From: Callie Type (kallitype@hotmail.com)
Date: 03/10/01-02:10:27 PM Z
Not really confusing, and not really black and white, either. For instance,
lets say I wanted this-or-that info and you replied with a "according to the
Post Factory journal..." Probably, Judy wouldn't mind and probably would
enjoy the plug. But what if you quoted entire pages, and did it repeatedly?
She might get perturbed and ask you to stop. What if you didn't? She
might haul your ass into court, but she would still have to convince the
court what financial damages you inflicted. Like I said in a previous post,
anybody can sue anybody. It's not like any laws are being broken - its a
civil matter and the burden of proof is on the injured party. To me,
Napster was clearly in violation of copywrite laws, but it is still costing
millions to get them to stop!
>From: Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Still on Copyright
>Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:34:30 -0800
>
>Pardon me, but I'm playing the devil's advocate today. In an earlier post
>on this subject, someone suggested that if students were benefiting from
>the
>copied class material, perhaps the originator wants/requires them to
>purchase the material. I know this is nit picking, but aren't we all
>students here on the web and on this list; aren't we all looking to learn
>from one another and from our experiences.
>
>So, how is my transfering this information different than someone who finds
>it via one of the varied searches available on the net. And, isn't the
>copyright notice required somewhere in all of this?
>
>Kind of confusing, eh?
>
>Nick
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nick Makris" <nick@mcn.org>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:57 AM
>Subject: Re: Still on Copyright
>
>
> > Ok, so how about this situation? I save/categorize posts that I feel
>are
> > important/meaningful and I place them in corresponding folder in my
>email
> > program. Every once in a while someone posts a newbie request and I
>forward
> > the relative collection to that person - no charge of course. This has
> > occurred several times that I can think of.
> >
> > I can't see much difference between that scenario and the Joe's
>scenario,
> > except that the method of conveyance is by snail mail and not email.
> >
> > Nick
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Portale" <jportale@gci-net.com>
> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Still on Copyright
> >
> >
> > > This has been an interesting thread. To address your question Nick,
> > another
> > > mail list owner wanted to place all the list emails on a CD and sell
>them
> > to
> > > the members for the cost of reproduction. No real profit. His legal
> > > beagles informed him that he needed to get the written permission of
>every
> > > person that posted to that mailing list. I will surmise that if the
>email
> > > is sent to a central and common repository, and your intent was to
>allow
> > > people to read the email, no problem. But once another takes control
>of
> > > that email, that is where things get sticky.
> > >
> > > Editorial comment. For the most part, I believe that the idea of copy
> > right
> > > protection is a good one. It does protect us from having our work
>taken
> > by
> > > others. The unfortunate question is in today's market, who is being
> > > protected? Are we really concerned with the rights of the other
>person's
> > > intellectual property or have we fallen victim to scam by lawyers
>trying
> > to
> > > turn a fast buck? When is enough, enough? These are extreme
>examples,
> > yet
> > > they are real. A Japanese firm copy righted the view from a
>California
> > Golf
> > > Course and sued three photographers that took pictures of that vista
>and
> > > published them in various commercial magazines. (I'm taking mountains
>and
> > > ocean view folks, not someone's house. Check me if I'm wrong, but
>doesn't
> > > the world belong to everyone?)
> > > A major publishing company found a distant relative of Herman
>Melville.
> > And
> > > in his name, sued in federal court for the past and future profits
>from
> > the
> > > work Moby Dick. There was an active search for relatives of people
>like,
> > > George Fennimore Cooper, Henry David Thoreau, Stephan Crane and
>others.
> > Are
> > > these people really interested in defending the rights of these
>greats?
>I
> > > doubt it.
> > > So the question for debate is: You create an email, send it to a
>public
> > > list, such as this, should that email be treated as intellectual
>property
> > > and copy rightable? These are not private letters, they have been sent
> > into
> > > the world to be read by all. Comments?
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Portale
> > > Tucson, AZ
> > >
> > > Fellin' a little preachy this morning.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Nick Makris" <nick@mcn.org>
> > > To: "Alt Photo" <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:37 AM
> > > Subject: Still on Copyright
> > >
> > >
> > > > While we're on the subject, what about email messages found on the
>web?
> > > You
> > > > may or may not know that all the messages you send are not only
> > archived,
> > > > they are catagorized by several of the major search engines. Try
> > > searching
> > > > for your own name and see if the results don't include a message you
> > sent
> > > to
> > > > the list some time back.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, what is the consideration for copyright of these
>messages?
> > > >
> > > > Comments?
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST