Re: New thread on Google Piracy
 

> > > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'."
> > >
> > > These messages are ours, not Google's. We are the world. We are the children, Google
> > > is not our message daddy.
> >
> > Again, it is illegal to infringe and distribute messages that in general contain questions of
> > specific personal interests to daily life. In a way its like distributing emails or phone
> > conversations. There is an immense human rights violation to what Google does, because
> > of what the intent of the original usenet was, and what it became after many people around
> > the world raising their voices when DejaNews announced usenet archiving and private
> > distribution of usenet.
> >
> > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'."
> >
> > Piracy is nice in the movies, but in real life, its a serious human rights problem, at the least,
> > and this problem effects all message "contributors". Should we all be at use at all times
> > and be sectlike contributors to usenet and its netiquette?
> >
> > In the Sunstitute Netiquette, I wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> > Hello.
> > How are you?
> > Doing fine.
> > Where are you going?
> > I can't say. (pointing at camera)
> > Ah, at use, tavarish.
> > At use!
> > (going on their ways)
> >
> > - -
> >
> > At use, tavarish!
> > Good day at use!
> > I see you are jolly today!
> > Quite indeed, jolly jolly, thank you.
> > Can I ask a question?
> > Is it of any use?
> > Of course.
> > Go ahead, tell me.
> > So who is usenet for?
> > For us, of course, who else.
> > And who are we?
> > We are at use!
> > Indeed.
> > At use tavarish.
> > At use indeed! Jolly on!
> > (aparting)
> >
> > - -
> >
> > Child getting his first 'at use' forehead camera.
> >
> > Child touching camera on his forehead: Mommy, who made us
> > like this?
> >
> > Mommy: Well, AT USE made us like this. Congratulations.
> > You are now officially at use. At use! (waving bye), go to
> > the streets, go go, try out your new camera, and I'll check
> > you right here on our home computer, an AT USE compatible
> > computer, at use my child!
> >
> > Child: At use mommy!
> >
> > - -
> >
> > Kid goes out to the street. He is seeing a group of people
> > telling a tavarish: "Tavarish, you are not allowed on this
> > street any more. You are plunked, and killfiled, and we are
> > making an official record of the event. Please take your now
> > humiliated life at use elsewhere. You are of "no more use here
> > any more".
> >
> > Someone on the street: Hey kid, be a good boy at use, you don't
> > want to end up like that man over there, being thrown out of
> > this street. At use, kid!
> >
> > Kid: Thank you for the advice, at use, tavarish.
> >
> >
> > (We need to reconsider, and tell Google that they shouldn't archive and distribute
> > usenet messages, as that infringes on personal rights of privacy on the great sea,
> > of the Internet. Maybe not so great when it turns out that Google is the primary
> > private archiver of usenet at large, and abusing basic humanity with its piracy scheme.
> > Unfortunately I am speaking the realm, that standing up against a great privacy infringment
> > is the correct thing, especially in the days that a company is running a class action
> > lawsuit against Google's piracy of millions of books they scanned from public libraries.
> >
> > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'." People are alive,
> > and not, that, which Google wants people to be not people, but sectlike contributors
> > to their mad piracies."
>
> Archiving messages which are of personal interests and conducts, are just like Orwell's
> 1984 or Ceaucescu's street cameras. A severe violation of human rights, in fact, such
> human rights violations are in general considered dictatorships and acts of crimes against
> humanity (in the USA considered crimes against the public, or against the civilians, and
> thus a civil rights violation.)

Contunuing: In reality, Google infringing on public privacy matters is Google Orwellianizing
the public with its pirating spirit. They are one of a kind company. When Microsoft has
one privacy leak (security leak) in their products, its a headline. But a different kind of
privacy is violated by Google, one that unilaterally creates an open and shared and a distributed
and privately controlled environment over the usenet as a whole, with a customer service
to usenet as a whole, invalidating other smaller-sized usenet products, setting unilateral...
am I a human rights lawyer already? Just because I am taking a human rights shot at this
megalomania, and see the reality involving this privacy abuse and its sadistic empirical
corporate ... bla bla