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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tee King
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ripon
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steven Hay
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Plant
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Debbie Deutsch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
David M. Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
David M. Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Debbie Deutsch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Plant
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
crymad
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
David M. Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
David M. Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
crymad
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
fLameDogg
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Plant
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ripon
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
David M. Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Space Cowboy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cognac question- US location question- KOS Wine 2 19-12-2008 02:10 PM
Niagara Question / Vidal Blanc Question John Fouts Winemaking 1 08-09-2006 11:44 AM
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] Radium Winemaking 6 09-07-2006 11:22 PM
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] Radium Wine 6 09-07-2006 11:22 PM
Chili question (Or maybe it should be chile question) Rich General Cooking 11 16-06-2006 03:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"