Re: who owns newsgroup discussion thread?

On 10/21/1999, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Ari Kahan <akahan[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > DejaNews is gathering up ancient Usenet posts, made at a time
> > when everyone understood that postings to Usenet were relatively
> > transitory, dropping out of existence within a reasonable amount
> > of time (usually a few weeks, depending on the traffic on the
> > particular newsgroup), and is retaining and republishing those
> > postings.
>
> I would seriously question whether "everyone" understood this
> even back in 1997; and by now, almost everyone should be aware
> that USENET posts are archived (and to use X-No-Archive on any
> posts you might be embarasssed by later). Moreover, DejaNews
> will gladly remove any of your archived posts you ask them to.

That doesn't really do it for me. First, 1997 is hardly ancient history as far as Usenet is concerned. Second, X-No-Archive is not universally available. (For example, posting messages with Eudora, I cannot take advantage of X-No-Archive.) Third, Deja News often ignores X-No-Archive even when you use it. Fourth, it shouldn't be necessary to ask an infringer to stop infringing; they shouldn't do it in the first place. And, finally, I've had numerous experiences in which I've asked Deja News to remove a posting, they do so, and it appears, again, a few months later, as they add another source of postings to their archive. And, they run posts even when they contain language that says:

THIS MESSAGE IS COPYRIGHT 1999 ARI KAHAN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. IF THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN POSTED TO A NEWSGROUP OR LISTSERV, THE AUTHOR DOES NOT INTEND BY SUCH POSTING TO GRANT OR IMPLY ANY RIGHT TO RE-DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE, EXCEPT, IN THE CASE OF A LISTSERV, AS IS ROUTINELY PERFORMED BY THE LISTSERV MANAGER. IN PARTICULAR, NO PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO DEJANEWS, YAHOO, ALTAVISTA, ZIPPO NEWS, OR SIMILAR ARCHIVISTS TO ARCHIVE, REDISTRIBUTE, OR REPUBLISH THIS MESSAGE. Do you think that Deja is entitled to archive and republish messages containing this text with impunity?

> Compare this with a letter to the editor of the New York Times
> This too is meant to be transitory, dropping off the news
> stand the next morning; yet it remains archived forever on
> microfilm at thousands of libraries throughout the world. (And
> unlike DejaNews, the librarians will -not- gladly remove your
> letter from the microfilm).

I think it's completely different. Why are you so certain that a letter to the New York Times is "meant" to be transitory, when everyone knows that the New York Times is retained forever by those thousands of libraries?

> What retention time would you claim is fair? 3 days? 3 weeks?
> 3 years? Since your enemies can personally archive copies the
> instant they see them, I don't see what is gained by setting a
> fixed limit; and the fact that DejaNews hasn't been sued seems
> to indicate that nobody else does either.

I think the fact that Deja News hasn't been sued simply means that everybody has better things to do, and nobody's suffered significant (or, perhaps, any) monetary damage as a result of Deja's activities.

-Ari

Ari Kahan
<akahan[_at_]netcom.com>

THIS MESSAGE IS COPYRIGHT 1999 ARI KAHAN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. IF THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN POSTED TO A NEWSGROUP OR LISTSERV, THE AUTHOR DOES NOT INTEND BY SUCH POSTING TO GRANT OR IMPLY ANY RIGHT TO RE-DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE, EXCEPT, IN THE CASE OF A LISTSERV, AS IS ROUTINELY PERFORMED BY THE LISTSERV MANAGER. IN PARTICULAR, NO PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO DEJANEWS, YAHOO, ALTAVISTA, ZIPPO NEWS, OR SIMILAR ARCHIVISTS TO ARCHIVE, REDISTRIBUTE, OR REPUBLISH THIS MESSAGE. Received on Fri Oct 22 1999 - 18:25:15 GMT