It is all too common to resort to dictionaries in groups like this…it happens a lot here too. However, to keep away from less productive chatter, as apparently irrational as it may appear, often we just accept that each of us approaches words in our own unique way and do our best to empathize with others and how they use the language too.
This in no way is meant to suggest that apparently improper use of terms should not be pointed out…I think they should. It’s more to point out what is a deeper goal than just reading dictionaries. The truth is that almost all words have countless meanings and often lead to misunderstandings…when used by one in a specific way and heard by another as a different definition. I just attempt to decode…read between the lines…etc. doing my best at getting to the ‘heart of the matter’…that which in fact is intended rather than arguing about term usage. But, that is only me. On Jan 16, 7:34 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > And regardless has absolutely nothing to do with love without > expectations of a return. > > On Jan 16, 6:54 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Detachment is also used in love relationships and is very much a part > > of al-anon tactics when dealing with a drunk or druggie. > > > On Jan 16, 4:35 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That is not detachment. > > > > de·tach·ment (d-tchmnt) > > > n. > > > 1. The act or process of disconnecting or detaching; separation. > > > 2. The state of being separate or detached. > > > 3. Indifference to or remoteness from the concerns of others; > > > aloofness: preserved a chilly detachment in his relations with the > > > family. > > > 4. Absence of prejudice or bias; disinterest: strove to maintain her > > > professional detachment in the case. > > > 5. > > > a. The dispatch of a military unit, such as troops or ships, from a > > > larger body for a special duty or mission. > > > b. The unit so dispatched. > > > c. A permanent unit, usually smaller than a platoon, organized for > > > special duties. > > > > If you notice, indifference is indeed a part of detachment when > > > involving relationships, not love. > > > > On Jan 16, 2:19 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Detachment is not indifference. Detachment is love without expecting > > > > anything in return and without self importance > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:24 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This is what you do - fair enough for now. > > > > > > I don't believe that ignorance is a bliss, though. > > > > > > On 16 Jan., 17:56, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't worry about it. > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 10:41 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I wouldn't know but found articlestree.com on the wiki site and > > > > > > > went > > > > > > > there to discover the YouTube issue. > > > > > > > > I think internet piracy and infringement is going to take place > > > > > > > because we are in International waters where anything goes and > > > > > > > establishing liability, initiating prosecution procedures that > > > > > > > culminate to a satisfactory end are highly unlikely. Its not much > > > > > > > different from the phishing scams originating out of foreign > > > > > > > countries. What are we to do about someone in Nigeria pirating > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > work, zilch! > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:59 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The above citation was (as referenced parenthetically) from the > > > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > thread on the subject, and the words were gruff's, not mine, > > > > > > > > and I am > > > > > > > > not sure where he got the legal sitings. > > > > > > > > > I do not use any comments when a participant has requested that > > > > > > > > I do > > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The unauthorized use of text content can be a form of > > > > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > > > > infringement. It is common on the world wide web for text to > > > > > > > > > be copied > > > > > > > > > from one site to another without consent of the author. > > > > > > > > > Roberta Beach > > > > > > > > > Jacobson criticizes the misappropriation of writers' work by > > > > > > > > > websites > > > > > > > > > in her article Copyrights and Wrongs. This article was added > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > articlestree.com[8] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it has > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > been copied to hundreds of websites,[9] many of them claiming > > > > > > > > > copyright over the work or charging money to access it. > > > > > > > > > > 8 ^ Jacobson, Roberta Beach (2001-11-27). "Copyrights and > > > > > > > > > Wrongs".www.articlestree.com.http://www.articlestree.com/copywriting/copyrigh....... > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > 9 ^ "Results 1 - 10 of about 371 for "Roberta Beach Jacobson" > > > > > > > > > "Copyrights and > > > > > > > > > Wrongs"".www.google.com.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Roberta+Beach+Jacobs....... > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Text > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't an intention to establish lawsuit but merely a > > > > > > > > > cease and > > > > > > > > > desist declaration. "Potentially" a compilation of copied > > > > > > > > > texts can > > > > > > > > > form a published work with all copyright reservations thereby > > > > > > > > > rendering it as having monetary value. You could easily > > > > > > > > > compile (not > > > > > > > > > implying intent) the copied ME posts and put together any > > > > > > > > > form of > > > > > > > > > marketable material. Establishing reserved rights to my > > > > > > > > > personal work > > > > > > > > > gives me the opportunity to compile my own work for > > > > > > > > > integration within > > > > > > > > > another body of material, therefore the work does have > > > > > > > > > monetary value > > > > > > > > > when considering authorship aside from the what you have > > > > > > > > > labeled as a > > > > > > > > > diminutive value of personal ego. The laws are complex and > > > > > > > > > subject to > > > > > > > > > a myriad of interpretations adding to the difficulty of > > > > > > > > > establishing > > > > > > > > > laws concerning electronic information and the copying and > > > > > > > > > exchange of > > > > > > > > > such information. Who would buy books if they were just so > > > > > > > > > easy to > > > > > > > > > copy from some Internet site? This is the crux of the matter. > > > > > > > > > > Consider YouTube's use of and distribution of material and the > > > > > > > > > implications. (scroll down for the article) > > > > > > > > > >http://www.articlestree.com/Legal/youtube-could-be-liable-for-copyrig... > > > > > > > > > > Again it is simply a cease and desist declaration not a > > > > > > > > > prelude to > > > > > > > > > legal remedies for infringement nor is it a complaint as > > > > > > > > > perceived by > > > > > > > > > Twirlip in the post above. I think you understand that. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:54 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > To be completely accurate, I began at Minds Eye asking > > > > > > > > > > individuals for > > > > > > > > > > permission, was told by the Mods that was not necessary > > > > > > > > > > because the > > > > > > > > > > posts here were public domain, so stopped. Sometime later, > > > > > > > > > > the public > > > > > > > > > > domain issue was challenged, and copyright/fair use laws > > > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > cross posting and copying the Minds Eye posts were > > > > > > > > > > discussed again. > > > > > > > > > > Truth is, there are many sites that pull these discussions > > > > > > > > > > with an rss > > > > > > > > > > feed and are used only for advertising. My blog is > > > > > > > > > > different than > > > > > > > > > > that, I make no money from it, and use it to create > > > > > > > > > > discussion and > > > > > > > > > > develop ideas. I change fictitious names to real names > > > > > > > > > > when I know > > > > > > > > > > them with permission and in respect because I think we are > > > > > > > > > > all adults > > > > > > > > > > with adult names in the discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Twirlip, for your permission. > > > > > > > > > > > Applicable fair use and copyright law (taken from our last > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > as referenced by the members here - thanks again) > > > > > > > > > > > 17 USC Sec. 102 holds your answer. TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS, > > > > > > > > > > CHAPTER 1 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT, Sec. 102. Subject > > > > > > > > > > matter of > > > > > > > > > > copyright: In general > > > > > > > > > > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with > > > > > > > > > > this title, > > > > > > > > > > in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible > > > > > > > > > > medium of > > > > > > > > > > expression, now known or later developed, from which > > > > > > > > > > they can be > > > > > > > > > > perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, > > > > > > > > > > either directly > > > > > > > > > > or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of > > > > > > > > > > authorship > > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > the following categories: > > > > > > > > > > (1) literary works; > > > > > > > > > > (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; > > > > > > > > > > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying > > > > > > > > > > music; > > > > > > > > > > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; > > > > > > > > > > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; > > > > > > > > > > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > > > > > > > > > > (7) sound recordings; and > > > > > > > > > > (8) architectural works. > > > > > > > > > > This is the raw law. Let me point you > > > > > > > > > > tohttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt > > > > > > > > > > which along with the above law also has the historical and > > > > > > > > > > revision > > > > > > > > > > notes which describe what the law is intended to encompass > > > > > > > > > > and how it > > > > > > > > > > should be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > n top of the above is what you can do if the copyright of > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > of which you have been the original author is violated -- > > > > > > > > > > about all > > > > > > > > > > you can do is send them a cease and desist order, which if > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > snubbed you could go to a court of equity to force them into > > > > > > > > > > compliance. But you couldn't sue them for monetary damages > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > there would be none. First of all, in posting on a forum > > > > > > > > > > such as > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > you have no expectation of profits so there is nothing to > > > > > > > > > > sue for. > > > > > > > > > > There are four elements to a lawsuit. There has to be a > > > > > > > > > > duty (such > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > not to steal someone else's work and represented it as your > > > > > > > > > > own), > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > there has to be a breach of that duty (such as that person > > > > > > > > > > taking > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > words and using them as their own), then that breach has to > > > > > > > > > > be the > > > > > > > > > > proximate cause (the most direct result) of damages which > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > suffered. Since you had no intention to reap a gain from > > > > > > > > > > your words > > > > > > > > > > here, there was no loss except to your ego which is not a > > > > > > > > > > compensable > > > > > > > > > > item. > > > > > > > > > > > Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 (Limitations on Exclusive > > > > > > > > > > rights: Fair > > > > > > > > > > use) > > > > > > > > > > § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > > > > > > > > > > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 > > ... > > 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.
