Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa? Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be released under a nc-sa license. As the CC page says: Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. If I choose to release my new work under a by-sa license I will be violating the second person's license. If I choose a nc-sa license I will be violating the first person's license. And that's why I don't like Share-Alike licenses. They make remixing hard and/or impossible. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
No, it must be the *same* license. - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa? Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be released under a nc-sa license. As the CC page says: Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. If I choose to release my new work under a by-sa license I will be violating the second person's license. If I choose a nc-sa license I will be violating the first person's license. And that's why I don't like Share-Alike licenses. They make remixing hard and/or impossible. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
What part of If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may* distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this one is unclear to you (emphasis mine)? And from the legal code: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan). It is quite clear. If you use materiale from a Share-Alike work (apart from Fair Use), you *must* release your work under the exact same license. I've been telling you it's stupid, but that's how it is. - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:35:03 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Though it doesn't look like it should. - Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it must be the *same* license. - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup solitude@ wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric enric@ wrote: Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa? Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be released under a nc-sa license. As the CC page says: Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. If I choose to release my new work under a by-sa license I will be violating the second person's license. If I choose a nc-sa license I will be violating the first person's license. And that's why I don't like Share-Alike licenses. They make remixing hard and/or impossible. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Legal loophole: can a work have two licenses simultaneously? Andreas Haugstrup wrote: What part of "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may* distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this one" is unclear to you (emphasis mine)? And from the legal code: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It is quite clear. If you use materiale from a Share-Alike work (apart from Fair Use), you *must* release your work under the exact same license. I've been telling you it's stupid, but that's how it is. - Andreas SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan). It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between equal to and equal to or more. :o) -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same". In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the sameones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between "equal to" and "equal to or more". :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the right interpretation of same. It reads: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. Identical is equal to equal :o) - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:40:06 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It didn't say equal to though. It said contains the same. In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan). It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between equal to and equal to or more. :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group videoblogging on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Any license which is not a Share-Alike allows for easy re-use in one form or another. It's up to each individual to choose which one is best for them. - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:45:02 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So is the sampling license the way to go for allowing remixing? http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling?format=audio -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com http://www.cinegage.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it must be the *same* license. - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup solitude@ wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric enric@ wrote: Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa? Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be released under a nc-sa license. As the CC page says: Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. If I choose to release my new work under a by-sa license I will be violating the second person's license. If I choose a nc-sa license I will be violating the first person's license. And that's why I don't like Share-Alike licenses. They make remixing hard and/or impossible. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." If the 2nd bolded phrase were completely identical to the 1st bolded phrase, it would be redundant and useless. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the right interpretation of "same". It reads: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one." Identical is equal to equal :o) - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:40:06 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same". In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between "equal to" and "equal to or more". :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each jurisdiction. Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to? - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:09 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan). If the 2nd bolded phrase were completely identical to the 1st bolded phrase, it would be redundant and useless. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the right interpretation of same. It reads: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. Identical is equal to equal :o) - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:40:06 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It didn't say equal to though. It said contains the same. In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan). It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between equal to and equal to or more. :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group videoblogging on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group videoblogging on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Andreas Haugstrup wrote: The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each jurisdiction. Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to? Sure. If the 2nd phrase has any meaning at all, and is not merely a redundant waste of ink written to annoy and befuddle, then it was specifically intended to permit the sort of joint licenses being proposed in this thread -- as long as they are iCommons licenses that "contain the same elements". - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:09 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." If the 2nd bolded phrase were completely identical to the 1st bolded phrase, it would be redundant and useless. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the right interpretation of "same". It reads: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one." Identical is equal to equal :o) - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:40:06 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same". In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between "equal to" and "equal to or more". :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
okay - wow - this has gone far (but interesting) from what I was asking about so let me try again.The licence that I was talking about was BY-SA. I DO want to allow remixes and sampling. According to that license if you alter or make a derivitive work you must release it under the same license which, I'm thinking, excludes selling it. Correct? So in order for someone to use the work commercially, they'd have to use it in it's entire unaltered form. -Verdi SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical
Hello Will,On 5/15/06, wtrainbow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Charles,I'm not sure what your point is.You can certainly make the argument that copyright law ismorally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.Are you advocating violating copyright law as some sort of protest? Sorry for the confusion.First... No, I am not telling people to violate copyright law.I'm advocating Copyleft. I am suggesting that people use things like the Creative Commons Share-A-Like license(s). And the GNU GPL license. Copyleft in a way let's you opt-out of copyright law. In a way it makes things as if there was no copyright law. The fact is that there are plenty of laws that people would consider morally wrong yet wedecide to follow them because we live in a civil society. If you don't agree with them workto change them.I think current copyright law has a lot of problems but I'm not convinced that the concept of copyright law is morally wrong...it's an interesting philosophical question but I don'tsee it having much practical for videoblogging unless the laws radically change.I guess I didn't make what I was trying to say very clear. I was agruing that Copyright law was morally wrong. And suggesting that those who agree with that use Copyleft licenses for their works.See ya See yaWill--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hello Devlon, I understand where you are coming from.But I think the argument being made is that the concept of Copyright law is (morally) wrong (regardless of whether it is legal). (I tried to elaborate on what Mark Hosler said in a long post I made in this thread.) See ya On 5/14/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, maybe I am naive or just too new to all this, but I don't see a problem at all.If someone wants to protect their work, they use a license.We have optionsall rights reserved (not granular enough imho) and CC. I feel the great thing about CC is the granularity.I can choose what rights I'd like to reserve. If someone doesn't agree with NC, or ND, then don't use it on their work...simple, done. I can't think of a better way to phrase this, so please forgive the bluntness of it, but it seems like those who oppose the noderivs portion of CC feel that anything released online should be open to them to play with. If it's online, it's mine? On 5/13/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Please post the URL to it when it's done. See ya On 5/13/06, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yeah I'm just doing up a piece by Eben Moglen where he mentions that he and Stallman believe that the NC provisionsomewaht defeats the purpose.. It's a big encode I'll hopefullyhave it up on Monday. joly Charles wrote:Hello Chuck,You may want to check this out also... Creative Commons -NC Licenses Consider Harmfulhttp://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655[...] -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.casupercanadian @ gmail.comdeveloper weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/___ Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/ SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
