I wonder how much it would cost her to FedEx your 1 cents worth, if you plan on splitting the profits?
On Jul 26, 11:21 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > And so, formally, Molly, I hereby grant you permission to reproduce > the contributions I post here on your blogs. Of course, in the > unlikely event that anyone should offer you money for them, I expect > to hear from you straight away ;-) > > Francis > > On 26 Jul., 14:10, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I appreciate you weighing in here, Chris. I have actually been > > winding down on the blogs and groups for the last several months, > > focusing more on my books and family changes. I post about one a > > month now, down from four or five a month, and have some trouble > > keeping up with that. I am not likely to change my process at this > > point and risk opening myself up to more changes that others may > > demand. Funny, how people so often feel the need to tell others what > > they should be doing, and I'm sure it speaks to some level of > > control. What I will probably end up doing is continuing to post in > > the way that I have with the permission of the individual members of > > the group here, and not include those that do not wish to be > > included. Most of the core group of posters have already expressed > > their support and consent. Studying the legalities is always good for > > the learning, and I am confident that given the current internet > > environment, and my original Minds Eye instructions, I have acted in > > honest and fair ways. Unless each of you has submitted for copyright > > under your fictitious name, google is not claiming any copyright or > > ownership of content other than its company logos, guidelines, etc. > > The key to this fabricated problem is that no one has lost money and > > no one has gained money, so the content is public and the copyright > > issue is moot. I was amused at Justin's defense of my reputation from > > Orn's insinuations, but at this point, doubt the insinuations amount > > to more than sour grapes. > > > Do the Minds Eye admin have control over the design of my blog? The > > answer is no. But I will be glad to stop using any posts from folks > > who do not wish to participate. Chances are, I have not used many, if > > any, of your posts to date anyway. > > > On Jul 25, 10:41 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You know, I've thought long and hard about this issue. I know Craig is > > > studying legalities, and there will be some determination, I'm sure, but > > > I want my personal opinion on the record. > > > > I have no problem with my posts being reproduced, with attribution. I > > > think for it to be perfectly clear to all users, posts which are intended > > > for reproduction should be tagged as such, with a sig indicating where > > > they can be read. > > > > Once again, this is my opinion, and does not represent the total opinion > > > of the admins here. > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:Molly Brogan <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:25:47 -0700 > > > (PDT)Local:Fri, Jul 24 2009 2:25 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Are you in > > > control? > > > > Thanks, Francis! An added bonus. I will say that in terms of the > > > mind's eye group, I do not include the whole thread, and do not copy > > > posts that are not relevant to the topic, wandering off topic, > > > bickering and argumentative, or too obscure to make much sense. It > > > may seem like editing, but it is actually including the posts that are > > > relevant to the topic. I always try to make sure that the main ideas > > > of the conversation are clear and followed through to fruition. > > > > I will be glad to go back to sending a private email to posters that > > > might be included, asking permission. Because I do not reproduce > > > these as a commodity, like a book that I sell, I do not believe they > > > are considered intellectual property, especially given the google > > > conditions. But that is my opinion and I am sure the laws are ever > > > changing and the admin will work it out. Thanks Francis, and everyone > > > who has voiced their support. > > > > It is a nice segue into a discussion of "control" of public domain of > > > the internet and openness and freedom of information and learning that > > > results from our instantaneous access to information via the net. Do > > > we really need to be in complete control of everything we write onto > > > the web from our computers (I am not sure it is possible...) or is it > > > more of a matter of morals and ethics (should we be writing anything > > > we wouldn't want everyone in the world to see... > > > > I have google searches performed daily of my name, company name etc. > > > Google emails me every day with what they find on the web. The > > > darndest things show up, and I find myself on myriad blogs and > > > webpages. I have found very few instances where I asked that my name > > > or articles be removed from a site. When I do, folks have always > > > complied although given the current state of the laws, I really have > > > no recourse to "make" them other than spending a ton of money pressing > > > the legal issues. I think this is the way it should be. There is a > > > freedom here, that benefits us in ways we cannot imagine. It connects > > > us globally, and we discuss issues and think about things in ways that > > > we might not otherwise. Why try to control it? > > > > On Jul 24, 1:27 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've just been looking over Molly's "Converstions ..." blog. > > > > Personally, I don't have any problem with Molly reproducing my posts > > > > there. She acknowledges Mind's Eye openly as a source and - given that > > > > anyone on the web (with, perhaps, exceptions in places like China and > > > > Iran) can read what we post here - I don't see what the big issue is > > > > in having it accessible from another source. This is, of course, > > > > assuming that our contributions aren't edited or changed without our > > > > assent. In fact, I find it interesting to read some posts on the > > > > subjects from other sources. I suspect that one result of this > > > > discussion will be me looking in on Molly's blog a bit more frequently > > > > in the future :-) > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 24 Jul., 15:30, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Molly, > > > > > > I'm afraid it appears that whoever told you that you did not need > > > > > permission > > > > > to reproduce Mind's Eye posts without specific permission from the > > > > > actual > > > > > poster(s) has over-stepped their powers. See article 7 here: > > > > > >http://groups.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.... > > > > > > The admins are discussing this at the moment, but I'd suggest holding > > > > > back > > > > > from re-posting any more content until we're totally clear on the > > > > > rules and > > > > > their implications. Craig is a lawyer, so confident we'll get to the > > > > > bottom > > > > > of it. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > 2009/7/23 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > This is no secret, Orn, as you well know. When I began > > > > > > participating > > > > > > in Minds Eye in 2007, I asked members directly for permission to > > > > > > include these posts in the same discussion on this blog. After some > > > > > > time of that, the admin told me that I no longer needed to to this > > > > > > as > > > > > > it is a public forum and permission not necessary. FYI - posts from > > > > > > several forums on the internet are included on this blog. I do not > > > > > > make money on it and have not received complaints until now. It > > > > > > does > > > > > > no harm, is not a secret, and I am told, is interesting and > > > > > > sometimes > > > > > > helpful. > > > > > > > But we have been through this before and I am not sure why you keep > > > > > > bringing it up, especially when it disrupts a thread and has no > > > > > > relation to it. As I said, if you (or anyone) care enough to email > > > > > > me, I will be glad to discuss it with you further. For now, I break > > > > > > no rules and am indeed following instruction from 2007. > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Chris, in most instances of Molly starting a topic and ending with > > > > > > > "What do you think?" here at Mind's Eye, it is directly associated > > > > > > > with and copied from her personal webpage/blog: > > > > > > > >http://cblegacy.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > You can check the history here. This has been the case for years. > > > > > > > Those of us who reply at Minds Eye have our responses echoed on > > > > > > > her > > > > > > > website with, as far as I can tell, no attribution to Mind's Eye > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > all. I have mentioned this in the past and so far am merely > > > > > > > stating a > > > > > > > personal opinion that I see it as deception. Others may not agree. > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 12:48 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Your words aren't clear to me, Orn, in response to Molly's > > > > > > > > post. Will > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > clarify them for me? > > > > > > > > > I see her post covering a topic, discussing several authors who > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > written > > > > > > > > about the topic, and linking to a Wikipedia (public web page) > > > > > > > > about one > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the authors. From what I can tell, your response seems to have > > > > > > > > zero > > > > > > > > relevance to her post. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Molly, I have mentioned this before. My words are clear. You > > > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > > them or you don't. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:28 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > please explain. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 1:09 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that posting to a Google group (Mind's Eye) and > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > linking > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion to a personal website, giving the > > > > > > > > > > > impression it is > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > locus of > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
