Well SD maybe you think I miss interpeted what you said, there lies the problem miss interpretation. What I read is a veiled threat and when I was 22 my boss called me into his office and sat me down.. and this is what he had to say.. "We is the good guys, they is the bad guys. the good guys get the bad guys,, see?" I stopped questing the morality of law that day and did my job.. getting the bad guys.
Sorry the way you stated it is kicking in the job mentality'' To me it would be sufficient to simply say "Molly please stop using my comments and that would have been enough knowing Molly. If you are concerned about your copy right don't put it on any group or blog.. to enforce copy right laws can be a tough row to hoe. I listen to what you have to say and have learned a lot since I have been here. ME is a great place to exchange and enhance ideas,, To me it is about about sharing ideas not legal rights.. Allan On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Revision: > Allan,your interpretations of the thread post is entirely incorrect. > > 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 > > > > On Jan 17, 11:25 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 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > 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.
