Dear RFDTers

This guy is using our group and representing it as his own
discussion board on his busness site. Go to
https://dragonwater.com/search.tf/Tea/ and you will see the
following link:

"There are over 2,600 articles on tea on our TeaTalk
discussion board! View articles "

This "TeaTalk discussion board" is nothing more than an
interface to this newsgroup. It allows people to read and
post messages to this group.

I personaly resent you using this group as your business's
discussion board. For your teashop to claim that this
as "your" discussion board is misleading at best. You
cannot claim this groups as belonging to you,

Mike



Posted through TeaTalk - http://teatalk.dragonwater.com

..

Not sure the legal ramifications of that. Who gets copyrights to stuff on
usenet?

Probably the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge that it's from usenet.

Nothing wrong with providing quick and easy access to r.f.d.t., but to imply
that it's all on one's site is prob. a bad idea.



"Mike Petro" > wrote in message
...
> Dear RFDTers
>
> This guy is using our group and representing it as his own
> discussion board on his busness site. Go to
> https://dragonwater.com/search.tf/Tea/ and you will see the
> following link:
>
> "There are over 2,600 articles on tea on our TeaTalk
> discussion board! View articles "
>
> This "TeaTalk discussion board" is nothing more than an
> interface to this newsgroup. It allows people to read and
> post messages to this group.
>
> I personaly resent you using this group as your business's
> discussion board. For your teashop to claim that this
> as "your" discussion board is misleading at best. You
> cannot claim this groups as belonging to you,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Posted through TeaTalk - http://teatalk.dragonwater.com
>
> .

Not sure the legal ramifications of that. Who gets copyrights to stuff on
usenet?

Probably the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge that it's from usenet.

Nothing wrong with providing quick and easy access to r.f.d.t., but to imply
that it's all on one's site is prob. a bad idea.



"Mike Petro" > wrote in message
...
> Dear RFDTers
>
> This guy is using our group and representing it as his own
> discussion board on his busness site. Go to
> https://dragonwater.com/search.tf/Tea/ and you will see the
> following link:
>
> "There are over 2,600 articles on tea on our TeaTalk
> discussion board! View articles "
>
> This "TeaTalk discussion board" is nothing more than an
> interface to this newsgroup. It allows people to read and
> post messages to this group.
>
> I personaly resent you using this group as your business's
> discussion board. For your teashop to claim that this
> as "your" discussion board is misleading at best. You
> cannot claim this groups as belonging to you,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Posted through TeaTalk - http://teatalk.dragonwater.com
>
> .

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:20:47 GMT, Diane L. Schirf wrote:

> In article >,
> "Falky foo" > wrote:
>
>> Probably the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge that it's from usenet.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with providing quick and easy access to r.f.d.t., but to imply
>> that it's all on one's site is prob. a bad idea.
>
> The site says:
>
> This is a free web interface to the rec.food.drink.tea newsgroup.
>
> Sponsored by the Dragonwater Tea Company.
>
> (presumably meaning the "free web interface)
>
> A lot of organisations do this. I don't think it's unethical since it
> says "newsgroup."

The only place it's not acknowledged is on the front page that
"pretends" to link to the TeaTalk forums. Of course, once you follow
the link, every page says that it's Usenet.

I've got minor issues with the first link, but none at all with the
interface.
--
Derek

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive
idiots.

Mike, let it be.
I think if you really think about it - what's a big deal? legally its all
public anyway, no copyrights or anything.
Its free promotions of our group. And of our views.

Sasha.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:20:47 GMT, Diane L. Schirf wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Falky foo" > wrote:
>>
>>> Probably the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge that it's from
>>> usenet.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with providing quick and easy access to r.f.d.t., but to
>>> imply
>>> that it's all on one's site is prob. a bad idea.
>>
>> The site says:
>>
>> This is a free web interface to the rec.food.drink.tea newsgroup.
>>
>> Sponsored by the Dragonwater Tea Company.
>>
>> (presumably meaning the "free web interface)
>>
>> A lot of organisations do this. I don't think it's unethical since it
>> says "newsgroup."
>
> The only place it's not acknowledged is on the front page that
> "pretends" to link to the TeaTalk forums. Of course, once you follow
> the link, every page says that it's Usenet.
>
> I've got minor issues with the first link, but none at all with the
> interface.
> --
> Derek
>
> There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive
> idiots.

Falky foo wrote:
> Not sure the legal ramifications of that. Who gets copyrights to stuff on
> usenet?
>

The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
collection together; in this case, that is no one.

dmh

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:18:28 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky"
> cast caution to the wind and posted:

>Mike, let it be.
>I think if you really think about it - what's a big deal? legally its all
>public anyway, no copyrights or anything.
>Its free promotions of our group. And of our views.
>
>Sasha.

Alex,

My big beef is that they coined the term "TeaTalk" and portrayed this
public domain group as being "theirs" by using the statement " 2,600
articles on our TeaTalk discussion board". To someone who is not
Usenet savvy, and there are many, this could give the aura of
credibility. For example: "If this vendor's discussion board is so
popular then this vendor must be credible".

It really is a cool concept! I have no beef with the free interface,
as a matter of fact I think the coding behind it is admirable, but if
you are going to capitalize on the group then clearly portray it for
what it is and maybe even educate people about the newsgroup concept.
They do say on the second page: "This is a free web interface to the
rec.food.drink.tea newsgroup." This is cool but how many people know
what a rec.food.whatever is? Of about 100 home computer users where I
work only about 5 of them know what a newsgroup is.

BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.

Mike



Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
remove the "filter" in my email address to reply

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:59:37 -0500, Mike Petro wrote:

> BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
> they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.

It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be
more accurate and still provide the same service.

--
Derek

A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of
destruction.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:59:37 -0500, Mike Petro wrote:

> BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
> they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.

It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be
more accurate and still provide the same service.

--
Derek

A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of
destruction.

>> BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
>> they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.
>
>It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be
>more accurate and still provide the same service.


The site is still there though, they just took the link down on the
first page.

http://teatalk.dragonwater.com

> The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
> applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
> messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
> collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>
> dmh

Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
by including the previous message(s) like this:

>like this
>like this

Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
belong to an author?

Sasha.

In article > (Sun, 21 Nov
2004 01:06:58 +0000), Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted.

Signatories to the Berne Convention, including the U.S., have agreed that
the material is copyrighted when it is first affixed in tangible form --
unless the original author explicitly relinquishes his or her rights.

> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material.

Copyright law does not and has never forbid duplication of "any part" of
the material. (Congress members under the control of the RIAA and MPAA
are in the process of changing this.)

Why do you ask others to "re-read copyright laws" without having done so
yourself?

> So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?

By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission, and
storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:08:04 -0700 Hamilcar Barca > wrote:
>
> By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
> license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission, and
> storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.

Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works"
does *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that
specific permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the
entire article to anyone/anywhere else.

mikus

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:08:04 -0700 Hamilcar Barca > wrote:
>
> By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
> license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission, and
> storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.

Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works"
does *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that
specific permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the
entire article to anyone/anywhere else.

mikus

Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>>The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
>>applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
>>messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
>>collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
> USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
> by including the previous message(s) like this:
>
>
>>like this
>>like this
>
>
> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?
>
> Sasha.
>
>
Sorry, but I have read at least the U.S. copyright law. (I'm a writer,
and it's my business to know it.) Copyright resides in the creator at
the moment the creation is fixed in a copyable form. The famous (c)
symbol indicates merely that the copyright has been registered, and has
no force in law as to whether or not the copyright exists.

In Usenet usage, permission to quote when replying is implicit. That,
too, has no force in law. This is an area where usage is ahead of the
law. Whether it falls under "fair use" doctrine has not been settled in
a court of law, nor is it likely ever to be.

dmh

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:06:58 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>> The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
>> applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
>> messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
>> collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>>
>> dmh
>
> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
> USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
> by including the previous message(s) like this:
>
>>like this
>>like this

From: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law,
although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a
requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the
copyright status of older works.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was
eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention,
effective March 1, 1989.


> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?

No, it doesn't forbid it. It provides the originator with the right to
control the usage of that material. Nor is that control universal as
you seem to think.

By participating in a usenet discussion, you are giving implicit
approval for someone else to respond to your post and quote it. That
is the nature of a newsgroup.

--
Derek

Road Kill Cafe - We make it your way, right away.
Straight from your grill to ours.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:06:58 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>> The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
>> applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
>> messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
>> collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>>
>> dmh
>
> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
> USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
> by including the previous message(s) like this:
>
>>like this
>>like this

From: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law,
although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a
requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the
copyright status of older works.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was
eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention,
effective March 1, 1989.


> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?

No, it doesn't forbid it. It provides the originator with the right to
control the usage of that material. Nor is that control universal as
you seem to think.

By participating in a usenet discussion, you are giving implicit
approval for someone else to respond to your post and quote it. That
is the nature of a newsgroup.

--
Derek

Road Kill Cafe - We make it your way, right away.
Straight from your grill to ours.

In article > (Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:13:29
-0600), Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:08:04 -0700 Hamilcar Barca
> > wrote:
>>
>> By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
>> license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission,
>> and storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.
>
> Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works" does
> *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

One cannot post one's copyrighted material through a system such as
Usenet, with its store-and-forward mechanism and then claim copyright
infringement because of it. One is implicitly granting some limited
license to copy by posting.

> In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that specific
> permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the entire article to
> anyone/anywhere else.

Sort of. The article is going to be copied and recopied in its entirety
as it propagates through the system. Netiquette recommends obtaining
permission before using the article in its entirety. What exactly is the
license granted by the (purported) copyright holder? I don't know.

Little or none of this, I presume, has any legal findings behind Usenet's
method of operation. Further, it's off-topic so I'll not abuse the
newsgroup further.

--
"Hollywood and the recording industry need to keep users from having
control over the sharing of data, and Microsoft needs to keep users
from being able to choose free software."
-- Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History. Columbia Univ.

In article > (Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:13:29
-0600), Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:08:04 -0700 Hamilcar Barca
> > wrote:
>>
>> By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants
>> license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission,
>> and storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.
>
> Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works" does
> *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

One cannot post one's copyrighted material through a system such as
Usenet, with its store-and-forward mechanism and then claim copyright
infringement because of it. One is implicitly granting some limited
license to copy by posting.

> In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that specific
> permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the entire article to
> anyone/anywhere else.

Sort of. The article is going to be copied and recopied in its entirety
as it propagates through the system. Netiquette recommends obtaining
permission before using the article in its entirety. What exactly is the
license granted by the (purported) copyright holder? I don't know.

Little or none of this, I presume, has any legal findings behind Usenet's
method of operation. Further, it's off-topic so I'll not abuse the
newsgroup further.

--
"Hollywood and the recording industry need to keep users from having
control over the sharing of data, and Microsoft needs to keep users
from being able to choose free software."
-- Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History. Columbia Univ.

Alex igy.com11/20/04


>
>> The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
>> applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
>> messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
>> collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>>
>> dmh
>
> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
> USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
> by including the previous message(s) like this:
>
>> like this
>> like this
>
> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?
>
> Sasha.
>
>
Sasha,

With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
publish.

Michael

Alex igy.com11/20/04


>
>> The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that
>> applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of
>> messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the
>> collection together; in this case, that is no one.
>>
>> dmh
>
> Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement,
> nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of
> USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty
> by including the previous message(s) like this:
>
>> like this
>> like this
>
> Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the
> material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking
> copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright
> belong to an author?
>
> Sasha.
>
>
Sasha,

With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
publish.

Michael

> Sasha,
>
> With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
> regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
> publish.
>
> Michael


Michael, -

I spoke to my patent lawyer and he told me never again to be involved in
this kind of conversations because as he said "nobody really knows how to
interpret all this". Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
"tangible"? If you read the messages on this thread you will find so many
contradictions that it makes the issue nonsensical. Clearly it will some day
be decided on by some court, appealed etc., etc.
Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
decide.
I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.

Thanks.

Sasha.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:17:40 -0500, Mike Petro wrote:

>>> BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
>>> they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.
>>
>>It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be
>>more accurate and still provide the same service.
>
>
> The site is still there though, they just took the link down on the
> first page.
>
> http://teatalk.dragonwater.com

Yes, I know. My comment was directed at the fact that the link,
itself, was removed. It was, as far as I can tell, the only link to
the newsgroup interface that was included on the site.

So, sure, we know where the page is. But how will new visitors to
their site know?

So, it's a shame that the link is gone. It could easily have been
modified to be more accurate, and still link to the newsgroup page.

--
Derek

The nice thing about losing one's marbles is that you only have to
pick up the ones you want.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:17:40 -0500, Mike Petro wrote:

>>> BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
>>> they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.
>>
>>It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be
>>more accurate and still provide the same service.
>
>
> The site is still there though, they just took the link down on the
> first page.
>
> http://teatalk.dragonwater.com

Yes, I know. My comment was directed at the fact that the link,
itself, was removed. It was, as far as I can tell, the only link to
the newsgroup interface that was included on the site.

So, sure, we know where the page is. But how will new visitors to
their site know?

So, it's a shame that the link is gone. It could easily have been
modified to be more accurate, and still link to the newsgroup page.

--
Derek

The nice thing about losing one's marbles is that you only have to
pick up the ones you want.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:31:29 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>> Sasha,
>>
>> With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
>> regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
>> publish.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Michael, -
>
> I spoke to my patent lawyer and he told me never again to be involved in
> this kind of conversations because as he said "nobody really knows how to
> interpret all this". Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
> "tangible"? If you read the messages on this thread you will find so many
> contradictions that it makes the issue nonsensical. Clearly it will some day
> be decided on by some court, appealed etc., etc.

Well, Clarinews, the clari.* hierarchy, distributed information over
usenet which is clearly copyrighted content which they distribute in
other ways as well.

As for no one really knowing how to interpret this, it's basically
because nobody wants to make a stand that might one day come around to
bite them in the bum. IMHO, it's self interest that is causing a large
part of the confusion, not the issue itself.

> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
> decide.

Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
were they? Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
clue or even try to stop you?

> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.

Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...


--
Derek

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shorline of
wonder." -- Ralph W. Sockman

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:31:29 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>> Sasha,
>>
>> With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially
>> regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend
>> publish.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Michael, -
>
> I spoke to my patent lawyer and he told me never again to be involved in
> this kind of conversations because as he said "nobody really knows how to
> interpret all this". Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
> "tangible"? If you read the messages on this thread you will find so many
> contradictions that it makes the issue nonsensical. Clearly it will some day
> be decided on by some court, appealed etc., etc.

Well, Clarinews, the clari.* hierarchy, distributed information over
usenet which is clearly copyrighted content which they distribute in
other ways as well.

As for no one really knowing how to interpret this, it's basically
because nobody wants to make a stand that might one day come around to
bite them in the bum. IMHO, it's self interest that is causing a large
part of the confusion, not the issue itself.

> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
> decide.

Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
were they? Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
clue or even try to stop you?

> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.

Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...


--
Derek

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shorline of
wonder." -- Ralph W. Sockman

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:49:40 GMT, Diane L. Schirf wrote:

> In article > ,
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
>
>> Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
>> "tangible"?
>
> They can be printed, of course, same as any other writing.

The bigger issue with Usenet, IMHO, since ideas get passed around and
shared frequently, is whether or not someone's post is, in fact,
copyrightable.

That is, certainly the (hopefully) unique way that I write an idea is
my own product. But is the message I conveyed really mine, or did I
get it from somewhere else and am simply relaying it?

And simply being the first person to post something on Usenet does not
give one claim to copyright, as there are many other sources to
information in the world.

--
Derek

If I'm "crippled by a lack of ethics", can I draw disability?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:49:40 GMT, Diane L. Schirf wrote:

> In article > ,
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
>
>> Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
>> "tangible"?
>
> They can be printed, of course, same as any other writing.

The bigger issue with Usenet, IMHO, since ideas get passed around and
shared frequently, is whether or not someone's post is, in fact,
copyrightable.

That is, certainly the (hopefully) unique way that I write an idea is
my own product. But is the message I conveyed really mine, or did I
get it from somewhere else and am simply relaying it?

And simply being the first person to post something on Usenet does not
give one claim to copyright, as there are many other sources to
information in the world.

--
Derek

If I'm "crippled by a lack of ethics", can I draw disability?

>> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
>> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
>> decide.
>
> Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
> were they?

You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management
is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision
without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a
different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an
asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries.

>Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
> copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
> clue or even try to stop you?

Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the
law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if
you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you
want THEM to make the copies, its a different story.

>> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.
>
> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...

Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.

Sasha.

>> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
>> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
>> decide.
>
> Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
> were they?

You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management
is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision
without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a
different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an
asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries.

>Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
> copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
> clue or even try to stop you?

Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the
law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if
you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you
want THEM to make the copies, its a different story.

>> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.
>
> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...

Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.

Sasha.

>> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
>> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
>> decide.
>
> Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
> were they?

You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management
is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision
without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a
different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an
asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries.

>Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
> copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
> clue or even try to stop you?

Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the
law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if
you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you
want THEM to make the copies, its a different story.

>> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.
>
> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...

Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.

Sasha.

Alex igy.com11/22/04


>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...
>
> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.
>
> Sasha.

First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to
your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon,
I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions .
As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good.

Michael

Alex igy.com11/22/04


>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...
>
> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.
>
> Sasha.

First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to
your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon,
I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions .
As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good.

Michael

"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article > ,
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
>
>> Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
>> "tangible"?
>
> They can be printed, of course, same as any other writing.
>

Diane,

When you write a poem in your mind it also can be printed by you sitting at
the typewriter and pushing keys. This is no different from b/w dots on my
screen may be printed by computer giving signals to the printer to print.
PRINTABLE and PRINTED are two different things.
The signals in your brain that makes up your memory and the signals in RAM
that make up computer memory are of the same non-tangible nature. And they
will remain so untile and unless courts will decide differently. Same with
all other definitions in laws. They all can be interpreted and
re-interpreted many times.
Free speech, abortion, the right to bear arms, the right for self defence,
separation of church and state - all these simple concepts are being
re-interpreted and will be re-interpreted many times over, because this is
how law works. It is interpreted according to the wishes and needs of
powerbrokers. Just read the Patriot Act.
Tolstoy once said that history is a winner's prostitute. Alas! To my great
dissapointment and sadness I came to the conclusion that law is no
different.

Sasha.

"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In article > ,
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
>
>> Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer
>> "tangible"?
>
> They can be printed, of course, same as any other writing.
>

Diane,

When you write a poem in your mind it also can be printed by you sitting at
the typewriter and pushing keys. This is no different from b/w dots on my
screen may be printed by computer giving signals to the printer to print.
PRINTABLE and PRINTED are two different things.
The signals in your brain that makes up your memory and the signals in RAM
that make up computer memory are of the same non-tangible nature. And they
will remain so untile and unless courts will decide differently. Same with
all other definitions in laws. They all can be interpreted and
re-interpreted many times.
Free speech, abortion, the right to bear arms, the right for self defence,
separation of church and state - all these simple concepts are being
re-interpreted and will be re-interpreted many times over, because this is
how law works. It is interpreted according to the wishes and needs of
powerbrokers. Just read the Patriot Act.
Tolstoy once said that history is a winner's prostitute. Alas! To my great
dissapointment and sadness I came to the conclusion that law is no
different.

Sasha.

"Michael Plant" > wrote in message
...
> Alex igy.com11/22/04
>
>
>>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...
>>
>> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
>> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.
>>
>> Sasha.
>
> First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and
> to
> your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation
> soon,
> I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions .
> As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good.
>
> Michael
>

Michael,

I expressed my lack of interest in the subject but I was implicitly accused
of leaving the field of battle. That I do not do. So, I am not interested in
commenting on the matter, but if directly asked or challenged, I will honor
my opponents with my answer.

Sasha.

"Michael Plant" > wrote in message
...
> Alex igy.com11/22/04
>
>
>>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...
>>
>> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
>> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.
>>
>> Sasha.
>
> First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and
> to
> your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation
> soon,
> I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions .
> As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good.
>
> Michael
>

Michael,

I expressed my lack of interest in the subject but I was implicitly accused
of leaving the field of battle. That I do not do. So, I am not interested in
commenting on the matter, but if directly asked or challenged, I will honor
my opponents with my answer.

Sasha.

"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> You asked if they're tangible. Once they become distributed and
> printable, they are. (Your thoughts aren't printable. Your words on
> screen, once printable by yourself or others, are. Quite a difference.)
>
> Again, you asked if they're "tangible." Simple question. I answered it.
> They're as tangible as any other writing.
>

No, what you did - is you interpreted "tangible". You said that printABLE =
tangible. And I said only printED may be tangible.
And it will be up to courts to decide.
Also note, that you added a new argument to your first one - before it was
tangible because it was printable, now it becomes tangible "once they become
DISTRIBUTED and printable". And you did not define "distributed". Let me ask
you a question - how about

1. The text on your screen that you just typed or
2. Typed and saved on your disk?
3. Typed and saved on private network
4. Types and saved on public network.

They are all "printable", right?

Also - it is not enough to be printable or even printed (tangible)- it has
to be dated. So what if you produced a piece of paper with a poem, how do we
know that you have not written it AFTERWARDS? With paper copies there is at
least paper and ink expertise, it may not be enough, but at least it is
possible. Computer dates can be changed to anything you want both in your
machine or changed later by anyone who has admin password at the server or
who can hack it. You cannot call this type of record "tangible" IMHO.

BTW, you thoughts are as "printable" as the words on your screen that you
just typed. In the first case the interface are your fingers and in the
second - computer printer. But there is no difference in principle, because
both can fail and the original will disappear. And it is not different if
you saved it or not - because there is no guarantee that your text is
retrievable from the disk. And there is no guarantee that it is retrievable
without errors. You can recall it from your memory or restore it from
computer memory, but both will not be guaranteed exact copies, unlike
printED copies.

And, just for fun - just to show you that tangibility may also have degrees,
not jus tangible - non-tangible - what if you wrote a poem with your
lipstick on glass? How about if you did it with your finger on the frozen
bus window? How tangible is (sorry) pee on the snow? Will it become tangible
if you take a picture of it? Not really - even if the chemicals of the film
can be dated. Better if the chemicals of development can be dated, but the
best case scenario would be if some crazy reporter takes a picture of your
poem and publishes that picture in a paper. Then, you have tangible record.

Regards,

Sasha.

"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> You asked if they're tangible. Once they become distributed and
> printable, they are. (Your thoughts aren't printable. Your words on
> screen, once printable by yourself or others, are. Quite a difference.)
>
> Again, you asked if they're "tangible." Simple question. I answered it.
> They're as tangible as any other writing.
>

No, what you did - is you interpreted "tangible". You said that printABLE =
tangible. And I said only printED may be tangible.
And it will be up to courts to decide.
Also note, that you added a new argument to your first one - before it was
tangible because it was printable, now it becomes tangible "once they become
DISTRIBUTED and printable". And you did not define "distributed". Let me ask
you a question - how about

1. The text on your screen that you just typed or
2. Typed and saved on your disk?
3. Typed and saved on private network
4. Types and saved on public network.

They are all "printable", right?

Also - it is not enough to be printable or even printed (tangible)- it has
to be dated. So what if you produced a piece of paper with a poem, how do we
know that you have not written it AFTERWARDS? With paper copies there is at
least paper and ink expertise, it may not be enough, but at least it is
possible. Computer dates can be changed to anything you want both in your
machine or changed later by anyone who has admin password at the server or
who can hack it. You cannot call this type of record "tangible" IMHO.

BTW, you thoughts are as "printable" as the words on your screen that you
just typed. In the first case the interface are your fingers and in the
second - computer printer. But there is no difference in principle, because
both can fail and the original will disappear. And it is not different if
you saved it or not - because there is no guarantee that your text is
retrievable from the disk. And there is no guarantee that it is retrievable
without errors. You can recall it from your memory or restore it from
computer memory, but both will not be guaranteed exact copies, unlike
printED copies.

And, just for fun - just to show you that tangibility may also have degrees,
not jus tangible - non-tangible - what if you wrote a poem with your
lipstick on glass? How about if you did it with your finger on the frozen
bus window? How tangible is (sorry) pee on the snow? Will it become tangible
if you take a picture of it? Not really - even if the chemicals of the film
can be dated. Better if the chemicals of development can be dated, but the
best case scenario would be if some crazy reporter takes a picture of your
poem and publishes that picture in a paper. Then, you have tangible record.

Regards,

Sasha.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:46:40 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

>>> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an
>>> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You
>>> decide.
>>
>> Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed
>> were they?
>
> You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management
> is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision
> without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a
> different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an
> asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries.

Considering some of the boneheaded and actually illegal polices that
managements I have dealt with have implemented, you have a much higher
opinion of management than I.


>>Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with
>> copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a
>> clue or even try to stop you?
>
> Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the
> law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if
> you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you
> want THEM to make the copies, its a different story.

Yes, because Kinkos has been sued by publishers for making copies. How
long until a publisher sues because they let people make copies?

After all, they've also sued VCR manufactures, CD-burner manufactures,
digital duplication software manufacturers,...

>>> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.
>>
>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested...
>
> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in
> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.
>
> Sasha.

Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble.


--
Derek

SAM: Teal'c, how do Jaffa couples handle their problems?
TEAL'C: On Chulak, a dispute between a man and a woman that cannot
be resolved necessitates a pledge break. It must be requested
by one and granted by the other.
DANIEL: And if that doesn't work?
TEAL'C: A weapon is required.

(Stargate-SG1, "Affinity")