Each time I see that a statement is made that attacks a person and not an idea, I step in. If there is a portion of the guidelines you do not understand fiddler, I will be glad to adress it specifically with you. I will not argue with you about your opinion of me. I would like to know that you understand the guidelines and will be glad to discuss them, if indeed this was your intention with this comment.
On Jan 17, 11:51 am, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > I noticed that you are on top of any insult from certain people, be > they real or imagined. Yet, in this very thread, insults are thrown at > them and you don't say a word... wonder why... > > On Jan 17, 9:25 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Slip, you are crossing the guidelines with this post. There is a > > difference between pointing to a statement of yours that Alan > > misinterpreted, and clarifying your statements for him - and telling > > him he does not know what he is talking about (attack on him as a > > person) and telling him to mind his own business (also an attack) > > > Everyone in this group has a right to respond to each thread within > > the group guidelines. Speak to the statements and ideas. Do not > > attack the person. > > > On Jan 17, 11:03 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Look Allan, you don't know what you are talking about nor is your > > > interpretations of the thread post correct. > > > > Did you read any sentence that said Molly wronged me? Did you read > > > any portion that implied a lawsuit? > > > > It was a request for Molly to discontinue using my M E posts on her > > > blog, not a lawsuit. > > > > Molly understood it perfectly and in her First reply stated: > > > Slip at one time gave me permission to use his comments from this > > > group on my blog. now he is asking me not to use them. No problem. > > > As a courtesy, I do not use material on my blog without permission, > > > although the fair use copyright laws (as we have discussed previously > > > in this group) are applicable. <molly > > > > SEE?? Can you READ? "now he is asking me not to use them"? > > > > If you don't know what you are talking about your should mind your own > > > business. > > > > On Jan 17, 5:36 am, 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 > > ... > > 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.
