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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Balarama
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>
> <...>
>

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>
>> <...>
>>


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>

>

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>

>>


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>

>

  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>
>>>>

>>




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>

>

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

>

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Q. Blackbeard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Knezevich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

>

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?















































































































































  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>

>>




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

<...>

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>
>


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
> >
> >

>





  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>>
>>>

>>

>
>


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

<...>

  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copyright protection on recipes Mark Thorson General Cooking 15 22-01-2012 01:42 PM
Tuscany tries to copyright its landscapes Mark Thorson General Cooking 3 23-07-2011 05:22 AM
Copyright Richard Neidich Wine 25 31-07-2008 03:02 AM
To All Our Copyright Cops Trivia Vegan 8 13-07-2004 01:46 PM
Copyright notice Ron Vegan 0 09-03-2004 08:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"