Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> writes:

exquisite witch peachy wrote:

Pumba wrote:

From: exquisite witch peachy <ExquisitePe...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 17:38:02 GMT
Pumba wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
democracy applies to everything, not just politics, like some
moron said.
up until today, you thought individuals and companies can make
their own
rules for their businesses. today, that idea of yours died on the vine.
Tobabacco companies:
"you don't like 'em, don't smoke 'em!"
us:
"nuh uh. you pay us, plenty big money!"
we decide everything.

How's that working for you so far??

that *IS* how it works for *EVERYONE*.
when people have a problem with any company, they don't have to just
take it up the *****. they can do something about it, and many people do
just that.
the tobacco companies argued that they were not liable. they were
wrong.
Mark (and others) reckon that all a company like Google has to do is
slap up a Terms and Conditions or Acceptable Use Policy, and that's the
end of the matter.
For some reason, they cannot contemplate the idea that Google has no
right to do what it likes without our permission. It is answerable
always to the entire Internet community (at least).
Google works with OUR data. OUR data.

Just a thought, when we post to usenet don't we make OUR data public
domain and basically give up our rights to it?

That means we are intrinsically involved and cannot be cut out, no
matter how Google chooses to word their various contracts and
agreements.
At the end of the day, all that Google waffle is subject to our review.
We get to decide what Google can and can't do. Not them.

Okay. So call Google and tell them they can't post your stuff anymore.

i've yet to decide what course of action to follow on this matter.

I would think that if control over your data is important to you than
posting to usenet is probably not what you want to be doing.

When posting to usenet Google, or anyone else, can take your data and
put ads on it, or even package it and sell it, because it's not yours
anymore.

You're not just giving your data to Google, you're giving it
to anyone who wants it.

or better yet.. tell them you want royalties on any ad clicks on
your posts.

they cannot track that. not without significant modifications to how
their system works right now.
plus every Usenet user will have to register with Google and get some
kind of tracking code that they need to include in each post. google
needs to be able to correlate ad clicks with the post(s) that had the
keyword(s) that caused the clicked advert to be displayed.
it would probably be a good idea if there was another organisation
overseeing this. Google is notorious for screwing its publishers. It
doesn't disclose any information about how it shares advertising
revenue.

It's probably best to leave usenet posts as a "free for the taking"
public forum. If a restricted public forum is desired, one where
posts are copyrighted for limited use and distribution by the poster,
then an alternative system should be used. Usenet is just not
designed, nor should it be used, for such a thing.

Come back and tell us how Google works for us, and how you decided
what Google can do.

it's not about what I decide, it's about what WE want.
this is a process that will most likely take years to resolve. i'm
probably going to start off with some articles about this. see if
there are others out there also interested in this.

I agree whole heartedly that it's about what WE want. I think the
problem here is that posting to usenet is not what you want to do.

You want control over the distribution of your data, and usenet does
not provide that.

There really is no point in trying to make usenet
incorporate licensing/copyright issues, that's not what it's for.

When WE are unhappy with what's provided, we should decide exactly
what it is we want and create it. We don't have to force usenet to be
what it's not, nor do we have to force google to be what we want it to
be, we can make what we want. The GNU project, the Linux kernel, the
Wikimedia project, and FreeNet are all fine examples of folks unhappy
with what was provided and making the services they wanted, with the
terms they wanted.

If google's breaking the law, then by all means kick'em where it
hurts. If their business practices are unsavory, then by all means
investigate, report, and keep them in check. Google will probably
never do things the way you like so most importantly, create what you
want and tell folks why it's a better alternative. Those of us who
agree with you will follow. Heck, we'll probably help you build the
thing.

Pumba wrote:

in the same way if people voted to kill you. it's not a vote you are
allowed to take.

If it makes us happy we can. We are endowed by our creator with certain
inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. If it makes us happy to vote someone dead, we are at liberty
to do so. His one right to life is out numbered by our two rights to
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.