Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Michael Balarama wrote: > >>>did contracts for oil company- > >> > >>If you went to law school, you had to have learned copyright law. > > > > Some -But I was a Haight Asbury-LA antiestablishment flower power musician > > type -whose sister got him a job with an oil company in Texas > > Which law school did you attend? Glendale College of Law > > >>>never took the bar in Texas- > >> > >>No offense, but it's probably best that you didn't. > > > > Could have been a wealthy alcoholic vegetarian contender > > it is all in my waaaaay past... > > Not very punny. > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> T5NF wrote: > >>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social life >>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>> >>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >> >> >> >> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >> far as >> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of ingredients >> used in >> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As long >> as you >> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. > > > Would you rest your own money on that? > I would. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or contents. It would appear that Fritz is correct. >> I >> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of respect >> for the >> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >> original >> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. > > > You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton and > Larry Flynt. Combined. > > <...> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> T5NF wrote: >> >>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social life >>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>> >>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>> far as >>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>> ingredients used in >>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>> long as you >>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >> >> >> >> Would you rest your own money on that? >> > I would. Fork it over, pal. Now. > See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the > items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients > or contents. No, see this: Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html > > It would appear that Fritz is correct. It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> T5NF wrote: >>> >>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social life >>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>>> far as >>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>> ingredients used in >>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>> long as you >>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>> >> I would. > > > Fork it over, pal. Now. > >> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or >> contents. > > > No, see this: > > Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, > formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject > to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or > formula is accompanied by substantial literary > expression in the form of an explanation or > directions, or when there is a combination of > recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for > copyright protection. > http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html > >> >> It would appear that Fritz is correct. > > > It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. > Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are not copyrightable? Substansital literary expression would not cover instructions to mix the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I think Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering the directions, would not be a copyright violation. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>I would never very buy a cook book- > > Have you ever reproduced in any way (photocopy, etc.) anything with a > > copyright notice and without the author's written permission? > > Beyond what's generally considered fair use, no. What is "fair use"? > > Have you ever recorded music that was copyrighted? > > Absolutely not. > > > Have you ever scanned > > somebody else's photographs or artwork? > > No, I don't even have a scanner. > > > Have you ever copied or used > > copyrighted software without permission? > > No. > > > If 'yes' to any of my > > questions, then what moral ground do you have for the litany of > > charges against Mr. Falafel? > > Plenty. Even if I've broken copyright laws myself, two wrongs don't make it > right. Dispense with your tu quoque fallacy. What he does is wrong regardless of > the behavior of others. No, my point was that it would be hypocritical of you to accuse Mr. Falafel if you participated in copyright violation yourself - not that I'm suggesting that two wrongs make a right. But since you're so squeeky clean (yeah right) then you can carry on as you will in good conscience. > > Somehow, it seems more personal with you > > than you simply imposing yourself as the a.f.v police. Have you > > published copyrighted material? Please explain. > > I generally don't give out personal information, but I'll admit that I (and my > family) hold copyrights. I also diligently protect them. How so? Do you actually litigate against people like Mr. Falafel? |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> T5NF wrote: >>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social >>>>>> life >>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>>>> far as >>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>> ingredients used in >>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>> long as you >>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>> >>> I would. >> >> >> >> Fork it over, pal. Now. >> >>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >>> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or >>> contents. >> >> >> >> No, see this: >> >> Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, >> formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject >> to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or >> formula is accompanied by substantial literary >> expression in the form of an explanation or >> directions, or when there is a combination of >> recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >> copyright protection. >> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >> >>> >>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >> >> >> >> It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. >> > Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., > in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are not > copyrightable? Substansital literary expression would not cover > instructions to mix the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. > Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I think > Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering the > directions, would not be a copyright violation. You can find a copy of Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp. at http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html. As to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html, where it states "where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions", the decision stated: "Meredith points to one Supreme Court decision and sev- eral decisions of the circuit courts of appeals as support for its assertion that recipes may be subject matter for copyright protection. We have examined these cases and conclude that none either directly rebuts or directly sup- ports the argument that recipes are copyrightable. In ad- dition, nothing in our decision today runs counter to the proposition that certain recipes may be copyrightable. There are cookbooks in which the authors lace their direc- tions for producing dishes with musings about the spiritual nature of cooking or reminiscences they associate with the wafting odors of certain dishes in various stages of prepa- ration. Cooking experts may include in a recipe sugges- tions for presentation, advice on wines to go with the meal, or hints on place settings and appropriate music. In other cases, recipes may be accompanied by tales of their historical or ethnic origin." This too seems to imply that Fritz is correct. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social life >>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>> >>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>> >>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>> far as >>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>> ingredients used in >>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>> long as you >>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >> >> Would you rest your own money on that? >> > I would. There really is a sucker born every second! > See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the > items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients > or contents. Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one still covered by copyright: ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The reader really likes the plot and character development, and decides to give it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The reader-***-writer goes through the entire novel and alters persons, places, and times, at times using some license, but for the most part merely paraphrasing the original novel. Not only is that person committing plaigiarism, that person is also in violation of the spirit and letter of copyright protection. That is what Fritz is suggesting people do. She's wrong. The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's copyright -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot do it with someone's novel or poem or song without first getting permission (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes from David Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who settled out of court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). > It would appear that Fritz is correct. No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright law. >>> I >>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of respect >>> for the >>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >>> original >>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >> >> >> >> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton and >> Larry Flynt. Combined. >> >> <...> >> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> T5NF wrote: >>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social >>>>>> life >>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>>>> far as >>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>> ingredients used in >>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>> long as you >>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>> >>> I would. >> >> >> >> Fork it over, pal. Now. >> >>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >>> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or >>> contents. >> >> >> >> No, see this: >> >> Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, >> formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject >> to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or >> formula is accompanied by substantial literary >> expression in the form of an explanation or >> directions, or when there is a combination of >> recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >> copyright protection. >> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >> >>> >>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >> >> >> >> It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. >> > Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., > in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are not > copyrightable? Is that the full gist of their ruling? Consider the last paragraph of it: As we noted above, we limit our holding today to the facts of this case. The recipes contained in DISCOVER DANNON do not contain even a bare modicum of the creative expression--i.e., the originality--that is the "sine qua non of copyright." Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287. Meredith's compilation copyright in DISCOVER DANNON therefore may not extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner and order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates that the PIL publications offer these recipes in substantially altered form and in a manner and order different from that found in DISCOVER DANNON, we hold that Meredith has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is therefore VACATED. IOW, the Circuit Court used a test to weigh the amount of difference between sets of recipes. They found it was substantial in this case. That has nothing to do with Fritz' suggestion of paraphrasing -- the ingredients and methods would remain substantially the same, only the words would change. That is not substantial. > Substansital literary expression would not cover > instructions to mix the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. You think paraphrasing is substantial? > Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I think > Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering the > directions, would not be a copyright violation. I think you're reading far too much into that ruling, especially as it relates to what Fritz suggested. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social life >>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>>> far as >>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>> ingredients used in >>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>> long as you >>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >>> >>> >>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>> >> I would. > > > There really is a sucker born every second! > >> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or >> contents. > > > Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested > *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one still > covered by copyright: > ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary > expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when > there is > a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for > copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a > description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the > requirements of the copyright law are met. > http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html > > Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The reader > really likes the plot and character development, and decides to give it > a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The reader-***-writer goes > through the entire novel and alters persons, places, and times, at times > using some license, but for the most part merely paraphrasing the > original novel. Not only is that person committing plaigiarism, that > person is also in violation of the spirit and letter of copyright > protection. That is what Fritz is suggesting people do. She's wrong. > > The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter ingredients > slightly in order to get around someone else's copyright -- essentially > the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot do it with someone's novel or > poem or song without first getting permission (just ask "Vanilla Ice" > about taking only a few notes from David Bowie and Queen, or, more > apropos, Led Zeppelin who settled out of court for plaigiarizing "Whole > Lotta Love" from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). > >> It would appear that Fritz is correct. > > > No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright law. I think I have legal precedent on my side. Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to novels may not be applicable to recipes. Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright law? I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of preparation has been altered. > >>>> I >>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of respect >>>> for the >>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >>>> original >>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton >>> and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>> >>> <...> >>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
<...> > What is "fair use"? http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html <...> >>>Somehow, it seems more personal with you >>>than you simply imposing yourself as the a.f.v police. Have you >>>published copyrighted material? Please explain. >> >>I generally don't give out personal information, but I'll admit that > I (and my >>family) hold copyrights. I also diligently protect them. > > How so? Cease and desist requests. Cease and desist orders. Haven't had to go beyond that yet. > Do you actually litigate against people like Mr. Falafel? Fortunately, most people respect cease and desist requests. Depending on the situation and my lawyer's advice, I would pursue it as far as possible to protect my rights. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers since >>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social >>>>>> life >>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading music >>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick down >>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to this....as >>>>> far as >>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>> ingredients used in >>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>> long as you >>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>> >>> I would. >> >> >> >> There really is a sucker born every second! >> >>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >>> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients or >>> contents. >> >> >> >> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one still >> covered by copyright: >> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary >> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when >> there is >> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >> requirements of the copyright law are met. >> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >> >> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The reader >> really likes the plot and character development, and decides to give >> it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The reader-***-writer goes >> through the entire novel and alters persons, places, and times, at >> times using some license, but for the most part merely paraphrasing >> the original novel. Not only is that person committing plaigiarism, >> that person is also in violation of the spirit and letter of copyright >> protection. That is what Fritz is suggesting people do. She's wrong. >> >> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's copyright >> -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot do it with >> someone's novel or poem or song without first getting permission (just >> ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes from David Bowie and >> Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who settled out of court for >> plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). >> >>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >> >> >> >> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright law. > > I think I have legal precedent on my side. I think you don't. > Read the decision in > Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., > http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . I have. > We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to novels > may not be applicable to recipes. Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling applies to all recipes. It doesn't. > Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered the > method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright law? Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law library tomorrow and look up case law. > I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or whole > collections, merely individual recipes where the method of preparation > has been altered. Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two parties' recipes were "substantial." >>>>> I >>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of respect >>>>> for the >>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >>>>> original >>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton >>>> and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> Jonathan Ball wrote: >> >>> John Knezevich wrote: >>> >>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>> >>>>> T5NF wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>> since >>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social >>>>>>> life >>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>> music >>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick >>>>>>> down >>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>>> long as you >>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>> copyright. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>> >>>> I would. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fork it over, pal. Now. >>> >>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >>>> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients >>>> or contents. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, see this: >>> >>> Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, >>> formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject >>> to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or >>> formula is accompanied by substantial literary >>> expression in the form of an explanation or >>> directions, or when there is a combination of >>> recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >>> copyright protection. >>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>> >>>> >>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. >>> >> Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., >> in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are not >> copyrightable? > > > Is that the full gist of their ruling? Consider the last paragraph of it: > As we noted above, we limit our holding today to the facts of this > case. > The recipes contained in DISCOVER DANNON do not contain even a bare > modicum of the creative expression--i.e., the originality--that is the > "sine qua non of copyright." Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287. > Meredith's compilation copyright in DISCOVER DANNON therefore may not > extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner and > order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates that > the PIL publications offer these recipes in substantially altered form > and in a manner and order different from that found in DISCOVER DANNON, > we hold that Meredith has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of > success on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the > district court is therefore VACATED. > > IOW, the Circuit Court used a test to weigh the amount of difference > between sets of recipes. They found it was substantial in this case. > That has nothing to do with Fritz' suggestion of paraphrasing -- the > ingredients and methods would remain substantially the same, only the > words would change. That is not substantial. > I did read that, and I think you have to consider that in the larger context of the other cases cited in this decision. I would agree if the directions were especially detailed and elaborate, that reproducing that recipe might be a copyright violation. However, merely paraphrasing the preparation directions of a simple recipe would not. As the decision stated, "Nothing in Belford directly supports a rule of per se recipe copyrightability; in fact, it illustrates the important difference between barebones recipes like Meredith's and recipes that convey more than simply the directions for producing a certain dish. This difference is also illustrated in Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1173 (9th Cir. 1983), in which the relevant material consisted of "the supply list, icing recipes, three sheets dealing with color flow and mixing colors, four pages showing how to make and use a decorating bag, and two pages explaining how to make flowers and sugar molds." While Marcus, which was decided under the fair use doctrine now codified at 17 U.S.C. sec. 107, is not supportive of Meredith's position in this case, it does suggest that recipes may in certain forms merit the protection of copyright." I think the vast majority of recipes you see in afv fall into the barebones category. >> Substansital literary expression would not cover instructions to mix >> the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. > > > You think paraphrasing is substantial? > >> Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I think >> Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering the >> directions, would not be a copyright violation. > > > I think you're reading far too much into that ruling, especially as it > relates to what Fritz suggested. > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>> Jonathan Ball wrote: >>> >>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>> >>>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> T5NF wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>>>> long as you >>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>> >>>>> I would. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fork it over, pal. Now. >>>> >>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, see this: >>>> >>>> Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, >>>> formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject >>>> to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or >>>> formula is accompanied by substantial literary >>>> expression in the form of an explanation or >>>> directions, or when there is a combination of >>>> recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >>>> copyright protection. >>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. >>>> >>> Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>> Corp., in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are >>> not copyrightable? >> >> >> >> Is that the full gist of their ruling? Consider the last paragraph of it: >> As we noted above, we limit our holding today to the facts of this >> case. >> The recipes contained in DISCOVER DANNON do not contain even a bare >> modicum of the creative expression--i.e., the originality--that is >> the >> "sine qua non of copyright." Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at >> 1287. >> Meredith's compilation copyright in DISCOVER DANNON therefore may not >> extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner >> and >> order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates >> that >> the PIL publications offer these recipes in substantially altered >> form >> and in a manner and order different from that found in DISCOVER >> DANNON, >> we hold that Meredith has not demonstrated the requisite >> likelihood of >> success on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the >> district court is therefore VACATED. >> >> IOW, the Circuit Court used a test to weigh the amount of difference >> between sets of recipes. They found it was substantial in this case. >> That has nothing to do with Fritz' suggestion of paraphrasing -- the >> ingredients and methods would remain substantially the same, only the >> words would change. That is not substantial. >> > > I did read that, and I think you have to consider that in the larger > context of the other cases cited in this decision. No, I think you need to focus on the context in which this entire issue arose. Jon Lindsay, posting under the pseudonym "MrFalafel," posted eight recipes from a copyrighted compliation of eighty recipes. The issue is entirely different from the issues of the Meredith decision. > I would agree if the > directions were especially detailed and elaborate, that reproducing that > recipe might be a copyright violation. The issue here is reproducing significant portions of copyrighted compilations. > However, merely paraphrasing the > preparation directions of a simple recipe would not. As the decision > stated, > > "Nothing in Belford directly supports a rule of per se recipe > copyrightability; in fact, it illustrates the important difference > between barebones recipes like Meredith's and recipes that convey more > than simply the directions for producing a certain dish. This difference > is also illustrated in Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1173 (9th Cir. > 1983), in which the relevant material consisted of "the supply list, > icing recipes, three sheets dealing with color flow and mixing colors, > four pages showing how to make and use a decorating bag, and two pages > explaining how to make flowers and sugar molds." While Marcus, which was > decided under the fair use doctrine now codified at 17 U.S.C. sec. 107, > is not supportive of Meredith's position in this case, it does suggest > that recipes may in certain forms merit the protection of copyright." > > I think the vast majority of recipes you see in afv fall into the > barebones category. As the issue relates to Lindsay, they also often fall in the category of posting significant portions of copyrighted complilations. >>> Substansital literary expression would not cover instructions to mix >>> the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. >> >> >> >> You think paraphrasing is substantial? >> >>> Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I think >>> Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering the >>> directions, would not be a copyright violation. >> >> >> >> I think you're reading far too much into that ruling, especially as it >> relates to what Fritz suggested. >> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> John Knezevich wrote: >>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've been >>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>> since >>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks come >>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a social >>>>>>> life >>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>> music >>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick >>>>>>> down >>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>>> long as you >>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>> copyright. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>> >>>> I would. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There really is a sucker born every second! >>> >>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the items >>>> it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of ingredients >>>> or contents. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >>> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one still >>> covered by copyright: >>> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial >>> literary >>> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when >>> there is >>> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >>> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >>> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >>> requirements of the copyright law are met. >>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>> >>> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The reader >>> really likes the plot and character development, and decides to give >>> it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The reader-***-writer goes >>> through the entire novel and alters persons, places, and times, at >>> times using some license, but for the most part merely paraphrasing >>> the original novel. Not only is that person committing plaigiarism, >>> that person is also in violation of the spirit and letter of >>> copyright protection. That is what Fritz is suggesting people do. >>> She's wrong. >>> >>> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >>> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's copyright >>> -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot do it with >>> someone's novel or poem or song without first getting permission >>> (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes from David >>> Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who settled out of >>> court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from Willie Dixon's "You >>> Need Love"). >>> >>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright law. >> >> >> I think I have legal precedent on my side. > > > I think you don't. > >> Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >> Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . > > > I have. > >> We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to >> novels may not be applicable to recipes. > > > Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling > applies to all recipes. It doesn't. No, and my appologies if that is what's implied, I'm suggesting the the ruling is applicable to Fritz's statement that "you can't copyright the list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As long as you put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright." I think this is also applicable to the bare bones nature of most of the recipes presented on afv. > >> Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered >> the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright law? > > > Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law library > tomorrow and look up case law. > >> I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or >> whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of >> preparation has been altered. > > > Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two > parties' recipes were "substantial." > >>>>>> I >>>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of >>>>>> respect for the >>>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >>>>>> original >>>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton >>>>> and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>>> >>>>> <...> >>>>> >>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to kick >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As >>>>>>> long as you >>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>> >>>>> I would. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There really is a sucker born every second! >>>> >>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >>>> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one >>>> still covered by copyright: >>>> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial >>>> literary >>>> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when >>>> there is >>>> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis >>>> for >>>> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >>>> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >>>> requirements of the copyright law are met. >>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>> >>>> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The >>>> reader really likes the plot and character development, and decides >>>> to give it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The >>>> reader-***-writer goes through the entire novel and alters persons, >>>> places, and times, at times using some license, but for the most >>>> part merely paraphrasing the original novel. Not only is that person >>>> committing plaigiarism, that person is also in violation of the >>>> spirit and letter of copyright protection. That is what Fritz is >>>> suggesting people do. She's wrong. >>>> >>>> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >>>> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's copyright >>>> -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot do it with >>>> someone's novel or poem or song without first getting permission >>>> (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes from David >>>> Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who settled out of >>>> court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from Willie Dixon's "You >>>> Need Love"). >>>> >>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright >>>> law. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think I have legal precedent on my side. >> >> >> >> I think you don't. >> >>> Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>> Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . >> >> >> >> I have. >> >>> We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to >>> novels may not be applicable to recipes. >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling >> applies to all recipes. It doesn't. > > > No, and my appologies if that is what's implied, I'm suggesting the the > ruling is applicable to Fritz's statement that "you can't copyright the > list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in which the > directions are written. As long as you put the directions into your own > words you're not violating copyright." I think this is also applicable > to the bare bones nature of most of the recipes presented on afv. NOT in the fashion employed en masse by Lindsay, the scofflaw at issue. What he is doing is akin to posting a copyrighted novel or pirated software in serial fashion (1 of 8, 2 of 8, etc.) without permission of the copyright holder. He's posting significant portions of copyrighted compilations of works without permission from the authors or their publishers. That is NOT protected by the limited scope of Meredith. >>> Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered >>> the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright >>> law? >> >> >> >> Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law >> library tomorrow and look up case law. >> >>> I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or >>> whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of >>> preparation has been altered. >> >> >> >> Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two >> parties' recipes were "substantial." >> >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of >>>>>>> respect for the >>>>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get the >>>>>>> original >>>>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill Clinton >>>>>> and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>>>> >>>>>> <...> >>>>>> >>>> >> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> John Knezevich wrote: >>> >>>> Jonathan Ball wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> T5NF wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks >>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to >>>>>>>>> kick down >>>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. >>>>>>>> As long as you >>>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fork it over, pal. Now. >>>>> >>>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, see this: >>>>> >>>>> Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, >>>>> formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject >>>>> to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or >>>>> formula is accompanied by substantial literary >>>>> expression in the form of an explanation or >>>>> directions, or when there is a combination of >>>>> recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for >>>>> copyright protection. >>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would appear that you, and whatzername, are wrong. >>>>> >>>> Ah, but what about Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>>> Corp., in which the Seventh Circuit held that individual recipes are >>>> not copyrightable? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Is that the full gist of their ruling? Consider the last paragraph of >>> it: >>> As we noted above, we limit our holding today to the facts of >>> this case. >>> The recipes contained in DISCOVER DANNON do not contain even a bare >>> modicum of the creative expression--i.e., the originality--that >>> is the >>> "sine qua non of copyright." Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at >>> 1287. >>> Meredith's compilation copyright in DISCOVER DANNON therefore may >>> not >>> extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the >>> manner and >>> order in which they are presented. Because the record >>> demonstrates that >>> the PIL publications offer these recipes in substantially altered >>> form >>> and in a manner and order different from that found in DISCOVER >>> DANNON, >>> we hold that Meredith has not demonstrated the requisite >>> likelihood of >>> success on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the >>> district court is therefore VACATED. >>> >>> IOW, the Circuit Court used a test to weigh the amount of difference >>> between sets of recipes. They found it was substantial in this case. >>> That has nothing to do with Fritz' suggestion of paraphrasing -- the >>> ingredients and methods would remain substantially the same, only the >>> words would change. That is not substantial. >>> >> >> I did read that, and I think you have to consider that in the larger >> context of the other cases cited in this decision. > > > No, I think you need to focus on the context in which this entire issue > arose. Jon Lindsay, posting under the pseudonym "MrFalafel," posted > eight recipes from a copyrighted compliation of eighty recipes. The > issue is entirely different from the issues of the Meredith decision. >> I would agree if the directions were especially detailed and >> elaborate, that reproducing that recipe might be a copyright violation. > > > The issue here is reproducing significant portions of copyrighted > compilations. I'm talking about individual recipes, which I think Fritz was referring to in her post, not the larger thread. > >> However, merely paraphrasing the preparation directions of a simple >> recipe would not. As the decision stated, >> >> "Nothing in Belford directly supports a rule of per se recipe >> copyrightability; in fact, it illustrates the important difference >> between barebones recipes like Meredith's and recipes that convey more >> than simply the directions for producing a certain dish. This difference >> is also illustrated in Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1173 (9th Cir. >> 1983), in which the relevant material consisted of "the supply list, >> icing recipes, three sheets dealing with color flow and mixing colors, >> four pages showing how to make and use a decorating bag, and two pages >> explaining how to make flowers and sugar molds." While Marcus, which >> was decided under the fair use doctrine now codified at 17 U.S.C. sec. >> 107, is not supportive of Meredith's position in this case, it does >> suggest that recipes may in certain forms merit the protection of >> copyright." >> >> I think the vast majority of recipes you see in afv fall into the >> barebones category. > > > As the issue relates to Lindsay, they also often fall in the category of > posting significant portions of copyrighted complilations. > I'm not talking about those recipes specifically, I'm talking about <<most>> recipes on afv. I have no comment if you want to take on MrFalafel over that specific post. But as to what Fritz said, in relation to most recipes posted in afv, I believe she was correct when she stated "you can't copyright the list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. As long as you put the directions into your own words you're not violating copyright." Furthermore, when it's a case of the directions being very basic, such as mix the ingredients together, put in a pan, and bake until crispy, I don't believe a verbatim copying would be considered a copyright violation. >>>> Substansital literary expression would not cover instructions to >>>> mix the ingredients and bake at a specific temperature. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You think paraphrasing is substantial? >>> >>>> Based on Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., I >>>> think Fritz is correct that listing the ingredients, but altering >>>> the directions, would not be a copyright violation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you're reading far too much into that ruling, especially as >>> it relates to what Fritz suggested. >>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> John Knezevich wrote: >>> >>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks >>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to >>>>>>>>> kick down >>>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. >>>>>>>> As long as you >>>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There really is a sucker born every second! >>>>> >>>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >>>>> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one >>>>> still covered by copyright: >>>>> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial >>>>> literary >>>>> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when >>>>> there is >>>>> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a >>>>> basis for >>>>> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >>>>> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >>>>> requirements of the copyright law are met. >>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>>> >>>>> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The >>>>> reader really likes the plot and character development, and decides >>>>> to give it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The >>>>> reader-***-writer goes through the entire novel and alters persons, >>>>> places, and times, at times using some license, but for the most >>>>> part merely paraphrasing the original novel. Not only is that >>>>> person committing plaigiarism, that person is also in violation of >>>>> the spirit and letter of copyright protection. That is what Fritz >>>>> is suggesting people do. She's wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >>>>> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's >>>>> copyright -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot >>>>> do it with someone's novel or poem or song without first getting >>>>> permission (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes >>>>> from David Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who >>>>> settled out of court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from >>>>> Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). >>>>> >>>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright >>>>> law. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think I have legal precedent on my side. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you don't. >>> >>>> Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>>> Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have. >>> >>>> We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to >>>> novels may not be applicable to recipes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling >>> applies to all recipes. It doesn't. >> >> >> >> No, and my appologies if that is what's implied, I'm suggesting the >> the ruling is applicable to Fritz's statement that "you can't >> copyright the list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in >> which the directions are written. As long as you put the directions >> into your own words you're not violating copyright." I think this is >> also applicable to the bare bones nature of most of the recipes >> presented on afv. > > > NOT in the fashion employed en masse by Lindsay, the scofflaw at issue. > What he is doing is akin to posting a copyrighted novel or pirated > software in serial fashion (1 of 8, 2 of 8, etc.) without permission of > the copyright holder. He's posting significant portions of copyrighted > compilations of works without permission from the authors or their > publishers. That is NOT protected by the limited scope of Meredith. > And I didn't say that it was. I'm referring specifically to Fritz's post as it applies to most recipes on afv. Not having seen the recipes as posted by MrFalafel, I won't comment on that post. >>>> Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered >>>> the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright >>>> law? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law >>> library tomorrow and look up case law. >>> >>>> I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or >>>> whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of >>>> preparation has been altered. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two >>> parties' recipes were "substantial." >>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of >>>>>>>> respect for the >>>>>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get >>>>>>>> the original >>>>>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill >>>>>>> Clinton and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>>I would never very buy a cook book- > > >>>Have you ever reproduced in any way (photocopy, etc.) anything with a >>>copyright notice and without the author's written permission? >> >>Beyond what's generally considered fair use, no. > > > What is "fair use"? I'm a little surprised you wouldn't know the term, and I see that Mr. Suspect has already supplied you with a link that explains the term, but just out of curiosity: why didn't it occur to you to do your own net search using a fine search engine like Overture or Google, on the terms 'fair use' + 'copyright'? .... >>>Somehow, it seems more personal with you >>>than you simply imposing yourself as the a.f.v police. Have you >>>published copyrighted material? Please explain. >> >>I generally don't give out personal information, but I'll admit that I (and my >>family) hold copyrights. I also diligently protect them. > > > How so? Do you actually litigate against people like Mr. Falafel? I imagine the publishers' attorneys handle it. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
On 2004-06-13 06:22:03 -0700, usual suspect > said:
> I shall contact The Harvard Common Press of Boston, publishers of Robin > Robinson's Vegetarian Chili Cookbook, to notify them of eight violation > of Robinson's copyright. > > Copyright laws protect writers' economic interests in their works. > Violating these laws is not a minor offense. Statuatory and other > damages can add up very quickly. > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch5.html You don't venture out into alt.binaries much, do you? Else, you'd be dead from the multiple heart attacks those groups'd cause you. Suffice it to say that the [cough] "fish to fry" are much, much larger than the miscreants in alt.food.vegan. Now, I'm not interested in defending the right to violate copyright or its inherent flaws -- Larry Lessig has done an absolutely splendid job of addressing that issue, and I certainly encourage you to read what the man has to say -- but YOU have violated a far more important philosophical principle, even if it's not encoded in law: When the executive branch of government enlists civilians to enforce its laws, whether they be requested to participate or merely intimidated into doing so, then there is lost a very important freedom. Cf. George Orwell's works and the (former) Soviet Union of Socialist Republics for examples of what happens to a society which enlists its citizens in the enforcement of its laws. Enforcement is the job of the executive branch of government. It is neither the duty nor the option of the citizen. To assist in the executive duties, especially when one's own "copyrights" are not at issue, is to promote the existence of a police state, where the citizen is in constant fear of his neighbors turning him in for allowing his grass to grow one inch longer than the limit encoded in law, for his having sex with a member of the "incorrect" gender in the privacy of his own home, or for exceeding the posted speed limit for a short time in order to avoid killing another driver who forgot to turn on his left-hand signal. I don't want to live in a state where citizens "narc" on citizens. This is abhorrent, and those who do it are either quite misguided or evil. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>C. James Strutz wrote: > >> > >>>>>I would never very buy a cook book- > > > > > >>>Have you ever reproduced in any way (photocopy, etc.) anything with a > >>>copyright notice and without the author's written permission? > >> > >>Beyond what's generally considered fair use, no. > > > > > > What is "fair use"? > > I'm a little surprised you wouldn't know the term, and > I see that Mr. Suspect has already supplied you with a > link that explains the term, but just out of curiosity: > why didn't it occur to you to do your own net search > using a fine search engine like Overture or Google, on > the terms 'fair use' + 'copyright'? Because I wanted to know what the term meant to him, not the textbook definition. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Q. Blackbeard wrote:
<...> > Now, I'm not interested in defending the right to violate copyright or its > inherent flaws Too bad. That's the issue at hand. <...> > but YOU have violated a far more important philosophical principle, even if > it's not encoded in law: You haven't described a philosophical principle. > When the executive branch of government enlists > civilians to enforce its laws, I have not been enlisted by any branch of government. I observed a violation and notified the copyright holder. She is entitled to pursue the matter in any way she wishes. > whether they be requested to participate or > merely intimidated into doing so, then there is lost a very important > freedom. I have not lost any freedom in my notification of the copyright holder. Her rights have been violated. Not mine. Not yours. I also reject your stupid insinuation that I have done this out of coercion or intimidation. > Cf. George Orwell's works and the (former) Soviet Union of Socialist > Republics None of which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. BTW, did Orwell copyright his works? Did he protect his copyrights? Did his estate? George Orwell's works are copyright (c) 2000 by the Estate of the late Sonia Brownell Orwell. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/col-info.htm > for examples of what happens to a society which enlists its citizens in the > enforcement of its laws. I hope you lose sleep at night wondering if I've turned statist on you. > Enforcement is the job of the executive branch of government. You obviously don't understand the civil protections afforded under copyright laws. > It is neither the duty nor the option of the citizen. Were you, perchance, one of Kitty Genovese's neighbors? > To assist in the executive duties, It's NOT a strict matter of "executive duties." > especially when one's own "copyrights" Why quotation marks? > are not at issue, is to promote the > existence of a police state, Do you always engage in such hysterical hyperbole? > where the citizen is in constant fear of his > neighbors turning him in for allowing his grass to grow one inch longer > than > the limit encoded in law, for his having sex with a member of the > "incorrect" > gender in the privacy of his own home, or for exceeding the posted speed > limit > for a short time in order to avoid killing another driver who forgot to > turn on > his left-hand signal. Hmmm... sounds like you have a lot of skeletons in your closet. > I don't want to live in a state where citizens "narc" on citizens. This is > abhorrent, and those who do it are either quite misguided or evil. Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's possessions are being stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it were your things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to turn this around: I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and books is acceptable. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> John Knezevich wrote: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> John Knezevich wrote: >>> >>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. I've >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other monikers >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet cranks >>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup in a >>>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people trading >>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to >>>>>>>>> kick down >>>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. >>>>>>>> As long as you >>>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There really is a sucker born every second! >>>>> >>>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >>>>> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one >>>>> still covered by copyright: >>>>> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial >>>>> literary >>>>> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when >>>>> there is >>>>> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a >>>>> basis for >>>>> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >>>>> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >>>>> requirements of the copyright law are met. >>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>>> >>>>> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The >>>>> reader really likes the plot and character development, and decides >>>>> to give it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The >>>>> reader-***-writer goes through the entire novel and alters persons, >>>>> places, and times, at times using some license, but for the most >>>>> part merely paraphrasing the original novel. Not only is that >>>>> person committing plaigiarism, that person is also in violation of >>>>> the spirit and letter of copyright protection. That is what Fritz >>>>> is suggesting people do. She's wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >>>>> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's >>>>> copyright -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot >>>>> do it with someone's novel or poem or song without first getting >>>>> permission (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes >>>>> from David Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who >>>>> settled out of court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from >>>>> Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). >>>>> >>>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand copyright >>>>> law. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think I have legal precedent on my side. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you don't. >>> >>>> Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>>> Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have. >>> >>>> We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to >>>> novels may not be applicable to recipes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling >>> applies to all recipes. It doesn't. >> >> >> >> No, and my appologies if that is what's implied, I'm suggesting the >> the ruling is applicable to Fritz's statement that "you can't >> copyright the list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in >> which the directions are written. As long as you put the directions >> into your own words you're not violating copyright." I think this is >> also applicable to the bare bones nature of most of the recipes >> presented on afv. > > > NOT in the fashion employed en masse by Lindsay, the scofflaw at issue. > What he is doing is akin to posting a copyrighted novel or pirated > software in serial fashion (1 of 8, 2 of 8, etc.) without permission of > the copyright holder. He's posting significant portions of copyrighted > compilations of works without permission from the authors or their > publishers. That is NOT protected by the limited scope of Meredith. > Just curious, do you believe publishing a single recipe would have been a violation? When does the number of recipes from a publication become significant? Is it an absolute number, a percentage, or does it depend on other circumstances? >>>> Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that altered >>>> the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of copyright >>>> law? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law >>> library tomorrow and look up case law. >>> >>>> I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or >>>> whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of >>>> preparation has been altered. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two >>> parties' recipes were "substantial." >>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of >>>>>>>> respect for the >>>>>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get >>>>>>>> the original >>>>>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill >>>>>>> Clinton and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>C. James Strutz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>I would never very buy a cook book- >>> >>> >>>>>Have you ever reproduced in any way (photocopy, etc.) anything > > with a > >>>>>copyright notice and without the author's written permission? >>>> >>>>Beyond what's generally considered fair use, no. >>> >>> >>>What is "fair use"? >> >>I'm a little surprised you wouldn't know the term, and >>I see that Mr. Suspect has already supplied you with a >>link that explains the term, but just out of curiosity: >> why didn't it occur to you to do your own net search >>using a fine search engine like Overture or Google, on >>the terms 'fair use' + 'copyright'? > > > Because I wanted to know what the term meant to him, not the textbook > definition. Oh, come on. Why, in the context of the discussion, would you think it would mean anything *other* than the textbook definition? |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>C. James Strutz wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>I would never very buy a cook book- > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Have you ever reproduced in any way (photocopy, etc.) anything > > > > with a > > > >>>>>copyright notice and without the author's written permission? > >>>> > >>>>Beyond what's generally considered fair use, no. > >>> > >>> > >>>What is "fair use"? > >> > >>I'm a little surprised you wouldn't know the term, and > >>I see that Mr. Suspect has already supplied you with a > >>link that explains the term, but just out of curiosity: > >> why didn't it occur to you to do your own net search > >>using a fine search engine like Overture or Google, on > >>the terms 'fair use' + 'copyright'? > > > > > > Because I wanted to know what the term meant to him, not the textbook > > definition. > > Oh, come on. Why, in the context of the discussion, > would you think it would mean anything *other* than the > textbook definition? People often have different intepretations of what things mean, particularly for subjective terms like 'fair use'. I expected him to reply with something other than a link to a definition. In hindsight, I should have framed my question more explicitly. Did your 'enter' key get stuck? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
John Knezevich wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> John Knezevich wrote: >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>> >>>>> usual suspect wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Knezevich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with copyright laws. This is more about a >>>>>>>>>> certain persons lack of social skills than anything else. >>>>>>>>>> I've been >>>>>>>>>> posting recipes on this newsgroup using this and other >>>>>>>>>> monikers since >>>>>>>>>> something like 1995. During that time I've seen internet >>>>>>>>>> cranks come >>>>>>>>>> and go. This is just another sad person who doesn't have a >>>>>>>>>> social life >>>>>>>>>> and therefore has to create percieved hysteria on a newsgroup >>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>> pathetic attempt at a type of human interaction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm sure the authorities will stop chasing after people >>>>>>>>>> trading music >>>>>>>>>> files, pirated movies, snuff films and out and out fraud to >>>>>>>>>> kick down >>>>>>>>>> my door and arrest me for advertising cookbooks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Zowie... haven't read the group in ages and come back to >>>>>>>>> this....as far as >>>>>>>>> copyrights and recipes go, you can't copyright the list of >>>>>>>>> ingredients used in >>>>>>>>> the recipe, only the way in which the directions are written. >>>>>>>>> As long as you >>>>>>>>> put the directions into your own words you're not violating >>>>>>>>> copyright. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you rest your own money on that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There really is a sucker born every second! >>>>>> >>>>>>> See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp . Among the >>>>>>> items it says are not copyrightable are the mere listings of >>>>>>> ingredients or contents. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fritz did not say list the ingredients alone. She suggested >>>>>> *paraphrasing* the directions. That's a separate issue, and one >>>>>> still covered by copyright: >>>>>> ...[W]here a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial >>>>>> literary >>>>>> expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or >>>>>> when there is >>>>>> a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a >>>>>> basis for >>>>>> copyright protection.... Copyright protection may extend to a >>>>>> description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the >>>>>> requirements of the copyright law are met. >>>>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me make an analogy. Someone reads a copyrighted novel. The >>>>>> reader really likes the plot and character development, and >>>>>> decides to give it a go at rewriting it and publishing it. The >>>>>> reader-***-writer goes through the entire novel and alters >>>>>> persons, places, and times, at times using some license, but for >>>>>> the most part merely paraphrasing the original novel. Not only is >>>>>> that person committing plaigiarism, that person is also in >>>>>> violation of the spirit and letter of copyright protection. That >>>>>> is what Fritz is suggesting people do. She's wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> The same is also true of Lindsay's suggestion that he alter >>>>>> ingredients slightly in order to get around someone else's >>>>>> copyright -- essentially the same form of plaigiarism. You cannot >>>>>> do it with someone's novel or poem or song without first getting >>>>>> permission (just ask "Vanilla Ice" about taking only a few notes >>>>>> from David Bowie and Queen, or, more apropos, Led Zeppelin who >>>>>> settled out of court for plaigiarizing "Whole Lotta Love" from >>>>>> Willie Dixon's "You Need Love"). >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would appear that Fritz is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it would not. But it does appear you don't understand >>>>>> copyright law. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think I have legal precedent on my side. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think you don't. >>>> >>>>> Read the decision in Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith >>>>> Corp., http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/july96/95-3485.html . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have. >>>> >>>>> We're not talking about novels here, so case law that applies to >>>>> novels may not be applicable to recipes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit. You're suggesting that the limited scope of that ruling >>>> applies to all recipes. It doesn't. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, and my appologies if that is what's implied, I'm suggesting the >>> the ruling is applicable to Fritz's statement that "you can't >>> copyright the list of ingredients used in the recipe, only the way in >>> which the directions are written. As long as you put the directions >>> into your own words you're not violating copyright." I think this is >>> also applicable to the bare bones nature of most of the recipes >>> presented on afv. >> >> >> >> NOT in the fashion employed en masse by Lindsay, the scofflaw at >> issue. What he is doing is akin to posting a copyrighted novel or >> pirated software in serial fashion (1 of 8, 2 of 8, etc.) without >> permission of the copyright holder. He's posting significant portions >> of copyrighted compilations of works without permission from the >> authors or their publishers. That is NOT protected by the limited >> scope of Meredith. > > Just curious, do you believe publishing a single recipe would have been > a violation? Verbatim and without the author's permission, yes. If not in the letter, definitely in the spirit. It would be quite different if he'd copied a recipe or two and given or even e-mailed it to a friend. This is a public forum accessible by the entire wired world, though, and what's he's ostensibly done (de facto) is put a portion of Ms Robertson's work in the public domain (though she still holds the copyright of it -- de jure). > When does the number of recipes from a publication become > significant? Is it an absolute number, a percentage, or does it depend > on other circumstances? (Rhetorical) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How many cars does one have to steal before one is considered a car thief or that car theft has occurred? Copyrights exist to protect in the interests of those who create abstract assets. Those who violate them steal and/or diminish the value of those assets. That's whether the infringements are in whole or in part. >>>>> Can you cite legal precedents where individual recipes, that >>>>> altered the method of preparation, were held to be in violation of >>>>> copyright law? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Off the top of my head, no. I can try to make it over to the law >>>> library tomorrow and look up case law. >>>> >>>>> I'm not talking about verbatim copying of colorful commentary, or >>>>> whole collections, merely individual recipes where the method of >>>>> preparation has been altered. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Whoa -- the Seventh Circuit judged that the differences in the two >>>> parties' recipes were "substantial." >>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> include the source even when I alter the ingredients out of >>>>>>>>> respect for the >>>>>>>>> cookbook author and also to let folks know where they can get >>>>>>>>> the original >>>>>>>>> recipe as well as a book full of other good recipes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have more ethics than the OP. Then again, so does Bill >>>>>>>> Clinton and Larry Flynt. Combined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > John Q. Blackbeard wrote: > Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's possessions are being > stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it were your > things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to turn this > around: You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the author(s) then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your disdain for Mr. Falafel. > I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you hysterical, > self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and books is > acceptable. The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
<...> >>Oh, come on. Why, in the context of the discussion, >>would you think it would mean anything *other* than the >>textbook definition? > > People often have different intepretations of what things mean, > particularly for subjective terms like 'fair use'. I expected him to > reply with something other than a link to a definition. In hindsight, > I should have framed my question more explicitly. You didn't ask me my opinion of the matter, you asked for a definition. I gave you one. The great irony in all this is that vegans usually consider themselves more ethical than others. I guess that only relates to what they put in their mouths, not anything else they do. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
usual suspect wrote:
> C. James Strutz wrote: > <...> > >>> Oh, come on. Why, in the context of the discussion, >>> would you think it would mean anything *other* than the >>> textbook definition? >> >> >> People often have different intepretations of what things mean, >> particularly for subjective terms like 'fair use'. I expected him to >> reply with something other than a link to a definition. In hindsight, >> I should have framed my question more explicitly. > > > You didn't ask me my opinion of the matter, you asked for a definition. > I gave you one. > > The great irony in all this is that vegans usually consider themselves > more ethical than others. I guess that only relates to what they put in > their mouths, not anything else they do. Because "vegans" are almost exclusively extreme leftists, and because there is a large and horrible overlap of moral relativism with extreme leftism, it isn't surprising that "vegans" would easily be able to justify to themselves and others the blatant theft of intellectual property. When one sees oneself as being among The Anointed, one tends to grant oneself special dispensation from messy and inconvenient strictures like copyright law. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: > > >>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's > > possessions are being > >>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it > > were your > >>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to > > turn this > >>around: > > > You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the author(s) > then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to > police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your > disdain for Mr. Falafel. It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the rest of society, and the specific disdain for property exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. > > >>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you > > hysterical, > >>self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and > > books is > >>acceptable. > > > The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: > > > > > >>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's > > > > possessions are being > > > >>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it > > > > were your > > > >>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to > > > > turn this > > > >>around: > > > > > > You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the author(s) > > then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to > > police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your > > disdain for Mr. Falafel. > > It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the > unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the > rest of society, and the specific disdain for property > exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. Didn't Usual Suspect, himself, just write that two wrongs don't make a right? It seems to me that the disdain you and others hold for vegans because you perceive them to have disdain for the "rest of society" is exactly that. > > > > > > >>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you > > > > hysterical, > > > >>self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and > > > > books is > > > >>acceptable. > > > > > > The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's > possessions are being >>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it > were your >>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to > turn this >>around: > > You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the author(s) > then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. It may not be difficult, but that's beside the point. > Nobody needs you to police for them. I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted works have been posted in public. > Your actions are a very thin disguise for your > disdain for Mr. Falafel. This isn't personal. >>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you > hysterical, >>self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and > books is >>acceptable. > > The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. As I said in another reply to you, vegans are only concerned about the ethics of what they put in their mouths, not the rest of their unseemly actions. I'm not surprised that you're so easily amused; someone's diminished the value of another person's property, and you get a good laugh. That tells me a lot about what kind of person you are. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's >>> >>>possessions are being >>> >>> >>>>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it >>> >>>were your >>> >>> >>>>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to >>> >>>turn this >>> >>> >>>>around: >>> >>> >>>You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the > > author(s) > >>>then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to >>>police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your >>>disdain for Mr. Falafel. >> >>It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the >>unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the >>rest of society, and the specific disdain for property >>exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. > > > Didn't Usual Suspect, himself, just write that two wrongs don't make a > right? It seems to me that the disdain you and others hold for vegans > because you perceive them to have disdain for the "rest of society" is > exactly that. I just replied to your assertion that this is about disdain. If it were, I'd call him some rather despicable names rather than stoically pointing out the seriousness of his actions and explaining the reasons we have copyright laws. This isn't personal. Stop pretending that it is. >>>>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you >>> >>>hysterical, >>> >>> >>>>self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and >>> >>>books is >>> >>> >>>>acceptable. >>> >>> >>>The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. >>> >>> >> > > |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's >>> >>>possessions are being >>> >>> >>>>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it >>> >>>were your >>> >>> >>>>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to >>> >>>turn this >>> >>> >>>>around: >>> >>> >>>You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the > > author(s) > >>>then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to >>>police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your >>>disdain for Mr. Falafel. >> >>It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the >>unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the >>rest of society, and the specific disdain for property >>exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. > > > Didn't Usual Suspect, himself, just write that two wrongs don't make a > right? He did. That's not what this is about. > It seems to me that the disdain you and others hold for vegans > because you perceive them to have disdain for the "rest of society" is > exactly that. Not in the least. I do view "vegans" with contempt, but I don't view "vegans" with contempt merely because they exhibit disdain for the society they pretend not to be part of. I view them with contempt because of the intellectually indefensible basis of their disdain; because of their rampant hypocrisy; because of their arrogance and unjustified condescension toward those who don't swallow their pseudo-philosophy. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's > > possessions are being > >>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it > > were your > >>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to > > turn this > >>around: > > > > You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the author(s) > > then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. > > It may not be difficult, but that's beside the point. > > > Nobody needs you to police for them. > > I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted works have been > posted in public. You are policing. > > Your actions are a very thin disguise for your > > disdain for Mr. Falafel. > > This isn't personal. It's obviously very personal. > >>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you > > hysterical, > >>self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and > > books is > >>acceptable. > > > > The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. > > As I said in another reply to you, vegans are only concerned about the ethics of > what they put in their mouths, not the rest of their unseemly actions. I'm not > surprised that you're so easily amused; someone's diminished the value of > another person's property, and you get a good laugh. That tells me a lot about > what kind of person you are. Not surprisingly, you have completely missed the irony. You insist that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them "hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies". If you still don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical, self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior. Furthermore, you attempt to project fault back onto me by falsely accusing me of laughing at "someone's diminished value of another person's property" - a defense mechanism typical of you. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > >>C. James Strutz wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>> > >>> > >>>>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's > >>> > >>>possessions are being > >>> > >>> > >>>>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if it > >>> > >>>were your > >>> > >>> > >>>>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying to > >>> > >>>turn this > >>> > >>> > >>>>around: > >>> > >>> > >>>You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the > > > > author(s) > > > >>>then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you to > >>>police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your > >>>disdain for Mr. Falafel. > >> > >>It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the > >>unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the > >>rest of society, and the specific disdain for property > >>exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. > > > > > > Didn't Usual Suspect, himself, just write that two wrongs don't make a > > right? > > He did. That's not what this is about. > > > It seems to me that the disdain you and others hold for vegans > > because you perceive them to have disdain for the "rest of society" is > > exactly that. > > Not in the least. I do view "vegans" with contempt, > but I don't view "vegans" with contempt merely because > they exhibit disdain for the society they pretend not > to be part of. I view them with contempt because of > the intellectually indefensible basis of their disdain; > because of their rampant hypocrisy; because of their > arrogance and unjustified condescension toward those > who don't swallow their pseudo-philosophy. Okay, so you claim a different wrong. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>C. James Strutz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>John Q. Blackbeard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Not as evil as those who keep tight-lipped when someone's >>>>> >>>>>possessions are being >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>stolen right under their own noses. You'd think differently if > > it > >>>>>were your >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>things being stolen or your rights being violated. Stop trying > > to > >>>>>turn this >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>around: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You know, if copyright infringement were a problem for the >>> >>>author(s) >>> >>> >>>>>then it wouldn't be hard to find the evidence. Nobody needs you > > to > >>>>>police for them. Your actions are a very thin disguise for your >>>>>disdain for Mr. Falafel. >>>> >>>>It's a richly deserved disdain, based on the >>>>unwarranted disdain exhibited by ALL "vegans" for the >>>>rest of society, and the specific disdain for property >>>>exhibited here by Jon Lindsay. >>> >>> >>>Didn't Usual Suspect, himself, just write that two wrongs don't > > make a > >>>right? >> >>He did. That's not what this is about. >> >> >>>It seems to me that the disdain you and others hold for vegans >>>because you perceive them to have disdain for the "rest of > > society" is > >>>exactly that. >> >>Not in the least. I do view "vegans" with contempt, >>but I don't view "vegans" with contempt merely because >>they exhibit disdain for the society they pretend not >>to be part of. I view them with contempt because of >>the intellectually indefensible basis of their disdain; >>because of their rampant hypocrisy; because of their >>arrogance and unjustified condescension toward those >>who don't swallow their pseudo-philosophy. > > > Okay, so you claim a different wrong. No. > Still, two wrongs don't make a > right. My contempt for them, based on their intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, is fully warranted. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
<...> >>>Nobody needs you to police for them. >> >>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted >>works have been posted in public. > > You are policing. No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist on stopping policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned about self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not). >>>Your actions are a very thin disguise for your >>>disdain for Mr. Falafel. >> >>This isn't personal. > > It's obviously very personal. Not at all. >>>>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you >>>hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and >>>books is acceptable. >>> >>>The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. >> >>As I said in another reply to you, vegans are only concerned about >>the ethics of what they put in their mouths, not the rest of their unseemly >>actions. I'm not surprised that you're so easily amused; someone's diminished the >>value of another person's property, and you get a good laugh. That tells me a >>lot about what kind of person you are. > > Not surprisingly, you have completely missed the irony. I didn't. > You insist > that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such > bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them > "hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies". There's no hysteria involved in this, James. There's no self-absorption, except on the part of the vegans (Michael even suggested that I should leave it be because Lindsay "is an avid vegan who is spreading the message-we are a small family-we need to stick together" and so on -- as if veganism comes before ethics and the law). The smarmiest self-righteousness came when Lindsay claimed he's performing an advertising service with his repeated copyright infringements. > If you still > don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical, > self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior. You're wrong. Very wrong. > Furthermore, you > attempt to project fault back onto me by falsely No, *rightly*. > accusing me of > laughing at "someone's diminished value of another person's > property" - a defense mechanism typical of you. That's not a defense mechanism -- your own hysterical, self-absorbed, and self-righteous projections are. I doubt you'd laugh if someone stole from you, yet you do it when others steal from authors, film studios, recording artists, photographers, etc. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
ADDENDUM
usual suspect wrote: <...> >The smarmiest > self-righteousness came when Lindsay claimed he's performing an > advertising service with his repeated copyright infringements. ADD: And due compensation from authors and publishers for his intransigence. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > <...> > >>>Nobody needs you to police for them. > >> > >>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted > >>works have been posted in public. > > > > You are policing. > > No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist on stopping > policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned about > self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not). Oh, you read minds too?! > >>>>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you > >>>hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing music and > >>>books is acceptable. > >>> > >>>The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. > >> > >>As I said in another reply to you, vegans are only concerned about > >>the ethics of what they put in their mouths, not the rest of their unseemly > >>actions. I'm not surprised that you're so easily amused; someone's diminished the > >>value of another person's property, and you get a good laugh. That tells me a > >>lot about what kind of person you are. > > > > Not surprisingly, you have completely missed the irony. > > I didn't. > > > You insist > > that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such > > bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them > > "hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies". > > There's no hysteria involved in this, James. There's no self-absorption, except > on the part of the vegans (Michael even suggested that I should leave it be > because Lindsay "is an avid vegan who is spreading the message-we are a small > family-we need to stick together" and so on -- as if veganism comes before > ethics and the law). The smarmiest self-righteousness came when Lindsay claimed > he's performing an advertising service with his repeated copyright infringements. Look, I'm not definding anybody's position here.You are being emphatically righteous about this copyright infringement thing, and the irony is in your accusations of vegans being righteous. I'm trying to tell you that you're matching righteousness with righteousness, and even exceeding in most cases. It's very annoying. > > If you still > > don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical, > > self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior. > > You're wrong. Very wrong. I'm right on the money, and you know it. > > Furthermore, you > > attempt to project fault back onto me by falsely > > No, *rightly*. > > > accusing me of > > laughing at "someone's diminished value of another person's > > property" - a defense mechanism typical of you. > > That's not a defense mechanism -- your own hysterical, self-absorbed, and > self-righteous projections are. More projection on your part - your favorite defense mechanism. :^) > I doubt you'd laugh if someone stole from you, > yet you do it when others steal from authors, film studios, recording artists, > photographers, etc. Well, I agree that there must be laws and enforcement for copyright infringement. Copyright authors, artists, etc. should have rights to protect their work and their livelihood. I've developed enough electronic hardware and software over the years to know about putting your creative heart and soul into your work. And I've done lots of projects for personal use, friends, and the public domain. Most of those projects were done for fun and I never realized any money from it. None of it was ever copyrighted or patented because I never cared. I am always happy to contribute a solution to somebody's problem and honored when somebody uses my work. The only thing I would be ****ed about is if somebody used my work for profit, particularly if I didn't even get credit for it. That sort of thing isn't happening here with posting recipes. IMO, you're making a problem where there isn't one. |
|
|||
|
|||
copyright notice to afv
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >><...> >> >>>>>Nobody needs you to police for them. >>>> >>>>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted >>>>works have been posted in public. >>> >>>You are policing. >> >>No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist on stopping >>policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned about >>self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not). > > > Oh, you read minds too?! I'm always amused by ths charge of "mind reading" by someone who has plainly revealed enough of what he believes for a reasonably intelligent person to make a correct inference about the first person's beliefs. Mr. Suspect has made a correct inference: you are NOT concerned about self-appointed netcops, because you don't criticize those who do it as long as the vigilantes are on your side. > > >>>>>>I've done the right thing, even if it's unpopular with you >>>>> >>>>>hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies who think stealing > > music and > >>>>>books is acceptable. >>>>> >>>>>The irony of this statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. >>>> >>>>As I said in another reply to you, vegans are only concerned about >>>>the ethics of what they put in their mouths, not the rest of their > > unseemly > >>>>actions. I'm not surprised that you're so easily amused; someone's > > diminished the > >>>>value of another person's property, and you get a good laugh. That tells > > me a > >>>>lot about what kind of person you are. >>> >>>Not surprisingly, you have completely missed the irony. >> >>I didn't. >> >> >>>You insist >>>that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such >>>bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them >>>"hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies". >> >>There's no hysteria involved in this, James. There's no self-absorption, > > except > >>on the part of the vegans (Michael even suggested that I should leave it > > be > >>because Lindsay "is an avid vegan who is spreading the message-we are a > > small > >>family-we need to stick together" and so on -- as if veganism comes before >>ethics and the law). The smarmiest self-righteousness came when Lindsay > > claimed > >>he's performing an advertising service with his repeated copyright > > infringements. > > Look, I'm not definding anybody's position here.You are being emphatically > righteous about this copyright infringement thing, and the irony is in your > accusations of vegans being righteous. I'm trying to tell you that you're > matching righteousness with righteousness, and even exceeding in most cases. > It's very annoying. > > >>>If you still >>>don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical, >>>self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior. >> >>You're wrong. Very wrong. > > > I'm right on the money, and you know it. > > >>>Furthermore, you >>>attempt to project fault back onto me by falsely >> >>No, *rightly*. >> >> >>>accusing me of >>>laughing at "someone's diminished value of another person's >>>property" - a defense mechanism typical of you. >> >>That's not a defense mechanism -- your own hysterical, self-absorbed, and >>self-righteous projections are. > > > More projection on your part - your favorite defense mechanism. :^) > > >>I doubt you'd laugh if someone stole from you, >>yet you do it when others steal from authors, film studios, recording > > artists, > >>photographers, etc. > > > Well, I agree that there must be laws and enforcement for copyright > infringement. Copyright authors, artists, etc. should have rights to protect > their work and their livelihood. I've developed enough electronic hardware > and software over the years to know about putting your creative heart and > soul into your work. And I've done lots of projects for personal use, > friends, and the public domain. Most of those projects were done for fun and > I never realized any money from it. None of it was ever copyrighted or > patented because I never cared. I am always happy to contribute a solution > to somebody's problem and honored when somebody uses my work. The only thing > I would be ****ed about is if somebody used my work for profit, particularly > if I didn't even get credit for it. That sort of thing isn't happening here > with posting recipes. IMO, you're making a problem where there isn't one. > > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Copyright protection on recipes | General Cooking | |||
Tuscany tries to copyright its landscapes | General Cooking | |||
Copyright | Wine | |||
To All Our Copyright Cops | Vegan | |||
Copyright notice | Vegan |