Just spotted the discussion of the Colonial Vietnamese Lunch on
cookingjunkies.com:
or
http://tinyurl.com/45rtmej
--
Jean B.
cookingjunkies.com:
or
http://tinyurl.com/45rtmej
--
Jean B.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
thieving site
- Thread starter Ninneth
- Start date
Anonymous51
New member
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:53:44 -0500, Jean B. wrote:
They just mirror everything we post. That thread happens to be mine.
If they started mirroring alt.binaries.food (and our photos), then
there could be legal action. I don't see ABF on their lists.
http://www.cookingjunkies.com/
I also haven't seen any posts from that site injected into RFC (like
as fot the foodbanter.com site). Maybe I'll try it and see what it
looks like so we can block it and/or make fun of those people.
-sw
They just mirror everything we post. That thread happens to be mine.
If they started mirroring alt.binaries.food (and our photos), then
there could be legal action. I don't see ABF on their lists.
http://www.cookingjunkies.com/
I also haven't seen any posts from that site injected into RFC (like
as fot the foodbanter.com site). Maybe I'll try it and see what it
looks like so we can block it and/or make fun of those people.
-sw
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:53:44 -0500, Jean B. wrote:
They just mirror everything we post. That thread happens to be mine.
If they started mirroring alt.binaries.food (and our photos), then
there could be legal action. I don't see ABF on their lists.
http://www.cookingjunkies.com/
I also haven't seen any posts from that site injected into RFC (like
as fot the foodbanter.com site). Maybe I'll try it and see what it
looks like so we can block it and/or make fun of those people.
-sw
They just mirror everything we post. That thread happens to be mine.
If they started mirroring alt.binaries.food (and our photos), then
there could be legal action. I don't see ABF on their lists.
http://www.cookingjunkies.com/
I also haven't seen any posts from that site injected into RFC (like
as fot the foodbanter.com site). Maybe I'll try it and see what it
looks like so we can block it and/or make fun of those people.
-sw
randall_nd
New member
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:55:12 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
The guy that owns cookingjunkies.com is Nick Le Mouton, and email is
[email protected]
The guy that owns cookingjunkies.com is Nick Le Mouton, and email is
[email protected]
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:55:12 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
The guy that owns cookingjunkies.com is Nick Le Mouton, and email is
[email protected]
The guy that owns cookingjunkies.com is Nick Le Mouton, and email is
[email protected]
lovelygirl
New member
Sqwertz wrote:
yeah, I noticed it was your thread.
--
Jean B.
yeah, I noticed it was your thread.
--
Jean B.
Bianca Honey
New member
On Feb 20, 6:55?pm, Sqwertz wrote:
Thieving site? Ha! You're cracking me up!
I'm a member of that site. The Usenet posts are pulled into it as they
are in about ten thousand other sources, including private computers
in many homes as copies. The posts are placed into the public domain
where they are accessible to ANYONE in the world, anonymously, and can
be read by anyonen with a computer.
It's no more "thieving" than if you posted a news headline on your own
site for discussion. Get real. You think you own something you post to
usenet? Don't make me laugh.
Here's the advantage to using Cooking Junkies to read the usenet posts
in this group; you can filter the foul language, the stupid off topic
crap and insane posts so that only the posts you wish to have as
discussions show up. It's done all over the world and there is no
"thieving" to it.
If you think so, then take it into a courtroom. Good luck with that.
You'll be laughed out of it.
Your posts here are no more private than if you wrote it on a notepad
and placed it on a Walmart Bulletin Board.
Thanks for the laugh tho'.
Thieving site? Ha! You're cracking me up!
I'm a member of that site. The Usenet posts are pulled into it as they
are in about ten thousand other sources, including private computers
in many homes as copies. The posts are placed into the public domain
where they are accessible to ANYONE in the world, anonymously, and can
be read by anyonen with a computer.
It's no more "thieving" than if you posted a news headline on your own
site for discussion. Get real. You think you own something you post to
usenet? Don't make me laugh.
Here's the advantage to using Cooking Junkies to read the usenet posts
in this group; you can filter the foul language, the stupid off topic
crap and insane posts so that only the posts you wish to have as
discussions show up. It's done all over the world and there is no
"thieving" to it.
If you think so, then take it into a courtroom. Good luck with that.
You'll be laughed out of it.
Your posts here are no more private than if you wrote it on a notepad
and placed it on a Walmart Bulletin Board.
Thanks for the laugh tho'.
babydontstopnow
New member
On Feb 20, 6:55?pm, Sqwertz wrote:
Thieving site? Ha! You're cracking me up!
I'm a member of that site. The Usenet posts are pulled into it as they
are in about ten thousand other sources, including private computers
in many homes as copies. The posts are placed into the public domain
where they are accessible to ANYONE in the world, anonymously, and can
be read by anyonen with a computer.
It's no more "thieving" than if you posted a news headline on your own
site for discussion. Get real. You think you own something you post to
usenet? Don't make me laugh.
Here's the advantage to using Cooking Junkies to read the usenet posts
in this group; you can filter the foul language, the stupid off topic
crap and insane posts so that only the posts you wish to have as
discussions show up. It's done all over the world and there is no
"thieving" to it.
If you think so, then take it into a courtroom. Good luck with that.
You'll be laughed out of it.
Your posts here are no more private than if you wrote it on a notepad
and placed it on a Walmart Bulletin Board.
Thanks for the laugh tho'.
Thieving site? Ha! You're cracking me up!
I'm a member of that site. The Usenet posts are pulled into it as they
are in about ten thousand other sources, including private computers
in many homes as copies. The posts are placed into the public domain
where they are accessible to ANYONE in the world, anonymously, and can
be read by anyonen with a computer.
It's no more "thieving" than if you posted a news headline on your own
site for discussion. Get real. You think you own something you post to
usenet? Don't make me laugh.
Here's the advantage to using Cooking Junkies to read the usenet posts
in this group; you can filter the foul language, the stupid off topic
crap and insane posts so that only the posts you wish to have as
discussions show up. It's done all over the world and there is no
"thieving" to it.
If you think so, then take it into a courtroom. Good luck with that.
You'll be laughed out of it.
Your posts here are no more private than if you wrote it on a notepad
and placed it on a Walmart Bulletin Board.
Thanks for the laugh tho'.
PartyTime24798
New member
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), Bryan wrote:
Not on pictures you take, of food you made.
-sw
Not on pictures you take, of food you made.
-sw
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:55:42 -0800 (PST), Alfie wrote:
Tou are of course wrong. There is nothing "Public Domain" about it.
There are plenty of free newspapers out there available to anyone for
their taking and perusal, but the information contained within not
"public domain". It is not theivery, but out posts are certainly not
public domain.
Why am I even arguing with a loser Google-poster ignoramous? Piss
off.
-sw
Tou are of course wrong. There is nothing "Public Domain" about it.
There are plenty of free newspapers out there available to anyone for
their taking and perusal, but the information contained within not
"public domain". It is not theivery, but out posts are certainly not
public domain.
Why am I even arguing with a loser Google-poster ignoramous? Piss
off.
-sw
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:55:42 -0800 (PST), Alfie wrote:
Tou are of course wrong. There is nothing "Public Domain" about it.
There are plenty of free newspapers out there available to anyone for
their taking and perusal, but the information contained within not
"public domain". It is not theivery, but out posts are certainly not
public domain.
Why am I even arguing with a loser Google-poster ignoramous? Piss
off.
-sw
Tou are of course wrong. There is nothing "Public Domain" about it.
There are plenty of free newspapers out there available to anyone for
their taking and perusal, but the information contained within not
"public domain". It is not theivery, but out posts are certainly not
public domain.
Why am I even arguing with a loser Google-poster ignoramous? Piss
off.
-sw
On Feb 20, 10:23?pm, Sqwertz wrote:
You're so full of shit. The only ignoramous being displayed is you.
You think you own a usenet post. You're a fool as well as a smartass.
Wait, why am I even arguing with some fool on usenet who is stupid
enough to think he owns his posts? Piss off yourself, fool.
You're so full of shit. The only ignoramous being displayed is you.
You think you own a usenet post. You're a fool as well as a smartass.
Wait, why am I even arguing with some fool on usenet who is stupid
enough to think he owns his posts? Piss off yourself, fool.
kanebigredmachine
New member
On Feb 20, 10:23?pm, Sqwertz wrote:
You're so full of shit. The only ignoramous being displayed is you.
You think you own a usenet post. You're a fool as well as a smartass.
Wait, why am I even arguing with some fool on usenet who is stupid
enough to think he owns his posts? Piss off yourself, fool.
You're so full of shit. The only ignoramous being displayed is you.
You think you own a usenet post. You're a fool as well as a smartass.
Wait, why am I even arguing with some fool on usenet who is stupid
enough to think he owns his posts? Piss off yourself, fool.
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:55:42 -0800 (PST), Alfie wrote:
that's as may be, but your posts *are* copyrighted:
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow
the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything
created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and
protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for
other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied
unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for
sure.
now, it is true that it would be difficult to collect any money from the
assholes who run cooking junkies unless they're making tons of money from
the site. but other than that, you're full of shit.
blake
that's as may be, but your posts *are* copyrighted:
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow
the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything
created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and
protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for
other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied
unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for
sure.
now, it is true that it would be difficult to collect any money from the
assholes who run cooking junkies unless they're making tons of money from
the site. but other than that, you're full of shit.
blake
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:47:13 -0800 (PST), Alfie wrote:
wrong again, alfie:
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore
unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as
in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the
public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to
everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel
that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the
thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent)
of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is
true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it
simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the
sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case
is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to
remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only
human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission.
Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for
an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the
copier was aware of.
(the same site for my last
post)
blake
wrong again, alfie:
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore
unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as
in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the
public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to
everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel
that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the
thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent)
of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is
true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it
simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the
sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case
is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to
remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only
human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission.
Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for
an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the
copier was aware of.
(the same site for my last
post)
blake
WinterSilence
New member
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:26:59 -0500, blake murphy wrote:
Lets not forget that websites are archived at places such as Google in
the same fashion as Usenet posts. Furthermore, they are transferred
to your home machine every time you click on something - just like
Usenet posts.
So according to Alphie , all web sites are also in the public
domain and are not owned by their creators, just like Usenet posts.
Kinda blows Alphie's theory all to hell, eh? Go away Alphie. Come
back when you morpf into something else.
-sw
Lets not forget that websites are archived at places such as Google in
the same fashion as Usenet posts. Furthermore, they are transferred
to your home machine every time you click on something - just like
Usenet posts.
So according to Alphie , all web sites are also in the public
domain and are not owned by their creators, just like Usenet posts.
Kinda blows Alphie's theory all to hell, eh? Go away Alphie. Come
back when you morpf into something else.
-sw