Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo2 (
More info?)
hans escher wrote:
> Michael Vondung
> >
http://www.gamesreviews.net/message145789.html
> >
> > This explains it better. Unless you dig around, this looks like
> > a local web forum, even with "edit/delete" options.
http://www.chataboutgaming.com/ looks similar, they only mention in
their Terms of Service that usenet is involved, but it isn't clear
which messages come from where.
> I really hope that edit/delete doesn't work, unless a message
> is posted via that forum!
>
> I admit that it is annoying that websites are trying to get some
> credit for something usenet performs.
Especially with Google ads featuring some dubious D2 item shops.
Doesn't it look especially ugly when the ads are right _within_ my
post?
http://www.chataboutgaming.com/Stamina_potions_in_1_10-7612925-409-a.html
Ok, checking Google groups it seems they have ads for the same
shops. )-:
> However the *whole* gamesreviews site seems effectively
> to be a just usenet client for 200 selected newsgroups
> with added private messaging and an archive.
> All page subtitles say 'Forum and access to our favorite video
> games related Usenet groups'
>
> Gamesreviews seems to offer *exact* copies of newsgroups
> and every post in their 'forum' is send to usenet.
>
> From their terms of service:
> > When you post to our forums, in addition to appearing on
> > our forums, your message will be uploaded to Usenet
> > newsgroup.
>
> > And these are usenet messages,
> > republished without permission.
How about chataboutgaming's Terms?
"chataboutGaming.com authorizes you to view and download a single copy
of the Materials solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may
not sell or modify the Materials or reproduce, display, publicly
perform, distribute, or otherwise use the Materials in any way for any
public or commercial purpose without the written permission of
chataboutGaming.com."
And what exactly are they doing if it is not after all a public or
commercial purpose they use those messages for?
> Has Google groups the right to archive posts? Exclusive rights?
> Googling on this reveals that some think even google groups
> is in violation.
No, but Google obeys the "X-No-Archive" flag, and if you ask they
remove your postings. And they don't make it look as if you are a user
of their "board".
> I'm afraid, now that fact deja/google haven't been (succesfully)
> sued for copyright infringment for years, it will be very hard
> to win cases against other full copies.
I don't know about the laws in other country, but in Germany a text
has to have a certain level of originality before it is protected by
something like a copyright (actually we don't have copyright, but it
is as close as you can get in English).
> As long as they have exact full usenet copies and therefore
> don't misrepresent what you say nor suggest a wrong context
> I think they can claim 'just making the newsgroup available'
> and that being fair use.
At least the full usenet message is not available to the normal user,
the headers are missing.
What disturbs me is that these boards make it look as if you are their
user, and that they have a lot of rights on the material published via
their boards. They do not easily offer a possibility to get one or all
postings of a user removed, eg the chataboutgaming site offers their
mail address only as a gif file, so it is not even easily accessible
for users. Editing, deleting and reporting is only allowed for
registered users.
I guess I am going to ask some of those boards some questions and see
what comes out of it. (-:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram