"Debbie Deutsch" wrote in message
. 71.230...
"Space Cowboy" wrote in
ink.net:
Any of my ideas

Copyright protects words, not ideas

You're right, ideas are protected by patent. Words are protected by
copyright. However I can still sue for illegal patents under copyright
laws. If I publish how to build a better mousetrap you can't patent it.

Jim

For better or worse there is still (mis)information here you can't find
anywhere else. I know I've contributed original information not found
elsewhere and so have others.

Jim

"Michael Plant" wrote in message
...
Space link.net11/16/03


All of my posts have an implicit copyright which I stated in this
newsgroup
soon after it was formed. Any of my ideas which appear in published
form
without my permission is a violation of the copyright laws of the US. I
don't know what's worse someone fleecing our pockets or our ideas.

Jim


Jim, taking your implied question seriously, I would say that our ideas
are
in many cases worse.

Michael

You specifically supercede from the international Berne convention by
stating the copyright laws under which you publish. It doesn't have to be
the country of your nationality. This is a common practice in the media.
By default it is as you say.

Jim

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2003, Space Cowboy posted the following to
rec.food.drink.tea:

All of my posts have an implicit copyright which I stated in
this newsgroup soon after it was formed. Any of my ideas which
appear in published form without my permission is a violation of
the copyright laws of the US. I don't know what's worse someone
fleecing our pockets or our ideas.

Actually, anything posted to this group is copyright of the original
poster - providing said poster either created the post or had the
right to post it.

There is no such thing as "implicit" or "explicit" copyright, and
since 1989, one does not need to declare copyright for text to bey
copyrighted in the U.S. Berne convention copyright policies are now
pretty much the standard.

In fact, one has to explicity state that something IS public domain
for it to be so.

--
Derek

"Space Cowboy" wrote in newsm6ub.3743$sb4.2063
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Debbie Deutsch" wrote in message
. 71.230...
"Space Cowboy" wrote in
ink.net:
Any of my ideas

Copyright protects words, not ideas

You're right, ideas are protected by patent. Words are protected by
copyright. However I can still sue for illegal patents under copyright
laws. If I publish how to build a better mousetrap you can't patent it.

Jim



It's not a matter of copyright, it is the fact of prior discovery of the
idea that could block a patent application. You could publish the plans
for a better mousetrap and put them in the public domain and the guy who
wants to patent the idea would still have a problem (maybe even a bigger
one).

Debbie

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-
away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if and when
it is found by spammers.

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when Space Cowboy
stepped up to the microphone and muttered:

You specifically supercede from the international Berne
convention by stating the copyright laws under which you
publish. It doesn't have to be the country of your nationality.
This is a common practice in the media. By default it is as you
say.

And given that your domain is a US domain, this suggests that you
are posting under US copyright laws, which since 1989 have been in
agreement with the Berne Convention.

If your local law follows the international standard, there's no
difference.

--
Derek

The harder you try, the dumber you look.

David M. 11/17/03


Michael Plant wrote:

David M. 11/17/03



Steven Hay wrote:


So what does this mean for his book? It certainly seems that if someone
post something in a public forum, they are expecting others to see it
freely. As long as a person cites their sources, is there a problem?


Copyright has nothing to do with citing sources. (That's an academic
issue.) Copyright is, surprise, the right to copy the text. You can't
take my novel, publish it under your name, and give me credit in a
footnote. You need my permission to publish the novel. You need the
permission of the copyright holder to copy the material.

dmh



David,

I believe that when it comes to music -- how relevant this is, I don't know
-- you can record and sell somebody else's song, but you must pay royalties.
You don't need the writer or original singer's (or whoever/whatever
copyright holder's) permission to release their song on disk. I'd guess
that the internet chips are not all in yet when it comes to copyright. (I
admittedly know nothing of this, however.) Come to think of it, disregard.

Michael

Well, you can do whatever you please, but you'll be breaking the law.
You need the permission of the copyright holder to record the song legally.

dmh



OK. Taking your knowledge here at face value, please tell me when the law
changed, since it was firmly in place as I described it (regarding music,
that is) 35 years ago.

Michael

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when Michael Plant
stepped up to the microphone and muttered:

David M. 11/17/03


Michael Plant wrote:

David M. 11/17/03



Steven Hay wrote:


So what does this mean for his book? It certainly seems
that if someone post something in a public forum, they are
expecting others to see it freely. As long as a person
cites their sources, is there a problem?


Copyright has nothing to do with citing sources. (That's an
academic issue.) Copyright is, surprise, the right to copy
the text. You can't take my novel, publish it under your
name, and give me credit in a footnote. You need my
permission to publish the novel. You need the permission of
the copyright holder to copy the material.

dmh



David,

I believe that when it comes to music -- how relevant this is,
I don't know -- you can record and sell somebody else's song,
but you must pay royalties. You don't need the writer or
original singer's (or whoever/whatever copyright holder's)
permission to release their song on disk. I'd guess that the
internet chips are not all in yet when it comes to copyright.
(I admittedly know nothing of this, however.) Come to think of
it, disregard.

Michael

Well, you can do whatever you please, but you'll be breaking
the law. You need the permission of the copyright holder to
record the song legally.

dmh



OK. Taking your knowledge here at face value, please tell me
when the law changed, since it was firmly in place as I
described it (regarding music, that is) 35 years ago.

Actually, without the owner's permission, than can obtain an
injunction to stop you from making copies of the album with their
content on it.

You have no right to distribute it without permission, even if you
are sending them royalty checks.

--
Derek

It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.

Michael Plant wrote in message ...
11/16/03



Can you please tell me what sort of answer you couldn't find in the
tea books which are avilable in the market right now? Just looking for
some of your and other readers advice.


Ripon,

Now there is a *very* good question. I would like to read a book that
includes detailed and accurate descriptions of tea varietals, tea production
methods, and tea gardens. My wish is for a book that is technical in nature,
right up to, but not including, the chemical formulas.

Conversely, what I don't want is a book that tells me how to brew different
types of tea, and worse, one with recipes.

Michael

Michael:

Thanks Michael. I am answering your comment because it is related with
my question. As far as I understand-nobody writes a book with out
knowing about copy right law. if anyone is so interested about law,
they better browse some related web sites. Why here? Did i ask anyone
about copy right law?

So please if anyone want to help me with your meaningful advice you
are most welcome. I have my highest respect to all the tea lovers
around here. It is your choice. Thanks again.

Ripon
(From Bangladesh)

Debbie Deutsch wrote:

Copyright protects words, not ideas. Let's say you posted an article that
said "Tea smoked over applewood chips could be delicious" and elucidated
over the course of a paragraph. (No, I am not suggesting that is true or
you'd agree with it, just making up an example.) The words would be
protected - nobody could use that paragraph as their own. However
copyright does NOT keep someone from actually smoking some tea with
applewood chips (maybe even selling it) or from stating the same idea using
different wording (e.g. "We might make a yummy American version of lapsong
souchong by smoking tea using applewood".)

No need to make this discussion so hypothetical. Remember my great new
marketing idea I came up with in response to one of Candie's posts?
Here it is again, slightly edited:

----------------------------------------

One highlight:

"Tropical Fruit Tea Sampler #1

This is the best way to try a
group of our different Flavored
teas. You get 1 oz bags of 5
different loose teas. Teas included:

Coconut
Pina Colada
Pineapple
Mango
Banana"

I like to make these with lots of sugar, freeze in ice-cube trays, and
then whirl in a blender with a little leftover tea. I call it
"Daiqui-tea"! It's like a Slurpee for gourmets!

....if you use my name "Daiqui-tea", Candie, I'll sue
your ass for copyright infringement.

-------------------------------------------

Let's say Candie, enterprising businesswoman she is, decides to go ahead
and steal this piece of brilliance and open up a chain of hugely
successful Daiqui-Tea stands -- naming them "Daiqui-Tea", mind you -- in
malls everywhere. Would she truly be guilty of copyright infringement
just by virtue of my coming up with the name first? More importantly,
could I, in fact, sue Candie's ass? For money?

--crymad

Michael Plant wrote:


OK. Taking your knowledge here at face value, please tell me when the law
changed, since it was firmly in place as I described it (regarding music,
that is) 35 years ago.

Michael


My books are packed at the moment, but I believe the copyright law
underwent substantial revision in 1976 and 2001 (the latter known as the
Sonny Bono Act).

Now, it may be that there was, or is, a clearing house for music rights,
such that all you had to do to record a song that was listed with them
was to register with the clearing house. That would, however, amount to
getting permission. Would your experience apply to songs not so listed?

dmh

crymad wrote:


Debbie Deutsch wrote:

Copyright protects words, not ideas. Let's say you posted an article that
said "Tea smoked over applewood chips could be delicious" and elucidated
over the course of a paragraph. (No, I am not suggesting that is true or
you'd agree with it, just making up an example.) The words would be
protected - nobody could use that paragraph as their own. However
copyright does NOT keep someone from actually smoking some tea with
applewood chips (maybe even selling it) or from stating the same idea using
different wording (e.g. "We might make a yummy American version of lapsong
souchong by smoking tea using applewood".)


No need to make this discussion so hypothetical. Remember my great new
marketing idea I came up with in response to one of Candie's posts?
Here it is again, slightly edited:

----------------------------------------

One highlight:

"Tropical Fruit Tea Sampler #1

This is the best way to try a
group of our different Flavored
teas. You get 1 oz bags of 5
different loose teas. Teas included:

Coconut
Pina Colada
Pineapple
Mango
Banana"

I like to make these with lots of sugar, freeze in ice-cube trays, and
then whirl in a blender with a little leftover tea. I call it
"Daiqui-tea"! It's like a Slurpee for gourmets!

...if you use my name "Daiqui-tea", Candie, I'll sue
your ass for copyright infringement.

-------------------------------------------

Let's say Candie, enterprising businesswoman she is, decides to go ahead
and steal this piece of brilliance and open up a chain of hugely
successful Daiqui-Tea stands -- naming them "Daiqui-Tea", mind you -- in
malls everywhere. Would she truly be guilty of copyright infringement
just by virtue of my coming up with the name first? More importantly,
could I, in fact, sue Candie's ass? For money?

--crymad

No. You would be claiming ownership of a single word and of an idea
that you did not register. Now, if you had registered Daiqui-Tea as a
trademark, you would have grounds for a suit. But you can't copyright a
single word.

dmh

"David M. Harris" wrote:

crymad wrote:

Let's say Candie, enterprising businesswoman she is, decides to go ahead
and steal this piece of brilliance and open up a chain of hugely
successful Daiqui-Tea stands -- naming them "Daiqui-Tea", mind you -- in
malls everywhere. Would she truly be guilty of copyright infringement
just by virtue of my coming up with the name first? More importantly,
could I, in fact, sue Candie's ass? For money?


No. You would be claiming ownership of a single word and of an idea
that you did not register. Now, if you had registered Daiqui-Tea as a
trademark, you would have grounds for a suit. But you can't copyright a
single word.

Darn. Well, this still doesn't rule out the option of _kicking_
Candie's ass, does it? Behind her flagship Daiqui-Tea stand out by the
dumpster?

--crymad

"David M. Harris" wrote in
:

Now, it may be that there was, or is, a clearing house for music
rights, such that all you had to do to record a song that was listed
with them was to register with the clearing house. That would,
however, amount to getting permission. Would your experience apply to
songs not so listed?

I'm far from an authority on this, but I believe it has something to do
with performance rights organizations such as BMI, ASCAP and SESAC.

The usual thing for songwriters, I think, is not to sit and wait for people
to come ask "permission"--just to send in the money. That's what I'd want,
anyway :O) The performance right orgs exist to facilitate this.

I may be wrong about the permission thing, but it does seem to me that
having to ask please every single time a song is performed or whatever
would be a impedement to the flow of money, and what hungry songwriter (or
publisher) would want that?

Possibly useful information he

http://www.musicbootcamp.com/performance_rights.shtml

--
fD

/17/03

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when Michael Plant
stepped up to the microphone and muttered:

David M. 11/17/03


Michael Plant wrote:

David M. 11/17/03



Steven Hay wrote:


So what does this mean for his book? It certainly seems
that if someone post something in a public forum, they are
expecting others to see it freely. As long as a person
cites their sources, is there a problem?


Copyright has nothing to do with citing sources. (That's an
academic issue.) Copyright is, surprise, the right to copy
the text. You can't take my novel, publish it under your
name, and give me credit in a footnote. You need my
permission to publish the novel. You need the permission of
the copyright holder to copy the material.

dmh



David,

I believe that when it comes to music -- how relevant this is,
I don't know -- you can record and sell somebody else's song,
but you must pay royalties. You don't need the writer or
original singer's (or whoever/whatever copyright holder's)
permission to release their song on disk. I'd guess that the
internet chips are not all in yet when it comes to copyright.
(I admittedly know nothing of this, however.) Come to think of
it, disregard.

Michael

Well, you can do whatever you please, but you'll be breaking
the law. You need the permission of the copyright holder to
record the song legally.

dmh



OK. Taking your knowledge here at face value, please tell me
when the law changed, since it was firmly in place as I
described it (regarding music, that is) 35 years ago.

Actually, without the owner's permission, than can obtain an
injunction to stop you from making copies of the album with their
content on it.

You have no right to distribute it without permission, even if you
are sending them royalty checks.

Aha. Misunderstanding, caused by me, I suspect. I was *not* referring to
copying albums in any format; I was referring to producing the same song,
sung by a different singer.

Michael

David M. 11/17/03


Michael Plant wrote:


OK. Taking your knowledge here at face value, please tell me when the law
changed, since it was firmly in place as I described it (regarding music,
that is) 35 years ago.

Michael


My books are packed at the moment, but I believe the copyright law
underwent substantial revision in 1976 and 2001 (the latter known as the
Sonny Bono Act).

Now, it may be that there was, or is, a clearing house for music rights,
such that all you had to do to record a song that was listed with them
was to register with the clearing house. That would, however, amount to
getting permission. Would your experience apply to songs not so listed?

dmh



I'm afraid I don't have more specific information, nor did I ever, beyond
the bare fact. Anyway, I'm sure there are lots of subtleties behind it, as
you suggest.