You plug in copyright+Berne in Google Usenet you get 56k hits. In this case
add another one. I'm not going there again. Anyway Berne is one of the top
10 Usenet posts.

Jim

"Derek" wrote in message
...
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.

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

/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.

In which case, you still would need permission of the person or
organization holding copyright to the lyrics and score.

--
Derek

Leaders are like eagles. We don't have either of them here.

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

You plug in copyright+Berne in Google Usenet you get 56k hits.
In this case add another one. I'm not going there again.
Anyway Berne is one of the top 10 Usenet posts.

56,000? Heck, I'm not even going to go there the first time.

--
Derek

Leaders are like eagles. We don't have either of them here.

Remember you still need permission to use anyone's opinion for a book. For
example don't assume tepid tea temperatures for certain teas or multiple
infusions for others are part of the public domain. It's only discussed in
this ng. The rest of the world boils water for tea. You'll never find in
any publication about altitude and the effects for making tea. I could go
on and on on the wealth of knowledge specific to this group. So take your
panhandling somewhere else.

Jim

"Ripon" wrote in message
om...
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)

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

Remember you still need permission to use anyone's opinion for a
book. For example don't assume tepid tea temperatures for
certain teas or multiple infusions for others are part of the
public domain. It's only discussed in this ng. The rest of the
world boils water for tea. You'll never find in any publication
about altitude and the effects for making tea. I could go on
and on on the wealth of knowledge specific to this group. So
take your panhandling somewhere else.

A "wealth of knowledge", much of which came from somewhere else.

For example, I learned about water temperature and multiple
infusions from my local tea shop, not from this newsgroup.

Just because it isn't online elsewhere and it isn't published does
not make it "knowledge specific to this group."

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most of
them don't post here.

--
Derek

Leaders are like eagles. We don't have either of them here.

Derek wrote in message ...

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most of
them don't post here.

Derek:

Thats a very important point. Some one here always forget it.

Ripon
(From Bangladesh)

crymad wrote:

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?

U.S. Copyright law says nothing about putting in a phone call to Bruno
and having someone kneecapped.

dmh

There's a big difference between suggestions in the group on better cups of
tea from multiple infusions and the market practice of selling expensive
teas to gullible customers suggesting they recoup their costs by reusing the
leaves. The rest of the world doesn't buy tea from a website or tea shoppe.

Jim

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

Remember you still need permission to use anyone's opinion for a
book. For example don't assume tepid tea temperatures for
certain teas or multiple infusions for others are part of the
public domain. It's only discussed in this ng. The rest of the
world boils water for tea. You'll never find in any publication
about altitude and the effects for making tea. I could go on
and on on the wealth of knowledge specific to this group. So
take your panhandling somewhere else.

A "wealth of knowledge", much of which came from somewhere else.

For example, I learned about water temperature and multiple
infusions from my local tea shop, not from this newsgroup.

Just because it isn't online elsewhere and it isn't published does
not make it "knowledge specific to this group."

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most of
them don't post here.

--
Derek

Remember you need his permission to use that in a book. Idjut.

Jim

"Ripon" wrote in message
m...
Derek wrote in message
...

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most of
them don't post here.

Derek:

Thats a very important point. Some one here always forget it.

Ripon
(From Bangladesh)

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

There's a big difference between suggestions in the group on
better cups of tea from multiple infusions and the market
practice of selling expensive teas to gullible customers
suggesting they recoup their costs by reusing the leaves.

Yes, so? What the heck does this have to do with copyright of
usenet posts, especially considering that I've had the same
conversation offline?

The rest of the world doesn't buy tea from a website or tea
shoppe.

The "rest of the world" doesn't post here, either. That doesn't
mean that our ideas are unique or necessarily original.

--
Derek

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.

[ Edited for top posting ]

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

"Ripon" wrote in message
m...
Derek wrote in message
...

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most
of them don't post here.

Derek:

Thats a very important point. Some one here always forget it.

Remember you need his permission to use that in a book. Idjut.

Jim

"Idjut"? This coming from the guy who thinks opinions expressed in
this group are unique to this group?

Good grief.

That's it. I'm going to Vancouver. I need a vacation.

--
Derek

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.

When they start to repeat themselves it is time to bail out. The rest of
the world won't
give a squat about another tea book. Reminds me of a time when some buffoon
from Britain was trying to impress me with his knowledge of tea and never
heard of o'clock teas. So take your sticky notes with the website tea
addresses and order the oldest puerh you can find and report back how fresh
it tastes.

Jim

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

There's a big difference between suggestions in the group on
better cups of tea from multiple infusions and the market
practice of selling expensive teas to gullible customers
suggesting they recoup their costs by reusing the leaves.

Yes, so? What the heck does this have to do with copyright of
usenet posts, especially considering that I've had the same
conversation offline?

The rest of the world doesn't buy tea from a website or tea
shoppe.

The "rest of the world" doesn't post here, either. That doesn't
mean that our ideas are unique or necessarily original.

--
Derek

It's the first time it's been used in this ng. When you see the [Edited for
top posting] the spelling and grammar flames aren't far behind. Common
sense would tell me VCBC would be ideal for discovering teas. It isn't. We
had that discussion several years ago in the group. That alone shows the
group knowledge not available elsewhere.

Jim

"Derek" wrote in message
...
[ Edited for top posting ]

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

"Ripon" wrote in message
m...
Derek wrote in message
...

There's a lot of people in the world who drink tea, and most
of them don't post here.

Derek:

Thats a very important point. Some one here always forget it.

Remember you need his permission to use that in a book. Idjut.

Jim

"Idjut"? This coming from the guy who thinks opinions expressed in
this group are unique to this group?

Good grief.

That's it. I'm going to Vancouver. I need a vacation.

--
Derek

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

It's the first time it's been used in this ng. When you see the
[Edited for top posting] the spelling and grammar flames aren't
far behind.

No, it doesn't - unless one is trying to be defensive. It means
that I reordered the posts for coherence should anyone else ever
read it.

Common sense would tell me VCBC would be ideal for
discovering teas. It isn't. We had that discussion several
years ago in the group.

And you know, with 100% certainty, that this was only EVER
discussed in this group?

That alone shows the group knowledge not available elsewhere.

No, it doesn't. It means that members of this group have not been
exposed to that knowledge elsewhere or that they haven't talked
about it with others.

That does not make it exclusive information.

--
Derek

If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's
great disappointments.

If you're having trouble following posts get a threaded newsreader. If
you're cheap like me Google is threaded so you can catch up there. Nothing
worse than N levels of in a thread. Anybody who edits ain't doing you a
favor. In this case the edit is for sound bites and not a substantive
argument. You know something like the bright idea of there is nothing new
under the sun retort. Wait that would be an oxyidjut. I thought I'd save
you a trip to VCBC looking for tea. It ain't worth my time or the taxpayers
money to have the local library look it up on Nexus. One of the mantras in
my posts is always to give you insight into tea you won't find anywhere
else. I'm in an Indian store the other day stocking up on Indian masala for
my traditional holiday Chai Eggnog. Anyway the store was empty and the
owner was in a talkative mood explaining the future expansion of his store.
I told him I buy teapots from all over the world and NEVER ONCE bought one
from India. There are Indian import stores galore and you would expect your
choice of teapots. Anyway he said teapots are an English craze. He said
Indians and Chinese as far as he knew brew and drink tea from the same cup.
They consider it an individual health drink and not a social beverage for
'tea gossip'. Here is a case of generalization expressed in words and now
protected by copyright. You are now required to quote me relating the
information gathered from the owner. BTW 'OXYIDJUT' has never been used in
USENET and is the sole copyright of yours truly. I think I've succeeded to
the GOOGLE highest eschlon and slang dictionaries by creating a first word
use.

Jim

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

It's the first time it's been used in this ng. When you see the
[Edited for top posting] the spelling and grammar flames aren't
far behind.

No, it doesn't - unless one is trying to be defensive. It means
that I reordered the posts for coherence should anyone else ever
read it.

Common sense would tell me VCBC would be ideal for
discovering teas. It isn't. We had that discussion several
years ago in the group.

And you know, with 100% certainty, that this was only EVER
discussed in this group?

That alone shows the group knowledge not available elsewhere.

No, it doesn't. It means that members of this group have not been
exposed to that knowledge elsewhere or that they haven't talked
about it with others.

That does not make it exclusive information.

--
Derek