So point out which definition of the word 'publish' includes the concept of not being public or open. It certainly doesn't appear in the (non-pocket)
2-volume, Shorter OED. Have you managed to find an arch. or sl. definition in the full OED?And Chambers agrees that 'publish' requires that it be made public.
NB Why choose to argue the matter with a publisher? ;-)
Turncoat
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
I understand that the company were doing more than taking the whole newsgroup and making it available to the general public.
,
acknowledge
Well if people must take things out of context to further there non argument....
We are talking about Usenet, the fact is, Usenet works by copying other people 'works' around the world.
publish
uk.d-i-y.
that
doesn't
against
about
They are not proposing to store the conversations, just the time of contact, party ID's and call duration.
letters
FOAD moron.
HOW, YOU NEVER CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Well, some might.
Carding telephone boxes would have the same effect; I imagine even the most publicity-hungry would still like some control over the recognition their name gets.
Owain
(c) All rights including the moral rights of the author reserved.
,
newsgroup
So best you shut down all the NNTP to WEB interfaces like Google...
I've never known such a inward looking bunch of morons. :~(
The last time you used something that you now suggest should not be allowed or the last time you will ever use such a web interface?....
using
This thread is really nothing but an ignorant witch hunt / lynching....
Oh, do they do that right now, then?
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and puts them on a website they are creating a derivative work without consent.
I might be happy to provide a photograph free for a charity magazine yet choose to charge if the Daily Mirror wants it.
,
magazine yet
We are talking about Usenet contributions, not those to your rag...
,
legally
republish
Google...
You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search engine?...
Grunff explained yesterday why we are happy to let Google archive our posts.
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective of the content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative work.
consent.
What utter clap trap.
I might choose to provide a short article free on a news group yet charge if the Daily Mirror wants to print it. What's the difference? Certainly no one can assume that I have no rights in the matter - and one of the rights that I retain is the right to charge for the use of my material. Even if I have chosen to give it free elsewhere.
,
consent.
Did you read what I said? You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about gas installations when you search for answers about pitting up a shelf?!...
If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend on the search string used.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required