No, Allan, I am still disagreeing with you. The opera is not about being right or left but about me myself and I. Yet the great honour that you feel attracted to is directly linked to the ME ME ME.
You're right, Molly never directly wronged any ME member. Just like it's not wrong to sell your sweets with a big fat sticker saying "0% fat!". I didn't know what she was doing until her practice became a public issue here. Only then I realized that she published articles here to gather selected content that she would publish under her own blog name. The image that the blog creates, is of course of monetary value when it comes to selling her own services. I have learned to become more care careful about the context in which I set my data. You will find a blank space behind my educational background on facebook, for example. MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :-) On 17 Jan., 12:36, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > SD > Molly has never wronged any member of ME to my knowledge. ME is about > sharing ideas and concepts (I know some members don't think so) ,, and if > you put it up in the group well all I can say is good luck in court. I have > read you violating the copyright of others.. > > Personally if some one expands on some of my thoughts it is a great honour > to have contributed to society. I think there is far to much of the great > right wing republican opera being sung... (Spraying throat preparing to > sing..) me, me, me, ME, ME, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. > Allan > > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM, 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 and 106A, the fair use > > > > > of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies > > > > > or > > > > > phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for > > > > > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching > > > > > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or > > > > > research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether > > > > > the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the > > > > > factors to be considered shall include -- > > > > > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use > > > > > is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > > > > > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > > > > > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to > > > > > the copyrighted work as a whole; and > > > > > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of > > > > > the copyrighted work. > > > > > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of > > > > > fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above > > > > > factors. > > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:17 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > How do you find out the correct legal form of words to use in cases > > > > > > like this? Again, just curious. I've always been mystified by > > > > > > legalese. > > > -- > > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan
-- 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.
