Mark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:30:40 +0100, Sapient Fridge
wrote:

For those fed up with the garbage spewing out of Google there are
instructions here on how to killfile all Google Groups post for
various newsreaders:

http://improve-usenet.org


No instructions for Opera :-(

Follow the instructions for Thunderbird, which involve installing and
configuring a filtering NNTP proxy.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

John Rumm wrote:


Search engines in general seem to be given safe harbour immunity in most
countries so long as they provide a mechanism to request removal of
content from their archives. Google provide that IIUC.

No, they don't. If requested to remove material they will not erase t
fromt heir archive. They simply inhibit the display of that material to
the public. There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.

On 23 Apr, 12:58, Huge wrote:
On 2008-04-23, John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

your mind that someone else may not. Hence my question "You see Google's
activities as a good thing?" Which was a direct respoinse to your praise
of Google for archiving, and making money from archiving, copyright
material that they have no right in law to archive.

I would have thought they have every right to archive information placed
into the public domain. Posting to usenet would certainly be counted by
most as "placing into the public domain".

Almost entirely wrong. And Google know it. I have had material removed from
their archive by asserting copyright and denying them the right to publish it.

Google appear to respect the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header; when I read
your mail using GG it was flagged with "Note: The author of this
message requested that it not be archived. This message will be
removed from Groups in 6 days (30 Apr, 12:58)."

PaulO

On 22 Apr, 07:30, Sapient Fridge
wrote:
For those fed up with the garbage spewing out of Google there are
instructions here on how to killfile all Google Groups post for various
newsreaders:

http://improve-usenet.org

If you want to throw out the posts from those of who who try to post
sensible and relevant stuff, but have no other option for reading /
posting to usenet, that's up to you.

I agree that the amount of dross coming through GG is incredibly
annoying, but there are a number of us who post through GG during
lunchtimes (or whenever they get a break - I know 3.25pm isn't
lunchtime!) and have no other access due to company firewalls etc.

I know that many people already killfile GG posts, but those who are
considering it should be aware that they might actually miss something
interesting when throwing the baby out with the bath water...

TL

On Apr 23, 3:25*pm, The Luggage wrote:
On 22 Apr, 07:30, Sapient Fridge
wrote:

For those fed up with the garbage spewing out of Google there are
instructions here on how to killfile all Google Groups post for various
newsreaders:

http://improve-usenet.org

If you want to throw out the posts from those of who who try to post
sensible and relevant stuff, but have no other option for reading /
posting to usenet, that's up to you.

I agree that the amount of dross coming through GG is incredibly
annoying, but there are a number of us who post through GG during
lunchtimes (or whenever they get a break - I know 3.25pm isn't
lunchtime!) and have no other access due to company firewalls etc.

I know that many people already killfile GG posts, but those who are
considering it should be aware that they might actually miss something
interesting when throwing the baby out with the bath water...

TL

It's their loss. The ones protesting the loudest are, in most cases,
the ones I care least about whether they see my posts or not, and I'm
sure the feelings mutual ;-)

MBQ

The Luggage wrote:
On 22 Apr, 07:30, Sapient Fridge
wrote:
For those fed up with the garbage spewing out of Google there are
instructions here on how to killfile all Google Groups post for various
newsreaders:

I know that many people already killfile GG posts, but those who are
considering it should be aware that they might actually miss something
interesting when throwing the baby out with the bath water...

I use a bunch of filters in T-bird that pick out characteristic features
from the spams, and drop the postings silently. Every now and again
another batch comes through that evades the filters, but they're working
pretty well now.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:

I use a bunch of filters in T-bird that pick out characteristic features
from the spams, and drop the postings silently. Every now and again
another batch comes through that evades the filters, but they're working
pretty well now.

Likewise, and sometimes that set of filters includes the wetware one
between my ears

--

Brian

Jon Green wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:30:40 +0100, Sapient Fridge
wrote:

For those fed up with the garbage spewing out of Google there are
instructions here on how to killfile all Google Groups post for
various newsreaders:

http://improve-usenet.org

No instructions for Opera :-(

Follow the instructions for Thunderbird, which involve installing and
configuring a filtering NNTP proxy.

Why?

Opera already has the ability to filter on any header. See Message-ID:
op.t9z6jisk0v1caa@thedell

--
-blj-

Brian L Johnson wrote:
Jon Green wrote:

Follow the instructions for Thunderbird, which involve installing and
configuring a filtering NNTP proxy.

Why?

Opera already has the ability to filter on any header. See Message-ID:
op.t9z6jisk0v1caa@thedell

Fair enough. I've not used Opera for absolutely ages, but the proxy
solutions are generic if inefficient.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:

Brian L Johnson wrote:
Jon Green wrote:

Follow the instructions for Thunderbird, which involve installing and
configuring a filtering NNTP proxy.
Why?
Opera already has the ability to filter on any header. See
Message-ID: op.t9z6jisk0v1caa@thedell

Fair enough. I've not used Opera for absolutely ages, but the proxy
solutions are generic if inefficient.

True. Opera's mail & news client has come on a decent way since early
days. It's tolerably efficient now.

--
-blj-

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Search engines in general seem to be given safe harbour immunity in most
countries so long as they provide a mechanism to request removal of
content from their archives. Google provide that IIUC.

No, they don't. If requested to remove material they will not erase t
fromt heir archive. They simply inhibit the display of that material to
the public.

Which is good enough for most people I would expect (except you of course).

There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.

There is no such thing as reliably removing content from any part of the
Internet in general. One has to live with that, or not place information
there in the first place.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Search engines in general seem to be given safe harbour immunity in most
countries so long as they provide a mechanism to request removal of
content from their archives. Google provide that IIUC.

No, they don't. If requested to remove material they will not erase t
fromt heir archive. They simply inhibit the display of that material to
the public.

Which is good enough for most people I would expect (except you of course).

I can't speak for "most people" I also think that the only person you
can speak for is you.

There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.

There is no such thing as reliably removing content from any part of the
Internet in general. One has to live with that, or not place information
there in the first place.

We're back to that thing about assuming it's OK to rip off music[1]
because "most people" do it.


[1] Or any other copyright material.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:01:46 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Search engines in general seem to be given safe harbour immunity in
most
countries so long as they provide a mechanism to request removal of
content from their archives. Google provide that IIUC.

No, they don't. If requested to remove material they will not erase t
fromt heir archive. They simply inhibit the display of that material
to
the public.

Which is good enough for most people I would expect (except you of
course).

I can't speak for "most people" I also think that the only person you
can speak for is you.

There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.

There is no such thing as reliably removing content from any part of the
Internet in general. One has to live with that, or not place information
there in the first place.

We're back to that thing about assuming it's OK to rip off music[1]
because "most people" do it.


[1] Or any other copyright material.

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Steve Firth wrote:

Which is good enough for most people I would expect (except you of course).

I can't speak for "most people" I also think that the only person you
can speak for is you.

True, just a hunch - which is why I expressed it as an expectation
rather than a factual statement.

There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.
There is no such thing as reliably removing content from any part of the
Internet in general. One has to live with that, or not place information
there in the first place.

We're back to that thing about assuming it's OK to rip off music[1]
because "most people" do it.

Huh? where do you get that from?

All I am saying, is once something is "out there" (usenet posting, web
page, whatever) you can't be certain to ever gain complete control over
it again - in fact you can be pretty be certain that it is out there for
good.

If you later decide that you don't want one of your usenet posts to be
accessible again in the future, you may get google to erase it (or
remove it from search results or whatever), and you could probably
repeat this for a number of other big name services that honour such
requests. You are never going to redact every copy on every news server,
every web site that scrapes usenet content, or let alone all the copies
that reside on individual users machines.

I am not suggesting that this infringement of your copyright is in
anyway right or proper, just that there is diddly you can do about it
after the fact. Much the same as people ripping off music etc is not
condonable, but as the music industry has ably demonstrated; once freed,
the genie does not go back in the bottle no matter how big a stick you
wave.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Uh huh, what makes you think that?

John Rumm wrote:

I am not suggesting that this infringement of your copyright is in
anyway right or proper, just that there is diddly you can do about it
after the fact. Much the same as people ripping off music etc is not
condonable, but as the music industry has ably demonstrated; once freed,
the genie does not go back in the bottle no matter how big a stick you
wave.

You now seem to be arguing about something that I haven't said.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:06:37 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Uh huh, what makes you think that?


Your post hasn't got a copyright notice on it.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:22:08 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:01:46 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Search engines in general seem to be given safe harbour immunity in
most
countries so long as they provide a mechanism to request removal of
content from their archives. Google provide that IIUC.

No, they don't. If requested to remove material they will not erase t
fromt heir archive. They simply inhibit the display of that material
to
the public.

Which is good enough for most people I would expect (except you of
course).

I can't speak for "most people" I also think that the only person you
can speak for is you.

There is no such thing as removing content from the Google
archive.

There is no such thing as reliably removing content from any part of the
Internet in general. One has to live with that, or not place information
there in the first place.

We're back to that thing about assuming it's OK to rip off music[1]
because "most people" do it.


[1] Or any other copyright material.

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

There's no requirement to attach a copyright notice in order to own
the copyright.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

That's irrelevant. Copyright is automatic upon first publication.

All a "copyright notice" does is to assert it in a particular owner's
name, and attach a date. The "From:" and "Date:" headers do just the
same job.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message b7CdnSDJB5AWd5DVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@plusnet, John Rumm
writes
Steve Firth wrote:
Mark wrote:

I've done the same. However there are a few legitimate posters who
use google and it's a shame to lose those.
Not really. Anyone who uses Google to post news is proving they don't
have a clue. Kill filing anything from Google is a good thing.


Nonsense at least 50% of my posts are via Google .. a valid way of posting
to this group

On or about 2008-04-24,
Duncan Wood illuminated us with:


On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:06:37 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Uh huh, what makes you think that?


Your post hasn't got a copyright notice on it.

Umm. Look harder?

--
Mark
Real email address | Why don't they make the whole plane out of the material
is mark at | used for the indestructible black box ?
ayliffe dot org |

Duncan Wood wrote:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:06:37 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Uh huh, what makes you think that?


Your post hasn't got a copyright notice on it.

Have you bothered looking at the headers of any of my posts? I can tell
you haven't.

Huge wrote:

On 2008-04-23, Duncan Wood wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:01:46 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:



[1] Or any other copyright material.

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

He doesn't need to. You don't know what you're talking about.

He's also wrong about the lack of a copyright notice.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:58:42 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:06:37 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

The differnce being you're complaining about something you didn't
bother
to attach a copyright notice to.

Uh huh, what makes you think that?


Your post hasn't got a copyright notice on it.

Have you bothered looking at the headers of any of my posts? I can tell
you haven't.


fFair point. I leave it to you to establish some case law. Good Luck.

In uk.d-i-y John Rumm wrote:

All I am saying, is once something is "out there" (usenet posting, web
page, whatever) you can't be certain to ever gain complete control over
it again - in fact you can be pretty be certain that it is out there for
good.

If you later decide that you don't want one of your usenet posts to be
accessible again in the future, you may get google to erase it (or
remove it from search results or whatever), and you could probably
repeat this for a number of other big name services that honour such
requests. You are never going to redact every copy on every news server,
every web site that scrapes usenet content, or let alone all the copies
that reside on individual users machines.

I am not suggesting that this infringement of your copyright is in
anyway right or proper, just that there is diddly you can do about it
after the fact. Much the same as people ripping off music etc is not
condonable, but as the music industry has ably demonstrated; once freed,
the genie does not go back in the bottle no matter how big a stick you
wave.

To my mind it's more akin to somoen taking a photograph in a place
where there are pictures on the wall and/or other copyright items
about. I really don't think the law prevents such photographs from
being taken (or at least it doesn't intend to), it's the *use* of such
a copy that infringes copyright.

As you say we all inevitably have copies of usenet posts, mail
messages, etc. all over our computers. They get there because of the
way the internet and computers work (there are copies in our brains
for that matter too). When you send an E-Mail or post a message
somewhere you *know* copies of it are going to end up in all sorts of
places, you can't really then complain about it.

--
Chris Green

Duncan Wood wrote:

I leave it to you to establish some case law.

I don't need to establish any case law, Huge has already explained the
legal position which has been established both in law and by precendent
for usenet postings. Indeed the case occured *way* back in the early
90s, not long after Demon Internet started business. Paola Kathuria who
posted to several Demon newsgroups prepared a guide to all of the
internet (which was just about possible then) which was posted regularly
to Usenet.

Someone took her work, published it in a magazine and got paid for doing
so. She pursued a copyright case against the publisher and won.

Indeed it was obvious from the outset that the publisher was onto a
loser.

If I accepted the argument being made here by others then the fact that
"it's out there somewhere" would mean that no copyright existed in Blog
postings or other web content. Anyone who thinks *that* is true and
tries to take advantage of extant web publications will have a nasty
surprise sooner or later. The uk.legal newsgroup has accumulated a
number of posts over the years from people who saw something on a
website that they liked, and published it on their own site. The most
recent one had received a bill from Getty Images for several thousand
pounds.

wrote:

When you send an E-Mail or post a message somewhere you *know* copies of
it are going to end up in all sorts of places, you can't really then
complain about it.

Is this some sort of exercise in "how wrong can someone possibly be?"

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:12:41 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Duncan Wood wrote:

I leave it to you to establish some case law.

I don't need to establish any case law, Huge has already explained the
legal position which has been established both in law and by precendent
for usenet postings. Indeed the case occured *way* back in the early
90s, not long after Demon Internet started business. Paola Kathuria who
posted to several Demon newsgroups prepared a guide to all of the
internet (which was just about possible then) which was posted regularly
to Usenet.

Someone took her work, published it in a magazine and got paid for doing
so. She pursued a copyright case against the publisher and won.

Indeed it was obvious from the outset that the publisher was onto a
loser.



As opposed to somebody sueing google for archiving it & losing. Which is
what you where complaininng about.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:20:00 +0100, Rick Hughes wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message b7CdnSDJB5AWd5DVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@plusnet, John Rumm
writes
Steve Firth wrote:
Mark wrote:

I've done the same. However there are a few legitimate posters who
use google and it's a shame to lose those.
Not really. Anyone who uses Google to post news is proving they don't
have a clue. Kill filing anything from Google is a good thing.


Nonsense at least 50% of my posts are via Google .. a valid way of posting
to this group

That is only your opinion.

It also means your words of wisdom will be wasted on many posters to this
NG. But that's your choice. Who am I to tell you otherwise?

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Duncan Wood wrote:


As opposed to somebody sueing google for archiving it & losing. Which is
what you where complaininng about.

No it wasn't.

Steve Firth wrote:

If I accepted the argument being made here by others then the fact that
"it's out there somewhere" would mean that no copyright existed in Blog

No one is suggesting that because it is out there somewhere copyright
does not exist, only that once out there somewhere, it will stay out
there somewhere regardless of what the copyright holder may wish. Theat
does not mean that they won't be able to extract revenue or at least a
take down in some cases either.

postings or other web content. Anyone who thinks *that* is true and
tries to take advantage of extant web publications will have a nasty
surprise sooner or later. The uk.legal newsgroup has accumulated a
number of posts over the years from people who saw something on a
website that they liked, and published it on their own site. The most
recent one had received a bill from Getty Images for several thousand
pounds.

As is right and proper. I am sure you would apply the same level of
support to TMH when someone copies his web site. ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

If I accepted the argument being made here by others then the fact that
"it's out there somewhere" would mean that no copyright existed in Blog

No one is suggesting that because it is out there somewhere copyright
does not exist,

And I'm not suggesting that they are. Only that the natural consequence
of what they say is what I have said.

only that once out there somewhere, it will stay out there somewhere
regardless of what the copyright holder may wish. Theat does not mean that
they won't be able to extract revenue or at least a take down in some
cases either.

I haven't argued over either of those points of view.

postings or other web content. Anyone who thinks *that* is true and
tries to take advantage of extant web publications will have a nasty
surprise sooner or later. The uk.legal newsgroup has accumulated a
number of posts over the years from people who saw something on a
website that they liked, and published it on their own site. The most
recent one had received a bill from Getty Images for several thousand
pounds.

As is right and proper. I am sure you would apply the same level of
support to TMH when someone copies his web site. ;-)

Of course, and I'd expect him to take appropriate action. Not whine
about it here where (a) it's off topic and (b) no one can do anything
other than say "there there" and possibly offer a sticking plaster to
"make it all better now little soldier."

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

Nonsense at least 50% of my posts are via Google .. a valid way of
posting
to this group

That is only your opinion.


No it's not an opinion, it's a fact ... 50% of my posts are from Google ....
like many others I use Google as a valid way of access when away form main
PC.

The comment

"Not really. Anyone who uses Google to post news is proving they don't have
a clue."

Don't have a clue to what ? .... I used to access this group with 'trn'
from a mac SE30, but access has moved on, and so have I.

Because I choose from a list of access options - why does that mean "I don't
have a clue"

Rick Hughes wrote:

Don't have a clue to what ? .... I used to access this group with 'trn'
from a mac SE30, but access has moved on, and so have I.

No you haven't, you've moved backwards you're using Windows.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:53:30 +0100, Rick Hughes wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

Nonsense at least 50% of my posts are via Google .. a valid way of
posting
to this group

That is only your opinion.


No it's not an opinion, it's a fact ... 50% of my posts are from Google ....
like many others I use Google as a valid way of access when away form main
PC.

That you make 50% of your posts using GG may be a fact. I'm in no position
to comment otherwise.

That GG is a valid way of accessing this NG is your opinion.

GG does not conform to usenet protocol. Using GG is *not* a valid way to
access this or any other NG, and will remain so until GG modifies its web
portal to conform to usenet protocol.

Now *that* is a fact.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Steve Firth wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

Don't have a clue to what ? .... I used to access this group with 'trn'
from a mac SE30, but access has moved on, and so have I.

No you haven't, you've moved backwards you're using Windows.

Oh no, not another Mac attack

On Apr 22, 12:37 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Mark wrote:
I've done the same. However there are a few legitimate posters who
use google and it's a shame to lose those.

Not really. Anyone who uses Google to post news is proving they don't
have a clue. Kill filing anything from Google is a good thing.

********. I find GG very useful - much better than a news client in
fact. In any case I don't have any option, since the sysadmin doesn't
allow news groups. And before you wank on about me not having a clue,
I've been a senior software developer for more than ten years, and
have a first class honours in computer science. So stick that in your
killfile.

Will wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:37 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Mark wrote:
I've done the same. However there are a few legitimate posters who
use google and it's a shame to lose those.
Not really. Anyone who uses Google to post news is proving they don't
have a clue. Kill filing anything from Google is a good thing.

********. I find GG very useful - much better than a news client in
fact. In any case I don't have any option, since the sysadmin doesn't
allow news groups. And before you wank on about me not having a clue,
I've been a senior software developer for more than ten years, and
have a first class honours in computer science. So stick that in your
killfile.

Well said, old sport.

On 2008-04-24 15:05:16 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Steve Firth wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

Don't have a clue to what ? .... I used to access this group with 'trn'
from a mac SE30, but access has moved on, and so have I.

No you haven't, you've moved backwards you're using Windows.

Oh no, not another Mac attack

You know that you want one really

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-24 15:05:16 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Steve Firth wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:

Don't have a clue to what ? .... I used to access this group with 'trn'
from a mac SE30, but access has moved on, and so have I.

No you haven't, you've moved backwards you're using Windows.

Oh no, not another Mac attack

You know that you want one really


They run Windows quite well.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org