i've used the Usenet archives for doing research on programming topics, for years and years. and now Google's gone and hidden-away all that information - decades of programmers discussing programming.

f-ers.

What were the circumstances under which Google acquired the Usenet archives?

A posting says there's a bug in the advanced search form and gives a workaround.

So while you're getting wacky behavior, it doesn't seem to be a policy decision.

(Related, although not evil as far as I can tell: the Google Groups "advanced search" page was rewritten recently. This is what I typically use to search Usenet. I think it lost the date range constraint for a while, but if so they screwed their heads back on and replaced it.)

I was able to follow the link with all cookies deleted and it worked (in IE 7, Firefox 3.0 and Opera 9.6). How very odd. Maybe it's because I'm coming from outside the US?

(I don't know exactly how www.google.com resolves, but I do know that it not only varies by location but does seem to go to different servers at different times. Given the number of hits they get, they have to be smart about spreading out the load.)

I don't know if this has anything to do with the missing Google results, but it might be worth trying the same search at different times if something seems unavailable initially.

IIRC, I first noticed it when I *was* signed into Gmail, but wasn't explicitly signed into Google as whole. I tried to follow a link from a post in James Nicoll's LiveJournal to a specific post in the Google Usenet archive, but in that case I got a message telling me that I couldn't see it unless I set up a GoogleGroups account.

There have been a few other times when I was searching for something I was sure was in there, and failed to get any hits, but without the "please log in first" message appearing. It didn't occur to me at the time, but I think it's the same behaviour Teresa's describing.

For those of you who, like me, use a newsreader or email program to access Usenet, I encourage you go look up alt.callahans and check it out that way.

And for those who didn't know and are wondering: Yes, that Callahan's. The community in question is modeled on and populated largely by fans of Spider Robinson's Callahan's Crosstime Saloon.

Needless to say, this makes the whole thing only more confusing.

I am not sure how much work was Google's, and how much Dejanews'.

The copyright on a work originally belongs to the author. Did anybody ever sue Google over massive copyright infringement of their Usenet postings?

Before Dejanews, Usenet used to be a largely ephemeral affair. I am not sure we have a right to tell Google how to keep its own database accessible. Me, I am more worried about the lying bit. If they'll lie about Usenet postings, they'll lie about any search domain.

I generally like Google's USENET interface, but as USENET was pretty much overwhelmed by trolls years ago, I don't follow many newsgroups these days.

I don't have a problem with Google's cookies as I use Google quite a bit. The only feature I pretty much avoid is gmail. I have a gmail account but it's only there to collect USENET spam.

I joined Usenet in 1987, when the notice requirement was still in effect. Some folks were putting copyright notices on their posts, then, but most posts didn't have them. (And I suspect lots of posters didn't care about whether their posts were copyrighted.)

But this sounds more like a bug than Evilness.

Basically, Google's interest is in giving you all your results because then you come back and they get more ad revenue (and they also get more data about behavior and related topics, generating more targeted ads, which generates more ad revenue). That's their main business model.

Chomping off search results thus makes no sense, outside of caching and slow propagation, since Google doesn't charge for their free services. You might think this is a gimmick perhaps to get people to sign up for GMail, but that would take too much work.

So yeah; bug.

Google did improve the Google Groups interface, but it's not something I use with any great amount of enthusiasm. This is mostly because I hate email lists and Usenet, though, not so much the interface (which I do like better than, say, Yahoo's).

As for evil...I say Google is the not-so-evil empire. They are not a co-op. They act, so far as I can tell, by and large decently, but that depends entirely on their management's goodwill.

Re Question:

I hesitate to give advice to you about anything publishing-related, but here goes!

One can claim a valid compilation copyright in a work comprised solely of original material created by others - but I believe the upshot of the various court cases involving phone books, directories, atlases, databases, et al. is that some element of creative work must be involved in the selection process. You've edited anthologies, so you know what that's about. If, like a phone book you simply throw in everything you're able to find, there is no selection process, no creativity, and nothing which can be copyrighted. My conclusion is that Google can hold no copyright on its Usenet archive, no matter how diligently they worked to assemble it.

Obviously, you should check this with a copyright lawyer before relying on it.

Observations:

3, 2: I believe your complaints 2 and 3 stem from the same problem - Google Groups is now primarily in the hands of people who have never used Usenet and are hardly aware of its existence. Everything I've seen of it in the last few years says they don't begin to understand Usenet. They're modelling its operation on private mailing lists like Yahoo's groups, but they don't seem to understand those very well either.

The Google people who originally built it up from their acquisition of the Deja News archive clearly understood its importance and were Usenet users (though IIRC they had some bad policy choices regarding posting from Google at times.) I am guessing they're no longer involved with the project.

At some point a while back Google Groups changed the interface in ways that really obscured that there was an underlying, pre-existing network of newsgroups. Then they changed it some more. As I recall, Deja News had done pretty much the same thing shortly before they lost all remnant of interest from the public and folded.

Unfortunately (in this respect) Google is unlikely to run out of funding for it no matter how much they manage to confuse and turn away potential users or to obscure valuable information.

1. As it happens, I have a fairly cookie-free computer myself because Friday night's automatic update managed to kill my home Windows installation somehow; I had to reinstall Windows and then start reinstalling all the programs I use, so I am fairly sure I have no Google login cookies myself. Going directly to the Google Groups page takes me to a "please sign in" page, like you.

The link nonetheless works for me. I conclude it's a bug and probably a transient one.

TW is my service provider, but I don't track any Usenet groups that I could check and see if this is in fact true. It was widely reported a couple of months or more ago.

For stuff posted to moderated groups, the moderator owns a compilation copyright on the selection.

DejaGoogle could reasonably claim that it's providing a Usenet server with a custom interface, and therefore no more of a copyright infringement than any other server.

Google recently changed the advanced groups search page, and apparently screwed up some stuff.

(Not to drag anyone kicking and screaming back to the '90s or anything.)

(Also not States-based.)

(Usenet also carried the postings of my late brother, and of other friends who have passed away.)

In the past couple of years, Google's Usenet search has degraded considerably. I don't understand why, but I will follow the present thread with great interest.

On the other hand, one of Google's known (and arguably bad) habits is testing out new, and quite possibly buggy, versions of their stuff on a small, randomly selected portion of their normal userbase. So, it's at least possible that Teresa was seeing a new version of Groups query processing which, for whatever reason, doesn't deal well at all with diabetic browsers rejecting their cookies.

Google Groups' search feature has been ridiculously buggy for more months than I have fingers, their browsing interface gets worse every time they change it, and they're not even bothering to filter all the spam that their portal lets people spew across Usenet. If there weren't a number of decent people relying on it to access rasfc, I'd pray that Google would just admit the experiment's been a failure and turn the archives over to someone else.

AIUI, there's a very good chance that the act of posting to a system that you understand at the time you do so is intended to distribute copies of your message to anyone who wants to read it implicitly grants "the system" a license to do that. Usenet is a very loosely defined system, and it's quite clear that google are as likely to be beneficiaries of that license as anyone else.

If you notify them that you do not wish them to distribute your messages, they may be legally obliged to cease doing so. OTOH, I doubt this matters very much because I believe they honour such requests anyway.

As to the completeness of their archive, a lot of the stuff I posted between 1994 and 1996 is missing. I was a heavy poster in that time frame, but searching for my email address from the period only turns up 49 threads, many of which are lacking my messages but include people quoting them. I guess this is about 10% of what I posted. At least this thread appears to be mostly intact. That was history being made. Or at least plotted.

The details of that copyright grab were so similar to those of other companies, scattered back over my experience of the Internet, that I suspect that few lawyers know anything of the legal history. Worse, they cannot didstinguish between the copyright there might be in the design of a web page, or the design of a book cover, and the words than another person has written. Somewhere, it seems, there is a piece of aggressive catch-ll copyright boilerplate which is used by everyone.

I'm also told that there are clauses in standard publishers' contracts which competent agents strike out on sight, and the publishers don't argue the point.

How many internet users have an agent? What ISP would accept a customer sending back a contract with an amended copyright clause? It may be nothing more than inertial stupidity, but it all feels part of the way in which an ISP seems able to buy and sell customers as if they were slaves. And Google is tainted by being a part of that world, and apparently having less control over its lawyers than it does over its programmers.

The Internet Archive would be a logical choice to manage an archive of USENET.

When I first saw the thread title, I though, oh no, what repressive regime have they added to serve out their collection of censored search engine results?

What newsreader software do people use?
What if you read news on more than one computer?

Now here's question: because Google sells ads against usenet, does this unambiguously establish a value for those texts, so that someone could finally could be liable under USC 1801--whatever for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material worth more than $1K?

I worked for Lycos for nearly five months in early 1996 when they were still based in Pittsburgh. A computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon came up with Lycos, and it was practically the first Web search engine in the mid-90s. It was then sold to a company that was basically marketing company.

This company had no clue about the Internet. Nada. It was really pretty appalling.

At times, they did not update the Lycos search catalog for two solid months. I remember that in particular because I was the person answering the "letters to the Webmaster" E-mail. As you might exepect, many people asked us why their sites were not listed. That was why. Not that I could say that. I could only give them generalities along the lines of "We will be updating the catalog soon." Gaak.

I made a bunch of proposals about things they should be doing. One of the Lycos guys (a Pittsburgh-based programmer) and I often made the exact same proposals. Two things we both pushed them on were archiving and offering a USENET groups interface and archiving things like CNN, AP et.c. (as ClariNET was doing on the Internet in those days). Lycos ignored every suggestion we made. I quit in utter disgust a few months later.

Google pretty much implemented every suggestion we ever made to Lycos (and a whole lot more).

TW did close down their *own* servers, but I'm a TW subscriber and I most certainly can access other Usenet servers, such as news.individual.net .

The way you phrased it, it sounded as if there were some Great Firewall of Time Warner. Not so.

How come there isn't a simple transparent tool available for keeping track of who's keeping track of you, on a realtime basis?

______________________________________________
"He found himself gazing into a glittering, interested brown eye ... The chimp was looking through the keyhole to see what the psychologist was doing."

-- Murray Leinster, "Keyhole"

I do know that I like it, though.

That is true, but IMHO the established law for private letters doesn't really match the fact pattern for Usenet postings.

Posting to the Usenet medium inherently implies the request that it be copied electronically to as many participating machines as possible, with no control over how they may redistribute it or how long they may keep it. (If you don't assume that's implied by posting, then you're fundamentally asserting that Usenet should never have been allowed to work.) The limits and boundaries of that implied permission could be debated endlessly and indeed have been, but in my non-lawyer's opinion, its presence should be enough to make Usenet postings a very different case than private letters.

Building on your suggestion differently, though, I wonder if there's any copyright precedent involving reproduction of "open letters" published as advertisements or issued with a request to circulate them?

Posting to the Usenet medium inherently implies the request that it be copied electronically to as many participating machines as possible, with no control over how they may redistribute it or how long they may keep it.

Or, in other words, UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED!

(I'm very sorry. Usenet nostalgia and all.)

Barry, #31, I haven't been on Usenet for some months, but I use Agent for news and email. Using two computers is a problem because the reader resides on the computer -- there's no synch command. You need something resident on a server if you want to use more than one computer.

I remember on SHWI someone asking what if USENET had become the WWW; I still think that wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could solve the globally-unique stable link problem.

Martin @ 44 -- I was going to suggest exactly the same thing.

There are lists of free Usenet servers which are ongoing concerns out there. (Google them, perhaps?) I found my current one, a Polish server, using one. I used to use the German cis.dfn.de, but my German has since deteriorated sufficently that I can no longer work out how to set it up.

I'd like to get an Eee and use it both as desktop and laptop and then I wouldn't have to worry about news & email when I travel. Of course, I'd like money to fall from the sky, too.

Anyway, I digress. What's an Eee and why do you prefer it? I thought all the computer mavens preferred iBooks and such?

Google, the not-so-evil empire,
Amazon, the medium-evil empire,
Microsoft, the evil empire,
Autodesk, a more evil empire,
Exxon-Mobile the eeeeeevil empire,
Haliburton, the spawn of hell

If you need any help translating anything from German to set that server up, I'd be glad to help.