On 1/28/2016 5:31 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2016 4:22 PM, A. non Eyemouse wrote:
On 28/01/2016 15:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


Actually, rram used to be a usable group, with some traffic even as
recently as 2-3 years ago. But the current moderators have driven
everyone away.

I haven't heard anyone say anything good about the way the mods spam
multiple newsgroups by posting copyrighted material without the owners'
permissions.


I'm all against the spamming, but it raises an interesting question - If
you are referring to syndicating the content and the blog author has
published at atom or rss feed then surely it is implied that they are
giving permission to re-distribute it?

Or did you mean some other copyrighted material?


By international law, any published material, whether on the internet or
otherwise, is copyrighted and cannot be copied without the explicit
permission of the owner. This includes atom and rss feeds. These may
be distributed to their subscribers, but the subscribers may not
republish without the owners consent.

It's like a newspaper. I get a copy of the Washington Post every day.
I can read it. I can mention articles in passing. But I cannot
republish the article without the Post's permission.

Copyright law makes no distinction. It's the same in both cases.

Whilst I certainly don't speak absolutely definitively, so please don't
take my assertions as gospel, AIUI the rram mod seeks permission from the
author to repost their material. I've seen direct reference to the request
being made in at least 2 or 3 articles posted in the last couple of years.


In some cases, maybe. But there have also been posts by the authors
saying they didn't know their blogs were being reposted to usenet. I've
seen this a couple of times in the last year.

I wonder if one asked each of the authors being posted if they had given
their permission, what the results would be.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================