Money for everyone- that Would be grand!
On Jul 26, 1:43 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dotto, Molly ! Yeah, the money part included.
>
> On Jul 26, 8:21 pm, 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
