[d@DCC] Unintended consequences of treating the anonymous part
of the Internet as other than BY-NC-ND
noximyre at imajine.com
Mon May 23 14:31:08 EDT 2005
mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>On Mon, 23 May 2005 mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>>look like they wrote it. Neither Google nor archive.org nor any
>>responsibly-run system similar to them that I can imagine would fail to
>>attribute the source of publicly-archived content, and one that did would
>>be breaking the implied license.
>Sidelight: Google, and some other Usenet archive operators, do come
>dangerously close to failing to provide proper attribution on Usenet
>archives, by making it look like Usenet is part of their operation instead
>of their operation being part of Usenet. I don't think they're quite at
>the point where they could be prosecuted, but I do know some people who
>seriously claim that Google and other parties are infringing copyright on
>a massive scale with Usenet-archiving operations.
Usenet is just a technology. Google is just offering access to Usenet.
To say Google infringes copyright by doing so is like saying that Bell
infringes copyright by offering web access. The world wide web is just a
More information about the Discuss