lazarus0 added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
Post by lazarus0Post by HEMI-PoweredAs I said earlier, I have a number of NGs that I know are
active, but not 25,000,000 - maybe only 1,000-10,000 - but
the names might envoke a response and I honestly can't tell
myself what content has been placed in the public domain vs.
what may have been posted by someone illegally.
First, it's already been posted in here by management that
simply naming a newsgroup is not a copyright violation (I
wonder about the more specific ones where the name of the NG
has copyrighted material in the name). Only the naming of the
material or making actual requests for the material fall into
that category.
Second, I wasn't saying that there were 25,000,000 NGs; I said
there were over 25,000,000 new headers in THAT particular NG.
Third, you sound like you're getting a little paranoid.
Technically ALL newsgroups could fall into the category you
mentioned considering what spammers are flooding them with.
I don't believe #1 because the naming of a great number of NGs
specifically may well tip off their likely content under the
broad definitions in item 4. of the TOS/AUP. And, a quick check
would easily reveal that the only likely outcome would be to
download content in violation of the rules. It's interesting to
me how people who defend EN tend to want to have it both ways.
Well, you can't.
As to paranoid, no, just increasingly ticked off at what I
perceive as uncompetitive performance, lack of genuine effort by
support, and an overly hair trigger for Bamf's. I understand -
but don't like - why EN puts a positive spin on these things.
What I don't understand is why nobody at EN is at all worried
about customers complaining on issues that are never resolved
and/or are simply blown off on the pretense that MIDs or some
other thing aren't supplied by the customer.
I said once some time ago that by definition ALL content is
copyrighted although only some is commercially copyrighted with
the requisite formal application so infringement action can take
place, thus theoretically, mentioning almost all of the binary
content would be a TOS/AUP violation. But, to do so would be
tantamount to self-destruction of the EN customer base.
If anyone can fully predict exactly how EN would interpret
violations from the extremely unlikely to the very obvious, I've
never seen it in my time here. Thus, your comment in parens of #1
above is precisely what I'm talking about.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"