Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Tea (rec.drink.tea) Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
|
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
|
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon [OT]
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright Talk (was: Question for Ripon)
/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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
|
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright Talk (was: Question for Ripon)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Ripon
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cognac question- US location question- | Wine | |||
Niagara Question / Vidal Blanc Question | Winemaking | |||
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] | Winemaking | |||
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] | Wine | |||
Chili question (Or maybe it should be chile question) | General Cooking |