Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from Deja.com
Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup Search
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service. This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive (dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property. Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
"We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable information sources on the Internet."
"The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to millions of Google users worldwide."
The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
About Google Inc. With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards; WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
###
Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.
Google Contacts: David Krane 650-930-3596 dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey (650) 930-3524 ci...@google.com
>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from >Deja.com
So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing (author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
Peter B. Steiger Cheyenne, WY ---- If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be returned to your postmaster, eh!
In article <3a8840cd.187347...@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez: >>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from >>Deja.com
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing >(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the >date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
It looks like they've just fed the deja database into google's software, try it like a web search. Just enter 'Steiger'.
Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search engine.
IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought them.
Jay -- * Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * * newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org * * moderator contact address: b5mod-requ...@deepthot.org * * personal contact address: deneb...@deepthot.org *
see....@for.email.address wrote in <3a8840cd.187347...@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez: >>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets >>from Deja.com
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing >(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the >date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
In article <slrn98gdhm.s6.grobe+n...@worf.netins.net>, Jonathan Grobe <> wrote:
>[Any comment on this press release?]
It's about the best possible news, overall. I expect there'll be some bobbles and growing pains, but I can't imagine any company that could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far worse. -- --- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by a...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/ Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
'Gender' isn't a definition, it's a heuristic. --Aahz
> > Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search > > engine.
> > IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought > > them.
> I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even > honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on > x-no-archive.
Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they honour an experimental header?
Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that isn't defined in the RFCs.
-- Rob Kelk Personal address: robk...@ottawa.com Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they > honour an experimental header?
Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view > - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public > forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in > the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that > isn't defined in the RFCs.
Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
> > Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they > > honour an experimental header?
> Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means > to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving > of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent > of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
<snip>
-- Rob Kelk Personal address: robk...@ottawa.com Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Rob Kelk wrote: > Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I > haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my copyrgihts.
> And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
Since this is a specifically actionalble (i.e., can sue for $$$) part of the act, I wonder how long it's going to take someone to take a pot shot at them.
> > Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search > > engine.
> > IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought > > them.
> I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even > honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on > x-no-archive.
And all these hits have what in common? The words "x-no-archive" in the /Subject/ or the /Body/ of the message.
Also:
+--from http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html -- | | 10.I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I remove articles | that I've posted from Google's archive? | | We are sympathetic to those who would like for their | previous Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google | Groups. Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, | and we will not archive any newly posted articles that | contain this text in the header. A request to remove | articles that do not have this header is known in the | industry as a "nuke" request; Google is not in a | position to automatically remove such posts in this beta | version. | | It is Google's policy to respond to notices of alleged | infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium | Copyright Act in an appropriate manner under such Act | and other applicable intellectual property laws, | including the removal or disabling of access to material | claimed to be the subject of infringing activity. For | more information, see our Terms of Service. | | 11.Why are old posts that I nuked showing up when I search for | them on Google? | | Google's current usenet search includes postings from | August 2000 onward that have been archived by Google. As | soon as possible, Google will use the information | contained in the Deja archive to begin honoring nuke | requests made by Deja users. | +-------------------------------------------------------
+ [Any comment on this press release?] + + Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from + Deja.com
Yeah, Deja might become useful again...
James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
+ > Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means + > to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving + > of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent + > of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
+ Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I + haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a mass-media end-round on 20+ years of Fair Use bought and paid for by RIAA and MPAA (recording and motion picture associations, respectively). With any luck, it should be ruled unconstitutional by the end of the year...
+ And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
One would think so, but when as that stopped a lawyer?
James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
> I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in > the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK, > this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in > Ron's search...
Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:33:30 -0500, did Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net>, to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet decree...
>"J.J. Pearce" wrote: >> I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in >> the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK, >> this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in >> Ron's search...
>Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized >that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like >NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.
IIRC, if "X-No-Archive: yes" was the *first* line in the article body, deja would honor it.
-- Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now." Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
> > I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in > > the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK, > > this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in > > Ron's search...
> Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized > that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like > NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.
doesn't matter. If it's not a header it shouldn't be treated like one. That's just like Outlook Express pretending that begin something.txt is an attachment end when it's not.
If the words "x-no-archive" appear in the body or the subject, a search on these words should certainly reveal them and it would be rude to simply assume that it's a header.
> > Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I > > haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
> Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to > make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is > one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the > US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my > copyrgihts.
> > And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant > and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
> Since this is a specifically actionalble (i.e., can sue for $$$) part of > the act, I wonder how long it's going to take someone to take a pot shot > at them.
Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks. -- Rob Kelk Personal address: robk...@ottawa.com Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
In news.groups, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> writes:
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it > meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to > violate it.
You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by immediately post-acquisition chaos. Getting this detail right before they said anything would have been nice, but you don't know what sorts of time constraints they may have been under to do *something* and I find it unlikely that making the whole archive disappear until they sorted out that detail would have been viable from the marketing standpoint. Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what information they got from Deja.
I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or so to let things settle down.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:18:23 -0500, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote: >Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to >make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is >one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the >US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my >copyrgihts.
Hmm. Where is your post with x-no-archive in the headers archived by google since they agreed to honor that header?
Did you read the hits turned up by your search on why x-no-archive doesn't work?
sdb -- | Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com | | Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. #### change ^ to @ #### | They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "Don't Tread On Me!"
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in <3A885A05.4B359...@spamcop.net>:
>to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the >archiving of the message.
Utter bull. When you post to Usenet you implicitly agree that you are speaking in a public forum. If you didn't give anyone permission to archive your message it wouldn't appear on Usenet _period_. Are you going to give each and every server on Usenet your message is distributed to permission individually? Did you give Skycache permission? Did you give Usenetserver permission? Of course not. What are they doing that's different from Deja? Holding on to it longer? Hell, Giganews has 3 months of text retention. What's the line between long retention and an archive? Who decides that? You? Each poster? Fine, Deja isn't an archive, it's a news server with really long retention. End of discussion.
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the >law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
Peter B. Steiger wrote: > I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the > Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
I concur. Deja's search engine was better, the display of matching articles was better and the speed was always fine (as far as I've seen)--not that Google is a slouch on speed, but if it's not broken... I also liked how one could retreive the text version of an article (just the article, no markup). Finally, I liked how one could retreive an article given its message-ID. I wish they had kept the old interface and search engine around until they were ready to go with their new stuff. I hope their new database allows these features too.
