"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>
>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>
>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>> or not.
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>
>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy


I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to speak)
has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute to the
charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What difference
does it make now?

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>>
>>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>>
>>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Chatty Cathy
>
>
> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to speak)
> has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute to the
> charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What
> difference does it make now?
>
> Jill

The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go.
The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront to
all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely no
motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that they
could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL

brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to
> go. The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an
> affront to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be
> absolutely no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin'
> book (not that they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL

I will ask you again... how many recipes did you contribute?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>
>> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to
>> go. The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an
>> affront to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be
>> absolutely no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin'
>> book (not that they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL
>
> I will ask you again... how many recipes did you contribute?
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy



He had three published. That was the limit for all of us. Some of us
contributed many more but in the end it had to be limited to three published
recipes. We had to select which three of our recipes we wanted. (The book
was getting to be cumbersome and costly.)

I remember the debate over the type of cookbook (ring bound, spiral bound or
hard bound) as well as who would publish/print it.

Jill

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>>>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>>>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>>>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>>>
>>>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Chatty Cathy
>>
>>
>> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to
>> speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute
>> to the charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What
>> difference does it make now?
>>
>> Jill
>
> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go.
> The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront
> to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely
> no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that
> they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL
>
>
I seem to be waffling in my convictions On the one hand I think we
collected monies to help City Harvest and that was the intention of the
book, so it probably should still cost something. On the other hand, most
of the recipes were already posted here anyway. Anyone who cares to really
look (outside of Rusty's posts) could find them if they really wanted to.
<shrug>

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked
>>>>> for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all
>>>>> over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC
>>>>> site, will be mass distributed. Count on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>
>>>> I have taken the liberty of putting up a survey about this on the RFC
>>>> site. Of course there are no 'maybes' or 'MCINLs' in this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol, opening a can of worms
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to
>>> speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to contribute
>>> to the charity. The money was contributed, the project shut down. What
>>> difference does it make now?
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> The statute of limitations on the copywrite still has quite a ways to go.
>> The difference it makes to give away the original book is it's an affront
>> to all those who labored long and hard, and then there will be absolutely
>> no motivation for all the newbies to do their own stinkin' book (not that
>> they could)... da moochin' BUMS! LOL
>>
>>
> I seem to be waffling in my convictions On the one hand I think we
> collected monies to help City Harvest and that was the intention of the
> book, so it probably should still cost something. On the other hand, most
> of the recipes were already posted here anyway. Anyone who cares to
> really look (outside of Rusty's posts) could find them if they really
> wanted to. <shrug>
>
> Jill
True, the individual recipes are no ones property, and not only should be
free, they are free... the recipes per se cannot be copyrighted, no recipe
can be copywrited. But the rfc cookbook, like any book, became copyrighted
intellectual property at the point of its creation. To reproduce by any
method any part of the book, page by page or in its entirety, is in fact a
major violation of international copyright law. I don't know how to go
about enforcing copyright law on the net but anyone caught violating the
sanctity of the rfc cookbook should be ostracised. I for one truly hope
this rusty douchebag and his family die a horrible lingering most painful
death.

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:22:35 GMT, brooklyn1 wrote:

> I for one truly hope
> this rusty douchebag and his family die a horrible lingering most painful
> death.

do your fantasies of inflicting horrible punishment on others give you an
erection, sheldon?

blake

brooklyn1 wrote:


> True, the individual recipes are no ones property, and not only should
> be free, they are free... the recipes per se cannot be copyrighted, no
> recipe
> can be copywrited. But the rfc cookbook, like any book, became
> copyrighted
> intellectual property at the point of its creation. To reproduce by
> any method any part of the book, page by page or in its entirety, is
> in fact a
> major violation of international copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

<quote>
International Copyright Protection

There is no such thing as an €œinternational copyright€� that will
automatically protect an authors writings throughout the entire world.
Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends,
basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most
countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain
conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by
international copyright treaties and conventions. For further
information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations
with the United States, request Circular 38a, International Copyright
Relations of the United States.

</quote>

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html#points

<quote>

SOME POINTS TO REMEMBER REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS

There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will
automatically protect an author's writings throughout the world.
Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country basically
depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries
offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have
been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and
conventions. There are two principal international copyright
conventions, the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Property (Berne Convention) and the Universal Copyright
Convention (UCC).

An author who wishes copyright protection for his or her work in a
particular country should first determine the extent of the protection
available to works of foreign authors in that country. If possible,
this should be done before the work is published anywhere, because
protection may depend on the facts existing at the time of first
publication.

If the country in which protection is sought is a party to one of the
international copyright conventions, the work generally may be
protected by complying with the conditions of that convention. Even if
the work cannot be brought under an international convention,
protection under the specific provisions of the country's national laws
may still be possible. There are, however, some countries that offer
little or no copyright protection to any foreign works. For current
information on the requirements and protection provided by other
countries, it may be advisable to consult an expert familiar with
foreign copyright laws. The U.S. Copyright Office is not permitted to
recommend agents or attorneys or to give legal advice on foreign laws.

</quote>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

jmcquown wrote:
>
> I think enough time has passed, the "statute of limitations" (so to
> speak) has run out. Nancy isn't collecting money anymore to
> contribute to the charity. The money was contributed, the project
> shut down. What difference does it make now?
>
> Jill

I agree. We had a specific goal. With everyone's efforts, we met it.
What, then, is everyone arguing about? A lot of those excellent recipes
had already been posted on r.f.c., or perhaps have been since then. Am
I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom?
Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing?

Dora

On 2009-03-09, Dora > wrote:

> I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom?
> Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing?

Apparently not, Dora. :|

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-03-09, Dora > wrote:
>
>> I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom?
>> Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing?
>
> Apparently not, Dora. :|
>
> nb

I dunno. *I* think it makes a pleasant change from 'My fool-proof method
of boiling/peeling hard cooked eggs', 'Cilantro tastes/does not taste
like soap', 'Making chicken stock - from scratch' and not to forget
<Cathy lowers her voice to a whisper> 'How I hate Off-topic (OT) posts
(even though I post to those threads with gusto when the mood takes
me)' topics.

;-)
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-09, Dora > wrote:
>>
>>> I going to sue for violation of copyright? And collect from whom?
>>> Calm down, everyone - don't we all delight in sharing?
>>
>> Apparently not, Dora. :|
>>
>> nb
>
> I dunno. *I* think it makes a pleasant change from 'My fool-proof
> method of boiling/peeling hard cooked eggs', 'Cilantro tastes/does
> not taste like soap', 'Making chicken stock - from scratch' and not
> to forget <Cathy lowers her voice to a whisper> 'How I hate Off-topic
> (OT) posts (even though I post to those threads with gusto when the
> mood takes me)' topics.
>
> ;-)

You left out "how do I season a cast-iron pan?" :-)

Personally, I really don't care who can see or access the cookbook or if
they choose to make it available on other websites.

Lest we forget, the primary reason for compiling and selling the cookbook
was to make it possible for r.f.c. to make a meaningful contribution to an
organization who could benefit from it after the 9/11 disaster. That was
accomplished.

I freely give recipes I have created or collected to anyone who asks for
them, whether I know them or not. I consider it a compliment that they
would want to use them.

I don't know if the cookbook was actually copyrighted or not, but there are
millions of copyrighted documents floating all over the Internet and most
are not from the original source.

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, the cookbook is not a sacred
document, and even if it were, many sacred documents, including the Bible,
are freely available on the Internet.

Many posters are acting as though someone has taken their first born child
and offered it up to anyone who wants it. Get over yourselves. Try to
remember that it's only a cookbook and they are only recipes. NBFD.

The detractors posting here have ripped "charitable act" right out of the
original project.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:


> I don't know if the cookbook was actually copyrighted or not, but
> there are millions of copyrighted documents floating all over the
> Internet and most are not from the original source.

Just to be technical, the book was copyrighted as soon as it had
achieved a fixed form. Most likely you meant that you didn't know if
the copyright was registered.




Brian

--
Day 34 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

"Duh'Weenette" sputtered:
:
> Personally, I really don't care who can see or access the cookbook or if
> they choose to make it available on other websites.
>
> Lest we forget, the primary reason for compiling and selling the cookbook
> was to make it possible for r.f.c. to make a meaningful contribution to
> an
> organization who could benefit from it after the 9/11 disaster. >
>
>
You weren't there, shit for brains... you were busy luring little boys to
your basement apartment. The *original* intent of the cookbook was simply
that RFC should have it's own cookbook (no more, no less), and this was a
seed planted at least two years prior probably longer. Nothing was
happening, the cookbook concept was on and off sleeping, and then all of a
sudden there was 9/11... and that is what gave impetus for getting the
cookbook rolling. But the charitible aspect *originally* had no bearing
whatsoever on generating the cookbook, that was an after thought to help
increase sales to a number so that production costs would be more managable.

Now crawl your slimey child molesting self back under your rock and shut the
**** up, know nothing recipe thief.