I certainly hope to see my cut of your CPM. I think my top month on DubiousProfundity, with 178K unique IP's, was $68. I celebrated in style at the all you can eat Hong Kong Buffet. ;)
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the laugh..... > > On Jul 27, 9:11 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Molly, > > > > As far as I know, posting something to the group doesn't automatically > > enshrine it in copyright law. In my experience, some other kind of action > > would usually be needed. I don't know this for sure with regards to the > > Internet, however. Outside of my expertise. > > > > As I've said, it's your responsibility to make the decision. > > > > There may be a complication, however. Given that your blog is Google > > Adsense-enabled and carries Amazon AWS advertising -- and hence you are > > profiting from content you did not write -- I think Vam and Fran's talk > of > > wanting to see some kind of return for their contributions may need > > addressing, no? :) > > > > Ian > > > > 2009/7/27 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > For clarity, can you site us some copyright law that tells us clearly > > > that as soon as we post something in this group (no matter what name > > > we are posting under, and whether or not we have a legitimate profile > > > to match it) we own a copyright to it without actually applying for > > > copyright with the office of the country of our citizenship? This > > > would certainly be of interest to me and go a long way in clarifying > > > the concerns we are all voicing now. Last I checked, copyright was > > > something you applied for and were awarded after (in the US) paying > > > for the privilege. There is, on the internet, creative commons > > > copyright, but as that is not in use here, it does not apply. > > > > > Do you think that googles terms and conditions were referring to > > > material that may actually have a copyright? This is probably the > > > case, and reminds me that I should be listing the copyright info when > > > I post things from my books in these groups. But it doesn't really > > > matter anyway, because copyrights only come in handy if I can prove in > > > court that I obtained mine at a date prior to the publication of my > > > material under someone else's name, in which case, I might be awarded > > > damages if someone made money using my work as theirs. > > > > > It is all only points of interest. Going forward, I will only use the > > > posts from Minds Eye from folks who have given permission, and as I > > > said, this won't really change things much. Each post is accredited to > > > the author under their fictitious name or, if I can ascertain it, > > > their given name on my blog. I do this because I believe that we are > > > all adults and prefer to use adult names. I'm glad to clear things up > > > and hope for further clarification on the copyright issues. > > > > > The issue of how far we need to go to control our words has indeed > > > become an interesting topic. Neil's image of perusing the internet > > > for info on Darwin to formulate a response to the Darwin thread is > > > poignant. How many original ideas do we have? How deeply do other > > > writers words effect us on levels that we don't recognize as our words > > > are coming out of us? In my opinion, it isn't the words, but the > > > logos that moves between us as we are exchanging the words that > > > expands our awareness. Therein is the true treasure. Can we really > > > control that on the internet and why would we want to? I think the > > > more we try to hold on to control in these ways, the smaller our world > > > becomes. There are lots of groups on the internet. This one is great > > > because of the level of exchange between members. The internet is > > > great because it gives us immediate access to information and ideas. > > > It expands our world - in direct proportion to how we allow. > > > > > On Jul 27, 5:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Google's terms and conditions are clear: you may not reproduce posts > > > without > > > > permission of the copyright holder (the author of the post). Legally > > > there > > > > is no discussion to be had on this point; neither in public nor > private. > > > > Philosophically, as Francis has alluded to, there's probably quite a > lot > > > to > > > > discuss. > > > > > > Where there is a legal discussion is on what the moderators do about > the > > > > fact that one of us has previously given Molly permission to > reproduce > > > posts > > > > made to Mind's Eye on her blog. The question is what we do about this > > > (given > > > > that this permission was apparently not ours to give). This > discussion > > > only > > > > relates to the indemnity of the Moderators and has nothing to do with > the > > > > actual group. Ultimately Molly may choose to carry on reproducing > posts > > > on > > > > her blog, but, in my opinion, the Moderators should not be complicit > in > > > > this. > > > > > > As a writer I value the protection of copyright laws, even if others > do > > > not. > > > > > > Ian > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
