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, 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

"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.

"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

"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.

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

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

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 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)

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.