When your book is published, will we at rec.food.drink.tea get a
mention? Individually? I'd like to place my order for a
complimentary, autographed copy now before it's too late.

Tee King wrote in message . ..
When your book is published, will we at rec.food.drink.tea get a
mention? Individually? I'd like to place my order for a
complimentary, autographed copy now before it's too late.

It won't be too late, don't worry. I am still working on it. I am
taking time because I just don't want my book another re-production.
It will appear with some new dimention and with new information. I am
getting prepared for a trip to India and China for some first hand
information, then I will be able to say, how long it will take.
Offcourse RFDT readers will know before anyone else.

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
(from Bangladesh)

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

"Ripon" wrote in message
om...
Tee King wrote in message
. ..
When your book is published, will we at rec.food.drink.tea get a
mention? Individually? I'd like to place my order for a
complimentary, autographed copy now before it's too late.

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

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

On 16 Nov 2003, Derek posted the following to rec.food.drink.tea:

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.

A clarification (I hit send a bit too quickly).

Also, issues of prior art would apply. Something posted with the
belief that it was an original idea does not necessarily mean that it
is such and therefore copyrighted.

--
Derek

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Derek wrote:
On 16 Nov 2003, Space Cowboy posted the following to

All of my posts have an implicit copyright which I stated in
this newsgroup soon after it was formed. Any of my ideas which

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

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?

Steve

On 16 Nov 2003, Steven Hay posted the following to
rec.food.drink.tea:

Derek wrote:
On 16 Nov 2003, Space Cowboy posted the following to

All of my posts have an implicit copyright which I stated in
this newsgroup soon after it was formed. Any of my ideas which

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

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?

Usenet posts are copyright the original poster (unless that post is
actually an infringement). And if someone is directly quoted or
even obviously paraphrased without credit, there are copyright
issues. In other words, get permission and cite your sources.

That said, just because person X posted that "PDQ is a good idea
for cleaning teapots" doesn't mean that person Y is violating
copyright for including that information in a book. It could be
common knowledge and may well exist elsewhere.

The other thing to keep in mind is that copyright infringement is a
civil issue primarily. It only becomes a felony if you make more
than 10 copies or the damages are greater than $2,500. All an
individual can do in most situations is sue for damages and obtain
an injunction against the supposed infringer.

However - you'd have one heck of a time proving damages from
content that is freely available to anyone with an internet
connection and a web browser.

--
Derek

No matter how great and destructive your problems may seem now,
remember, you've probably only seen the tip of them.

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

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

"Space Cowboy" wrote in
ink.net:

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

"Ripon" wrote in message
om...
Tee King wrote in message
. ..
When your book is published, will we at rec.food.drink.tea get a
mention? Individually? I'd like to place my order for a
complimentary, autographed copy now before it's too late.



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".)

I had to learn about this because I just negotiated a contract to write a
book (not about tea).

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.

Derek wrote:

On 16 Nov 2003, Derek posted the following to rec.food.drink.tea:


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.


A clarification (I hit send a bit too quickly).

Also, issues of prior art would apply. Something posted with the
belief that it was an original idea does not necessarily mean that it
is such and therefore copyrighted.

But it is not the idea that is copyrightable; rather, the expression is
subject to copyright, so as long as those words have never been used in
that order in that forum, copyright applies.

dmh

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 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

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

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.)

No, it's not just an academic issue.

If you are quoting someone else, you should recognize their
copyright and cite them appropriately. They are the owner of that
"information" not you.

Citation does not equal authorization. And most copyright holders
require that you at least provide citation to their information.

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.

Copying in whole is substantially different from copying in part. I
do not (necessarily) need your permission to take a two sentence
quote from something you wrote, although the U.S. Copyright office
strongly suggests that I do so.

It's nice that the copyright law says this is "fair use" but then
goes on to say that I should get permission anyway.

sarcasm They've gone out of their way to make the law clear and
concise. /sarcasm

--
Derek

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

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