consensus on linking RAMFM to website forums.

What is the general consensus on linking RAMFM to website forums?
I know I copy stuff from RAMFM over to the forums of MMNA in case it is
of interest there. With mention of source of course.
Now if I were to get our admininstrator to link RAMFM, like Mr. Christian has done, but without the censorship, would that be OK. There would still be the issue of anybody with admin/moderator priviledges at MMNA being able to modify/delete posts. However, I doubt that would happen unless we get a major flame war. In which case they'd probably shitcan the entire thread. :-)
I'm not saying MMNA will go and do this. I'm just checking the general consensus from the hardcore group of posters in here.
I do have a link to RAMFM on my own Mustang site. It'll take one to google and open up RAMFM.
--
_ 1995 Mustang V6 Coupe (Bright Blue)
|_| Member Modern Mustangs of North America (MMNA)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What is the general consensus on linking RAMFM to website forums?
I know I copy stuff from RAMFM over to the forums of MMNA in case it is of interest there. With mention of source of course.
Now if I were to get our admininstrator to link RAMFM, like Mr. Christian has done, but without the censorship, would that be OK?
There would be the issue of anybody with admin/moderator priviledges at MMNA being able to modify/delete posts. This is inherent to the forum software used. However, I doubt that would happen unless we get a major flame war. In which case they'd probably shitcan the entire thread. :-)
I'm not saying MMNA will go and do this. I'm just checking the general consensus from the hardcore group of posters in here as if that is favorable, I might pitch the idea to them...
I do have a link to RAMFM on my own Mustang site. It'll take one to google and open up RAMFM.
--
_ 1995 Mustang V6 Coupe (Bright Blue)
|_| Member Modern Mustangs of North America (MMNA)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The main reason this bothers me is that the admin of this web site can filter and/or alter our posts at will. If he wants to link to ramfm he should at least have the balls to let every post show up there, good or bad. I wonder if the companies listed on their home page are paying advertising fees based on post counts or web site traffic?
Paul wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

Exactly and not only that, but after registration I can NOT edit my own posts posted by his auto poster.
--
Check out the forums at the [SS] clan site http://www.shamikaserver.com


This post should NOT be included at horsepowered.com it is meant to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can you edit them here? So what software is this then?
If you can't edit them normally, why should you think you can edit at horsepowers. He is merely displaying them. You can't edit at Google or any other web interface either.
Go ahead, make fools of yourself by trying to get him to stop.
MTT __________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You guys like sushi?
-- Mustang ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted via HorsePowered.com - The Internets Premiere Ford Mustang Community. http://www.HorsePowered.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | Doesn't your software filter out undesirable posts? Why can you | do it, but not him? Bit fascist ain't it?
Why YES! Yes it does! PLONK!
Kate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On a normal VBulletin board, and in fact any other PHP board, there is an 'Ignore' feature. It's nowhere near as sophisticated as that in newsreading software, but it will remove peoples posts if you don't care to read them. Unlike Usenet though they are still there and you can take the person off Ignore if you want to read that specific post.
These Usenet scripts don't allow that, so you can either get another script to auto filter threads, which is getting closer to newsreading KillFiles, or you can do it manually.

He's only exercising his right to only show certain threads from the NG's. He doesn't have to take everything. They are still available to be seen. If people have their own newservice they can view via their newsreader, or they can see them on Google et al. They are still there, uncensored. Horsepower guy is merely showing what he thinks his members will be interested in.
If he left any critical posts (of his site), this wouldn't be of interest to his members, and could actually piss them off. Surely you wouldn't want his members coming over en masse to disrupt this NG with their anger at being dissed? All they have to do is go post from Google if they don't have their own access and he doesn't have posting switched on.

You would have a point if that was the case, but spam is a feature of Usenet and you can't avoid it. Just because there isn't much here at the moment, doesn't mean you won't get innudated in the future. Swings and Roundabouts. At some point it'll come again regardless of him, and then it'll recede. Use your spam filters. They can't send it to your own email can they?

It isn't.

I don't like my posts being archived on Google. I don't like my messageboard posts being archived on the web, but submit to a search engine and they'll grab them.
Unlike Google, your posts will not be on his board for years. He has limited space and will prune threads every so often to clear space.
Filtering can take many forms. Some ISP's retain posts on text groups for months others for a few weeks. ISPs usually only keep binaries for a couple of days. Premium servers 30 days.

Because they don't have the time or inclination. If there were a load of threads saying that 'Google is crap, use Yahoo instead', there is every chance they would filter them out.
Unlike a newserver horsepowers site doesn't just pull in everything, it filters the groups to the ones he wants and thinks his members will be interested in.
Plenty of people with VBulletins have these 'scripts', and pipe NG's in.
You can even pipe in public mailing lists from Yahoo, or wherever. <shrug>
MTT ______ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mack The Knife wrote:

Let's say an unsuspecting Mustang enthusiast stumbles accross this web site and becomes a member. Let's assume this person isn't web savy and thinks his posts are being forwarded to ramfm unaltered. Now let's say he wants to post something that the Admin of Horsepowered doesn't like and doesn't want on Usenet for all to see for eternity. Now lets say the member's post is altered or just outright deleted before it's sent to Usenet. Maybe his post is left unaltered on the forum and altered before being sent to ramfm. Is it fair to the member for this to occur and is it fair to the Usenet community to read a post that has been altered by someone other than the original poster? Now multiply this senario by a factor of millions and can you foresee what this does to Usenet? It damn near makes it worthless. You'll have sites spamming newsgroups to no end. Even the groups you like would be affected.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's very simple. That n00b would be *posting* on horsepower guys site. He is therefore subject to the legal agreement he, er, agreed to on registering. I have such a one on my board. It gives him the right to moderate *anything* that was *posted* on his board.
If he allowed his members to post *anything* (lets assume he is lax with moderating his 'normal' forums) then anyone could register and spam, flame, libel or do whatever they want. Then you guys could rightly get pissed and complain to him because the posts originate from his board. If it was Joe Public on his own computer you can just killfile the tosser or complain to his ISP.
When a website or board posts on their behalf then I'd say he'd be lax if he didn't make sure his members weren't misbehaving before the posts were forwarded to the news servers. I would assume if he edited said fellas post, he would PM him to tell him why, in much the same way as he would in the ordinary forum.
If said fella wants to post something bad that he really doesn't want editing, then he needs to post it elsewhere. Somewhere where they don't have time to moderate said content of outgoing posts like Google or Newsone. Or get himself newserver access and he can post whatever the hell he wants from his computer. Providing it isn't internet abuse.
If he can't work out that there is more to the net than the web or horsepower.com then someone will soon tell him. If they don't then he's probably an idiot nobody will talk to. :P
Hey horsepower guy could be saving you from trolls you know. If he screens flames and trolls out before displaying the group for his members in a kind of Admin 'killfile', then it's not illogical he'll return the favor on the outgoing journey is it.

All he has to do in that case is read thru Google.
You can throw as many "what if's" as you like, but if he isn't doing this then you are blowing smoke. You cannot try someone on the basis of something they *could* do. That is as ridiculous as locking someone up for murder because they own a gun. Well they *might* kill someone. Or someone being locked up for drink driving because he drinks and owns a car. Oh let's lock all men up because they have a penis and *could* rape.
You see how ridiculous this logic is?
He is not editing the content of your posts. I suppose he *could* do if he wanted, but he hasn't.
He is not the only one with such a VB script. Probably half VBulletin boards have them. You are the only group who has decided you can control where your newsgroup posts are displayed. That is why this NG is becoming infamous, and not in a good way.

No he isn't censoring posts. He is only choosing to display certain threads, threads which are relevant and which he has the space for.
This thread title is a complete misnomer. There is no 'linking' going on, he is merely choosing to use his site as a client to to allow his members to view the groups posts.
Just because you take every single thread no matter how off topic, doesn't mean he should. I certainly don't! I don't have a lot of hard drive space and don't want to clog it up with garbage. I filter threads viciously and only allow on to my computer those which will be of interest. I figure horsepower guy is working from the same mindset.
Do you really think his members would be happy to hear the spiteful vendetta going on in here? They obviously like the site, which is why they are there. They no doubt enjoy reading this group - probably because he makes sure the more hateful threads don't get through. If they were to read the group in all it's glory on Google, they may not have such a favorable opinion of you guys.
Me
--
Legal Disclaimer:
This post is only to be viewed on my own computer and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul,
I link to the news group on your web site is a spectacular idea. Something along the lines of "rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Usenet Newsgroup. For all years of Ford Mustangs and Shelby Mustangs" (compliments of Tom Schmidt's ultimate Mustang links site) What is not allowed without the express written consent of every member here is the use of our posts in a web based forum such as that found on Christians web site. The mere fact that he is using our posts here to boost this web sites traffic count is the best case of blatant fraud by a slimeball web site owner that I have ever seen. He must truly lead a pitiful life, I feel sorry for anyone that is associated with such a scumbag.
Paul wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
at 14 Nov 2003, Bill S. [ snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net] wrote in

I use the original RAMFM logo (with permission) to do this. For all with websites who like to do this as well here's the HTML code. (you'll have to get the logo and get permission from the artist though)
<A HREF="http://groups.google.com/groups ? hl=en&lr=&group=rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang" TARGET="linkedpage"><IMG SRC="ramfm.gif" WIDTh="200" HEIGHT="114" BORDER="0" ALT=" The Rec.Autos.Makers.Ford.Mustang (RAMFM) Newsgroup. Meet your fellow Mustang/Shelby enthusiasts. "></A>
--
_ 1995 Mustang V6 Coupe (Bright Blue)
|_| Member Modern Mustangs of North America (MMNA)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/14/03 7:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Paul snipped-for-privacy@maps.on wrote...

Obviously *how* and *why* it's being done has to be taken into consideration. In this case... without all the details, I'd offer than any site that is "hijacking" material, in it's entirety from a "free" (free as in freedom not free as in "free beer") source to increase the "attractiveness" of a site, forum or publication, in a *commercial* (read as "for profit" or "money making") venture may be violating copyright laws and *is* at least violating ethical behavior.
(I hate it when I use run-on sentences, whewww. hehehe)
-= Francis Yarra =- fyarraATjunoDOTcom http://members.aol.com/fyarra001/ads - My drywall website http://members.aol.com/fyarra001 - My C64 website http://members.aol.com/prsnl99 - My personal website
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.commune (Nospam9212) wrote in

Francis, USENET posts aren't protected by copyright law.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/15/03 7:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, Joe snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote...

With no disrespect... convince me. How have you arrived at that decision? Please cite reference and research, so I can back up this claim. If I happen to be convinced, I'd like to be able to back up myself.
I'm listening....
-= Francis Yarra =- fyarraATjunoDOTcom http://members.aol.com/fyarra001/ads - My drywall website http://members.aol.com/fyarra001 - My C64 website http://members.aol.com/prsnl99 - My personal website
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.commune (Nospam9212) wrote in wrote...

I've already posted this, but I'll repeat for your benefit: The fact that something exists (this post, for example) doesn't mean it's protected by copyright law. Copyright protection is a proactive thing. If an artist writes a song, it's not automatically protected by copyright law. He/she has to proactively copyright the work. Very simple.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

=====================
Research,
- USCODE TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 5 Sec. 501. articles 106 through 121 Infringement of copyright
- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT, 2000 - Berne Copyright Convention - 1988 - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > Sec. 507. Limitations on actions Civil Actions.
--
disclaimer:

Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.commune (Nospam9212) wrote in

Francis, why do you keep quoting US Law, as if it has some authority here? This would be fine and dandy if Usenet was in the USA but it *isn't*. It isn't ANYWHERE. It's merely a distribution system. There is no law that applies to it, because there is no 'it'. I talked further about the fact that Newsgroups weren't in any fixed place, in my reply to your other post.
Here is an excerpt from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1 /
__________________
WHAT USENET IS NOT ------------------
1. Usenet is not an organization.
No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole. No one controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagated where, who can post articles, or anything else. There is no "Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group." You're on your own.
Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenet newsgroups. The newsgroup creation process is one such activity. But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with the organized activities it makes possible. If they were to stop tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.
2. Usenet is not a democracy.
Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole -- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "acy."(But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)
3. Usenet is not fair.
After all, who shall decide what's fair? For that matter, if someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him? Neither you nor I, that's certain.
4. Usenet is not a right.
Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech" to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of said computers have no right to stop them.
Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech, that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
5. Usenet is not a public utility.
Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly on Usenet, and little or no government control.
6. Usenet is not an academic network.
It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities, research labs or other academic institutions. Usenet originated with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideas and information is what such institutions are all about. But the passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today, by plain count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities.
7. Usenet is not an advertising medium.
Because of Usenet's roots in academia, and because Usenet depends so heavily on cooperation (sometimes among competitors), custom dictates that advertising be kept to a minimum. It is tolerated if it is infrequent, informative, and low-hype.
The "comp.newprod" newsgroup is NOT an exception to this rule: product announcements are screened by a moderator in an attempt to keep the hype-to-information ratio in check.
If you must engage in flackery for your company, use the "biz" hierarchy, which is explicitly "advertising-allowed", and which (like all of Usenet) is carried only by those sites that want it.
8. Usenet is not the Internet.
The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which are subsidized by various governments. It carries many kinds of traffic, of which Usenet is only one. And the Internet is only one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic.
9. Usenet is not a UUCP network.
UUCP is a protocol (actually a "protocol suite," but that's a technical quibble) for sending data over point-to-point connections, typically using dialup modems. Sites use UUCP to carry many kinds of traffic, of which Usenet is only one. And UUCP is only one of the various transports carrying Usenet traffic.
10. Usenet is not a United States network.
It is true that Usenet originated in the United States, and the fastest growth in Usenet sites has been there. Nowadays, however, Usenet extends worldwide.
The heaviest concentrations of Usenet sites outside the U.S. seem to be in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan.
Keep Usenet's worldwide nature in mind when you post articles. Even those who can read your language may have a culture wildly different from yours. When your words are read, they might not mean what you think they mean.
11. Usenet is not a UNIX network.
Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine. Among the systems used to read and post to Usenet are Vaxen running VMS,IBM mainframes, Amigas, Macintoshes and MS-DOS PCs.
12. Usenet is not an ASCII network.
The A in ASCII stands for "American". Sites in other countries often use character sets better suited to their language(s) of choice; such are typically, though not always, supersets of ASCII.Even in the United States, ASCII is not universally used: IBM mainframes use (shudder) EBCDIC. Ignore non-ASCII sites if you like, but they exist.
13. Usenet is not software.
There are dozens of software packages used at various sites to transport and read Usenet articles. So no one program or package can be called "the Usenet software."
Software designed to support Usenet traffic can be (and is) used for other kinds of communication, usually without risk of mixing the two. Such private communication networks are typically kept distinct from Usenet by the invention of newsgroup names different from the universally-recognized ones. _______________
Now do you see? The best US law could do would be to strangle those servers in the US from *carrying* Usenet traffic, but they couldn't stop it getting through on servers outside of America. Or servers (computers) in peoples homes linking to other servers in other countries outside the US.
They can't control this thing because it's not a 'thing'that can be pinned down.
Nobody actually really seems to know what Usenet is anymore it's like a monster out of control, and no government on earth can control it. Not even the USA.
Mack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.commune (Nospam9212) wrote in

You just spelled it out above in sec. 107: "...for purposes such as criticism, comment..."
USENET posts certainly aren't "works" as per the Library of Congress: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
And again, _none_ of this applies to non-U.S. things.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/03 8:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Joe snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote...

Probably a pre-emptive conditioned response on my part. I've heard most of this many times before. The general thinking is opposite of "copyright protected" is "public domain". Is there a third choice among the average debator?
I did see here somebody mentioning PD, I did not check to see if it was you or not... my mistake. Thanks for correcting you did not mention PD.

Thank you. At least *that* is out of the way.

Nope. Certain issues with monetary recoveries for damages may be rendered weak and/or powerless. The actual copyright owner never loses right to the *protection* of copyright. You may still have rights to "injucntive" restraint. Not being able to bring a lawsuit for monetary damages, does not mean you can't have the material removed from control of another person or entity.

Of course, using Mack as a back-up could be a big mistake. Are you assured Mack is very clueful? Or you just satisfied that he agrees with you so he must be right? When addressing you, I'd pefer to debate your ideas. I'll leave debating Mack's ideas with Mack.. Ok?

You may consider some of the info I provided opinion.... you may be correct. The info, although, was from TOS agreements, posts on misc.legal.comp, and various websites of attorneys and legal staff. While a lawyer may not always have the definitive and correct answers (after all, in a court case there's at least one lawyer that's gonna be wrong!!), I was hoping to make a point. That point was that *most* attorneys, legal personell, publishers, and others with a vested interest and experience in copyright infringement, have stated assuredly that USENET post are copyrighted.
If you deny those sources as simple "opinion", where does that leave us? I'd hoped that you would at least use that as a catalyst to do some research into what attorneys think about posts on USENET. Would it be fair to say that if the *bulk* of lawyer and publishers that have a vested interest in copyright law agree, USENET posts enjoy copyright protection, would that at least satisfy to some degree that there could be some substance to that claim? Or would it in
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.