"I have never posted anything ever written in this blog by anyone else anywhere else. I wait for the day I see enough sense in any of it to bother passing it on." archytas
Enjoy reading drivel do you? ;-] On Jul 29, 10:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm an ugly bustard Molly, but I get told my breakfasts are cute. The > good news is that we may well soon be able to overload ourselves with > the excellent fodder and not get fat by taking citrus-based extract in > overload too. They already have it working for mice and rats. Men of > conscience like Francis will still not be able to indulge of course, > on various grounds from the Earth's starving poor to global warming. > Back on target, I have never posted anything ever written in this blog > by anyone else anywhere else. I wait for the day I see enough sense > in any of it to bother passing it on. Part of my novel is based on > someone else's ramblings in a group, and sooner or later Craig will > make money from someone challenging on such grounds. I saw the phrase > 'the real McCoy' being linked to whisky imports from Scotland during > the speakeasy days last week, but surely there are earlier versions of > this one. Originality surely has more dubious origins than a page in > a google thread! > > On 28 July, 13:29, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well if you want to, it is on the menu at the Nine Fine Irishmen in > > the hotel New York, New York, Las Vegas. A fine Italian served it to > > me but he was cute so I didn't quibble. > > > On Jul 28, 3:02 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Actually the best one I had was deep fried dill pickles, had it in a > > > little > > > restaurant in Bannak Mt at robbers roost. It was when my wife and I went > > > to > > > see my kids on vacation. > > > It was different and it had a different taste. Would I have it again? not > > > sure. > > > Allan > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > He may just opt to join us in a fried Mars Bar. > > > > > On Jul 27, 11:52 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Molly - US copyright law says that the act of fixing your expression > > > > > in a tangible medium invokes copyright protection. Nothing more need > > > > > be done for the author to own the copyright in the expression. Thus, > > > > > posting a comment on Minds Eye results in the writer owning a > > > > > copyright in the posted text. Of course, there is also fair use, about > > > > > which I've written you earlier. I'm interested in what Google's > > > > > counsel says about all this. Jim > > > > > > On Jul 27, 6:11 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > I_D Allan- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
