out there might get interested.
Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, YouTube, etc, all base their essence on the possibility of something going viral. Trying to keep Usenet as a public forum yet objecting to any re-postings of any sort seems like shoveling against the tide. It's 23-skidoo and too late to close the barn door, which has been open since the beginning, anyway.
:-)) I'd say there is fat chance of gardenbanter honouring anything.
Ah! There is another name that I recognise from the alt.sewing newsgroup where similar complaint have been aired more than once.
started hijacking posts made in
They actually held it together decently the first few years and had a semi-decent search capability.
I do not think anything was lost by accident, I truly believe they wanted to shift Usenet, which actually had a few posters in those days, to Google Groups, so made Usenet less and less usable. Google had and has enough storage for anything it can make a profit from.
But what do I know? I was just an observer.
They blew the whole database to hell when they tried to import it.
Those of us who had email accounts on Deja (once Dejanews; a superior archive that threaded posts as a newsreader does) received an embarrassed note from google saying that they'd lost it all.
I had the impression at the time that google didn't want to give the data room on their servers.
As far as I know, that came after the loss of the Dejanews archive.
...It started as a 'port of Dejanews butwas never as functional. Dejanews was structured around being a useful tool.
As an activist type I was exhorting google to do it right and they were giving members of Deja/Dejanews updates on the transfer process.
'Gone' was the word I recall being used to describe the data.
Incompetents was the word I remember thinking.
I could say the same about being an observer but I'll submit that observers who understand nuanced language and corporate and individual behaviour can make some pretty accurate guesses. -- It was certainly clear that something had gone wrong before they owned up to it.
I'm not prepared to suggest that google destroyed an archive of a generation's communication on purpose, but they destroyed an archive of a generation's communication nonetheless...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.