Of course, you are right, my friend. Care to join me in a fried Mars Bar?
On Jul 27, 9:14 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, may we have you with us as you are, minus this copyright worry > that is tainting the thought. > > If law supports natural justice and has the support of common sense : > > 01 No one should be posting copyrighted matter in the public domain > without the obligatory notice and caution. > > 02 No one should be posting in the public domain matter one intends > to copyright, or has applied for copyright, without notice of such > intention and obligatory caution. > > 03 Every matter in the public domain without such notice and caution > is beyond the pale of copyright infringement law and, therefore, free > for reasonable use by others. > > Ergo, you have nothing to worry about, from what I know and believe. > Shake it ... off ! > > On Jul 27, 5:38 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
