I cannot get any help from Google (of course) on this problem, so I decided to post it here as a "puzzle".
I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
Well, first let me tell you that, even though I sign all my messages with "Thanks, Leroy Quet", doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not worked at all for at least a year or two now.
But I noticed that one can "Search for posts by this author", which worked a month ago at finding most of my old posts, the ones I posted through Google Groups anyway.
But now, even clicking on "search for posts by this author" brings up only one or two posts.
Even if I do an advanced search with Google Groups, and set the search to find all posts between 1999 and now, only one or two posts come up.
WHERE ARE MY POSTS!!???
Google has been no help, of course. And I don't know if a newsreader will allow me to view posts that are ten years old.
Anyone have any knowledge or suggestions about what is going on??
Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: > I cannot get any help from Google (of course) on this problem, so I > decided to post it here as a "puzzle".
> I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the > last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I > tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
> Well, first let me tell you that, even though I sign all my messages > with "Thanks, Leroy Quet", doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
> But I noticed that one can "Search for posts by this author", which > worked a month ago at finding most of my old posts, the ones I posted > through Google Groups anyway.
> But now, even clicking on "search for posts by this author" brings up > only one or two posts.
> Even if I do an advanced search with Google Groups, and set the search > to find all posts between 1999 and now, only one or two posts come up.
> WHERE ARE MY POSTS!!???
> Google has been no help, of course. And I don't know if a newsreader > will allow me to view posts that are ten years old.
> Anyone have any knowledge or suggestions about what is going on??
The consensus on alt.english.usage is that Google groups search is badly broken. What seems to happen is that if the servers are busy they just silently fail to return anything. So repeating the search at different times gives different answers!
Try searching for a shorter time period and you might get /more/ results! -- Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu
Thanks for your reply. If what you say is true -- that our old posts are still there, but the search is undergoing technical problems -- does Google even know about the problem, and if they do, do they care enough about it to fix it??? That is the question.
Nick wrote: > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > I cannot get any help from Google (of course) on this problem, so I > > decided to post it here as a "puzzle".
> > I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the > > last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I > > tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
> > Well, first let me tell you that, even though I sign all my messages > > with "Thanks, Leroy Quet", doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not > > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
> > But I noticed that one can "Search for posts by this author", which > > worked a month ago at finding most of my old posts, the ones I posted > > through Google Groups anyway.
> > But now, even clicking on "search for posts by this author" brings up > > only one or two posts.
> > Even if I do an advanced search with Google Groups, and set the search > > to find all posts between 1999 and now, only one or two posts come up.
> > WHERE ARE MY POSTS!!???
> > Google has been no help, of course. And I don't know if a newsreader > > will allow me to view posts that are ten years old.
> > Anyone have any knowledge or suggestions about what is going on??
> The consensus on alt.english.usage is that Google groups search is badly > broken. What seems to happen is that if the servers are busy they just > silently fail to return anything. So repeating the search at different > times gives different answers!
> Try searching for a shorter time period and you might get /more/ results! > -- > Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk > development version: http://canalplan.eu
Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: > I cannot get any help from Google (of course) on this problem, so I > decided to post it here as a "puzzle".
> I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the > last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I > tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
> Well, first let me tell you that, even though I sign all my messages > with "Thanks, Leroy Quet", doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
> Thanks for your reply. If what you say is true -- that our old posts > are still there, but the search is undergoing technical problems -- > does Google even know about the problem, and if they do, do they care > enough about it to fix it??? > That is the question.
> Thanks, > Leroy Quet
> Nick wrote: > > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > > I cannot get any help from Google (of course) on this problem, so I > > > decided to post it here as a "puzzle".
> > > I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the > > > last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I > > > tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
> > > Well, first let me tell you that, even though I sign all my messages > > > with "Thanks, Leroy Quet", doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not > > > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
> > > But I noticed that one can "Search for posts by this author", which > > > worked a month ago at finding most of my old posts, the ones I posted > > > through Google Groups anyway.
> > > But now, even clicking on "search for posts by this author" brings up > > > only one or two posts.
> > > Even if I do an advanced search with Google Groups, and set the search > > > to find all posts between 1999 and now, only one or two posts come up.
> > > WHERE ARE MY POSTS!!???
> > > Google has been no help, of course. And I don't know if a newsreader > > > will allow me to view posts that are ten years old.
> > > Anyone have any knowledge or suggestions about what is going on??
> > The consensus on alt.english.usage is that Google groups search is badly > > broken. What seems to happen is that if the servers are busy they just > > silently fail to return anything. So repeating the search at different > > times gives different answers!
> > Try searching for a shorter time period and you might get /more/ results! > > -- > > Online waterways route planner:http://canalplan.org.uk > > development version:http://canalplan.eu
Hi, Leroy:
I've also noticed that Google Groups search breaks intermittently. In the paat I've used the link under Google Groups "Help" to report outtages that last more than a couple of days. It might help them if we kept a consistent tracking of when search is broken. I'd guess it's something the company cares about, and knowing extent of breakdowns would result in additional resources being allocated.
One thing that I noticed in doing a few experiments is that searching for game and leroy finds more hits than game and quet (in sci.math newsgroup). It seems search may be hindered by the engine's suspicion that "quet" is a misspelling of "quest".
Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: > On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> > doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not >> > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
> Hi, Phil:
> Is there another repository of Usenet posts > going back two or three decades?
Google groups doesn't even go back months reliably. Google's repositories were not archived by google themselves, but by many other parties, who shared them with google as a matter of good will. To see google shit on them so is a disgrace. If you still blindly and stupidly believe that google groups is a reliable archive for usenet posts, then tell me how many times I've said "google groups sucks" in a usenet post in the last decade. The results will be out by a factor of 10-100, I bet you.
I dare you to put your height as 5cm on your passport application, or age 1234. Errors of that magnitude are simply not to be brushed off with "well, they're the best there is", they're to be treated with derision.
Phil, feeling dirty having to pull a google groups post out of his mark-read filter in order to reply to it. -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
> > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: > > > doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not > > > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
> > Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. > > The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
> Hi, Phil:
> Is there another repository of Usenet posts > going back two or three decades?
> regards, chip
Aren't sci.math posts copied to math.forum.org or a site called something like that?
Mind you, I don't suppose they would be archived even there for "two or three decades", because the Web is nowhere near that old (although I guess older posts could have been copied there when that site first became active).
OwlHoot <ravensd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:01 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote:
>> > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: >> > > doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not >> > > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
>> > Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >> > The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
>> Hi, Phil:
>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >> going back two or three decades?
>> regards, chip
> Aren't sci.math posts copied to math.forum.org or a site called > something like that?
> Mind you, I don't suppose they would be archived even there for > "two or three decades", because the Web is nowhere near that old > (although I guess older posts could have been copied there when > that site first became active).
Google Groups isn't that old, but Usenet (which is what a lot of Google Groups piggy back onto) most certainly is. The oldest usenet article archived in Google Groups dates from 11th May 1981: http://groups.google.com/group/net.general/msg/205f828a7595fc94
>> On Nov 8, 4:01 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote:
>>> > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: >>> > > doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not >>> > > worked at all for at least a year or two now.
>>> > Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>> > The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
>>> Hi, Phil:
>>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>> going back two or three decades?
>>> regards, chip
>> Aren't sci.math posts copied to math.forum.org or a site called >> something like that?
>> Mind you, I don't suppose they would be archived even there for >> "two or three decades", because the Web is nowhere near that old >> (although I guess older posts could have been copied there when >> that site first became active).
> Google Groups isn't that old, but Usenet (which is what a lot of Google > Groups piggy back onto) most certainly is. The oldest usenet article > archived in Google Groups dates from 11th May 1981: > http://groups.google.com/group/net.general/msg/205f828a7595fc94
Yet: Your search - "with orion.cair.du.edu as the master server" - did not match any documents.
Google groups scores zero out of one. In fact it scores zero out of practically any finite number. Google groups sucks. Wake up and smell the kool-aid.
Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
On Nov 9, 12:31 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Google groups scores zero out of one. In fact it scores zero out of > practically any finite number. Google groups sucks. Wake up and smell > the kool-aid.
Yes, Google Groups sucks, and the searching is broken for a while now and no fixes seem to be forthcoming. And yet with all of that, your vitriol still comes off as wildly hyperbolic.
>>> On Nov 8, 4:01 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> writes: >>>>>> doing a search for "Leroy Quet" has not >>>>>> worked at all for at least a year or two now. >>>>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>>>> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise. >>>> Hi, Phil:
>>>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>>> going back two or three decades?
>>>> regards, chip >>> Aren't sci.math posts copied to math.forum.org or a site called >>> something like that?
>>> Mind you, I don't suppose they would be archived even there for >>> "two or three decades", because the Web is nowhere near that old >>> (although I guess older posts could have been copied there when >>> that site first became active).
>> Google Groups isn't that old, but Usenet (which is what a lot of Google >> Groups piggy back onto) most certainly is. The oldest usenet article >> archived in Google Groups dates from 11th May 1981: >> http://groups.google.com/group/net.general/msg/205f828a7595fc94
> Yet: > Your search - "with orion.cair.du.edu as the master server" - did not match any > documents.
> Google groups scores zero out of one. In fact it scores zero out of > practically any finite number. Google groups sucks. Wake up and smell > the kool-aid.
Finding older posts is often not easy. For the newer ones, there's archivum , mathkb , etc.
Interesting article. Comments below the article point out that Google is devoid of any competence or concern when it comes to Usenet archiving because it is a publicly traded company, and Usenet does not make enough money for it.
It sure would be nice if SOMEONE (possibly a nonprofit, possibly the Library of Congress) would take over the archiving of Usenet.
I have posted thousands of posts over the years, mostly to sci.math and rec.puzzles. The math posts contain some of my only published math- results. I would absolutely hate if all my work with math over the years was for nothing simply because Google is concerned only about money!!
On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. > >> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise.
> > Is there another repository of Usenet posts > > going back two or three decades?
Whatever its limitations, Google's Usenet archive is, by definition, the *best* archive if it's the only one. (If it *is* the only one, I cry "Negligence!" I think I'd have seriously considered maintaining an archive if I'd been managing a large news server. No, I don't have an estimate of how many magtapes I'd have needed, though it shouldn't be *that* many if binary groups are excluded.)
What was the legal status of DejaNews? Is there a way to force the archive into public domain via litigation? The Wired article mentions Henry Spencer's archive. Does he still have that, or did Google somehow get exclusive rights?
One of the wierdest Googleisms I know is the way their illegal copying of *millions* of books was condoned. An argument heard most often was that the copying was legal because copyrighted books would be available, without charge, only to Google computers and Google employees! In other words, a Might Makes Right doctrine implies that Google employees are exempt from obeying the law because of the "importance" or wealth of Google Inc.!
We're taught that intellectual property rights acrue as a reward for creativity. The most creative thinking involved in Google's illegal copying of millions of books was understanding that in American Might-makes-Right capitalism, their crime would *not* be prosecuted.
> Phil, feeling dirty having to pull a google groups post out > of his mark-read filter in order to reply to it.
I hope I've not comitted an etiquette violation by replying to a poster who announces he won't see my reply! If I've said anything interesting I hope someone will quote it so Phil won't have to feel dirty.
> Interesting article. Comments below the article point out that Google > is devoid of any competence or concern when it comes to Usenet > archiving because it is a publicly traded company, and Usenet does not > make enough money for it.
> It sure would be nice if SOMEONE (possibly a nonprofit, possibly the > Library of Congress) would take over the archiving of Usenet.
> I have posted thousands of posts over the years, mostly to sci.math > and rec.puzzles. The math posts contain some of my only published math- > results. I would absolutely hate if all my work with math over the > years was for nothing simply because Google is concerned only about > money!!
> Thanks, > Leroy Quet
This may sound rather OTT; but isn't there a case for preserving usenet archives as a social record? This is an obligation which Google took upon themselves for profit reasons (nothing wrong with that) but is now evidently neglecting.
If so, perhaps Google could be prevailed upon to make the full archive available for some non-profit group to download for future ages.
Or even private individuals - A 2 Tbyte disk is little more than $150 now, and I imagine a handful of those would be ample to store a complete archive of all the sci and alt groups, with a simple compression scheme, or even uncompressed.
Heck I'd download a copy myself if the facility was readily available. I have several 2 Tbyte disks already for my vast ebook collection, and there's ample space to squeeze in a mere copy of the usenet archive!
James Dow Allen wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>>> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise. >>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>> going back two or three decades?
> Whatever its limitations, Google's Usenet archive is, > by definition, the *best* archive if it's the only one. > (If it *is* the only one, I cry "Negligence!" I think > I'd have seriously considered maintaining an archive if > I'd been managing a large news server. No, I don't have > an estimate of how many magtapes I'd have needed, though > it shouldn't be *that* many if binary groups are excluded.)
> What was the legal status of DejaNews? Is there a way to > force the archive into public domain via litigation? > The Wired article mentions Henry Spencer's archive. > Does he still have that, or did Google somehow get > exclusive rights?
I think Harry Spencer can only transfer/license to Google what he owns or has a license to use.
I think one basic principle is that the author of a post has the rights to the post, unless the author has forfeited the rights or the equivalent.
When posting through Google Groups, the fine print says something like: "the author gives a perpetual license to reproduce the author's post on a royalty-free basis [...] ". But that doesn't mean necessarily that there's a transfer of all rights if a poster posts through Google Groups.
When not posting through Google Groups: anything that I posted, which was through an ISP with NNTP service, I'd consider to be mine, with no licensing to Google or others given, unless the ISP (or they) can prove otherwise.
For Deja News, those who used it agreed to something, but I don't know what. Generally, I believe the rights given to Google would depend on the poster's agreement with the posting provider.
So I believe I could request that some articles I wrote be removed from Google's archive, [while I may copy my own writing at will] as in many cases I gave them no license. But unless millions of Usenet people band together, nothing much is likely to happen.
So Google can't claim a right they were never given.
Then there's the question of the threading, article headers and the rest.
David Bernier wrote: > James Dow Allen wrote: >> On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>>>> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise. >>>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>>> going back two or three decades?
>> Whatever its limitations, Google's Usenet archive is, >> by definition, the *best* archive if it's the only one. >> (If it *is* the only one, I cry "Negligence!" I think >> I'd have seriously considered maintaining an archive if >> I'd been managing a large news server. No, I don't have >> an estimate of how many magtapes I'd have needed, though >> it shouldn't be *that* many if binary groups are excluded.)
>> What was the legal status of DejaNews? Is there a way to >> force the archive into public domain via litigation? >> The Wired article mentions Henry Spencer's archive. >> Does he still have that, or did Google somehow get >> exclusive rights?
> I think Harry Spencer can only transfer/license to Google > what he owns or has a license to use.
> I think one basic principle is that the author of a post has > the rights to the post, unless the author has forfeited the > rights or the equivalent.
> When posting through Google Groups, the fine print says something > like: "the author gives a perpetual license to reproduce the author's > post on a royalty-free basis [...] ". But that doesn't mean necessarily > that there's a transfer of all rights if a poster posts through Google > Groups.
> When not posting through Google Groups: > anything that I posted, which was through an ISP with > NNTP service, I'd consider to be mine, with no licensing to Google or > others given, unless the ISP (or they) can prove otherwise.
> For Deja News, those who used it agreed to something, but I don't know > what. Generally, I believe the rights given to Google would depend on > the poster's agreement with the posting provider.
> So I believe I could request that some articles I wrote be removed > from Google's archive, [while I may copy > my own writing at will] as in many cases I gave them no license. > But unless millions of Usenet people band together, nothing much > is likely to happen.
There's a Class Action suit: Authors Guild v. Google . I read the allegations in count 1 at least, around page 6 of "Authors' Initial Complaint", Sept. 2005.
Then I skipped to Google's response in "Google's Answer to Authors' Complaint"
David Bernier wrote: > James Dow Allen wrote: >> On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>>>> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise. >>>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>>> going back two or three decades?
>> Whatever its limitations, Google's Usenet archive is, >> by definition, the *best* archive if it's the only one. >> (If it *is* the only one, I cry "Negligence!" I think >> I'd have seriously considered maintaining an archive if >> I'd been managing a large news server. No, I don't have >> an estimate of how many magtapes I'd have needed, though >> it shouldn't be *that* many if binary groups are excluded.)
>> What was the legal status of DejaNews? Is there a way to >> force the archive into public domain via litigation? >> The Wired article mentions Henry Spencer's archive. >> Does he still have that, or did Google somehow get >> exclusive rights?
> I think Harry Spencer can only transfer/license to Google > what he owns or has a license to use.
> I think one basic principle is that the author of a post has > the rights to the post, unless the author has forfeited the > rights or the equivalent.
> When posting through Google Groups, the fine print says something > like: "the author gives a perpetual license to reproduce the author's > post on a royalty-free basis [...] ". But that doesn't mean necessarily > that there's a transfer of all rights if a poster posts through Google > Groups.
> When not posting through Google Groups: > anything that I posted, which was through an ISP with > NNTP service, I'd consider to be mine, with no licensing to Google or > others given, unless the ISP (or they) can prove otherwise.
> For Deja News, those who used it agreed to something, but I don't know > what. Generally, I believe the rights given to Google would depend on > the poster's agreement with the posting provider.
> So I believe I could request that some articles I wrote be removed > from Google's archive, [while I may copy > my own writing at will] as in many cases I gave them no license. > But unless millions of Usenet people band together, nothing much > is likely to happen.
> So Google can't claim a right they were never given.
> Then there's the question of the threading, article headers > and the rest.
> David Bernier
There's more to the story of the proposed Google Books Settlement;
WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGH U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
was a co-author of a brief to the Court. This proposed settlement is a big deal. Probably more important at this time than Google groups problems.
> I have posted THOUSANDS of posts to rec.puzzles and sci.math over the > last decade. I wanted to read an old post from several years ago, so I > tried to find it with a search on Google Groups.
ObPuzzle1: estimate the size of the entire rec.puzzles archive.
ObPuzzle2: estimate the size of the entire rec.* archive.
ObPuzzle3: estimate the size of the entire NNTP archive
David Bernier wrote: > James Dow Allen wrote: >> On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Nov 8, 10:14 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Google groups sucks. That's basically all there is to know. >>>>> The puzzle is why anyone still thinks otherwise. >>>> Is there another repository of Usenet posts >>>> going back two or three decades?
>> Whatever its limitations, Google's Usenet archive is, >> by definition, the *best* archive if it's the only one. >> (If it *is* the only one, I cry "Negligence!" I think >> I'd have seriously considered maintaining an archive if >> I'd been managing a large news server. No, I don't have >> an estimate of how many magtapes I'd have needed, though >> it shouldn't be *that* many if binary groups are excluded.)
>> What was the legal status of DejaNews? Is there a way to >> force the archive into public domain via litigation? >> The Wired article mentions Henry Spencer's archive. >> Does he still have that, or did Google somehow get >> exclusive rights?
> I think Harry Spencer can only transfer/license to Google > what he owns or has a license to use.
> I think one basic principle is that the author of a post has > the rights to the post, unless the author has forfeited the > rights or the equivalent.
> When posting through Google Groups, the fine print says something > like: "the author gives a perpetual license to reproduce the author's > post on a royalty-free basis [...] ". But that doesn't mean necessarily > that there's a transfer of all rights if a poster posts through Google > Groups.
[...]
The terms are there in the "TAOS", paragraph 11:
"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
Google Services "Terms of Service" Agreement, paragraph 11 here:
N.B.: "royalty-free" : that should mean that they could build a Premium Google Groups Archive, paid through by subscriptions, and that a Google Poster, while holding the copyright to "short stories" or poems, for example, couldn't get money from Google. Also, if they made an e-book from the "Anthology", or even translated it, and made money, it seems to me that they could do it without compensating the author or authors of the pieces in the Anthology; the enabler here is/are the TOS themselves.
As for "non-exclusive license", I think it means you could let your friends try to make money by selling your poems, just by giving them a license. Then, they could have a contractual obligation to pay you royalties as the Author (depending on the terms of the license you give your friends). But you could never force Google to pay you royalties, because (a) you gave them a royalty-free license, and (b) the license to Google allows this: - reproduce, - adapt, - modify, - translate, - publish, - publicly perform, - publicly display and - distribute [ content from You].
Actually, "modify" is a puzzler for me. How much "modification" is allowed? Since the TOS seem at first-hand vague on that, it might end up in "bargaining" through lawyers, or as a civil suit You v. Google ...
> Interesting article. Comments below the article point out that Google > is devoid of any competence or concern when it comes to Usenet > archiving because it is a publicly traded company, and Usenet does not > make enough money for it.
> It sure would be nice if SOMEONE (possibly a nonprofit, possibly the > Library of Congress) would take over the archiving of Usenet.
I think the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has the right values, but probably not the mandate or job, since arguably all of the Usenet archives aren't so important, and probably more importantly NARA deals in US Gov. documents.
But combined with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), I think NARA does a decent job of balancing public access, privacy matters and dealing with classified or restricted writings (and diagrams, etc) .
"Restricted" applies for example to nuclear weapons technical information --probably best treated with extreme care with respect to FOIA requests.
In article <f38a5b60-af6d-463a-919a-ad1d8452c...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I have posted thousands of posts over the years, mostly to sci.math >and rec.puzzles. The math posts contain some of my only published math- >results. I would absolutely hate if all my work with math over the >years was for nothing simply because Google is concerned only about >money!!
Why not dig them up and save them while you have the chance?
-- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
In <PbKdndAcBeUo3WfXnZ2dnUVZ_tCdn...@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article > <f38a5b60-af6d-463a-919a-ad1d8452c...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I have posted thousands of posts over the years, mostly to sci.math >>and rec.puzzles. The math posts contain some of my only published >>math- results. I would absolutely hate if all my work with math over >>the years was for nothing simply because Google is concerned only >>about money!! > Why not dig them up and save them while you have the chance?
Because he can't find them!
For heaven's sake, Google - if you can't fix your search engine, just scrap it completely and use grep instead. It's not hard. And since it's our data, not yours, why not make it available for bulk download? If you really care about Usenet, you'll want the archival task to be shared around because redundancy is just a cruel word for backup. And if you don't really care about Usenet, you've got no business deciding the fate of its archives, whether by conscious decision or neglect.
-- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
> >>I have posted thousands of posts over the years, mostly to sci.math > >>and rec.puzzles. The math posts contain some of my only published > >>math- results. I would absolutely hate if all my work with math over > >>the years was for nothing simply because Google is concerned only > >>about money!!
> > Why not dig them up and save them while you have the chance?
> Because he can't find them!
> For heaven's sake, Google - if you can't fix your search engine, just > scrap it completely and use grep instead. It's not hard. And since > it's our data, not yours, why not make it available for bulk > download? If you really care about Usenet, you'll want the archival > task to be shared around because redundancy is just a cruel word for > backup. And if you don't really care about Usenet, you've got no > business deciding the fate of its archives, whether by conscious > decision or neglect.
> -- > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> > Email: -http://www. +rjh@ > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 > Sig line vacant - apply within
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:18:01 -0800 (PST), Leroy Quet wrote: > Amen, Richard!
> Thanks, > Leroy Quet
> Richard Heathfield wrote: >> [31 quoted lines suppressed]
How typical of Giggle Groups to set the post up for top-posting, *and* leave the .sig in. At least this time it didn't leave in the "show quoted text" and "hide quoted text" links.
|
