Re: Check out Peele's web site

[Guest guest]

At 18:44 19/06/00 +0000, you wrote:

>P.S. The first letter my site received was from Jim K. It was short

>and very complimentary.

I wouldn't trust anyone who wears a pointed hat.

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

> But as to quotes by Ervin or Szasz, look into the fair use

doctrine. The quotes may be covered by that doctrine. The closest I

ever got to the fair use doctrine was when an attorney in a trial I

was participating in copied a witness's entire doctoral dissertation

for the purpose of doing cross. There was a terrific wrangle about

whether it was fair use or not (the copying, not the cross), but when

it became clear that nobody knew what they were talking about the

objection was withdrawn.

> ---

> Kayleigh

Thanks Kayleigh,

That makes me feel a lot better. I had originally thought of it in

that manner. I sure quoted a lot of people in a lot of term papers

in the past. But I will make some contacts. I'll write to them

all. Sowell is sindicated and I read his column yesterday. Says he

gets tons of hate mail from teachers because of his criticism of the

public schools, so maybe he won't even have time to read my letter.

C.S. , British and deceased--well I don't know about that one.

How about it U.K. folks.

As far as my own stuff that I post here, I don't worry about that. I

just don't want to infringe on others, especially my heros like

Szasz, et al.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

Congratulations -- I read it and it's a good letter.

nicolenoel@... wrote:

> Holy s#@*! I just went to Stanton's web site to do some reading and

> the letter I wrote to him after the A & E program is posted, in its

> entirety, on page one of the site! Never expected that - kind of

> gave me a jolt. Anyway, for those who want to get a little

> background on me, check out http://www.peele.net. Don't know how long

> it will be on there...

>

> Nic

[Guest guest]

Tommy

-- the copyright rule in UK states that 50 years must elapse before " free

quotation " is admissable. More than fifty years has passed since the

appearance of most of 's better known writings, so I imagine your in

the clear with him. Literary copyright is a queer thing, though, and,

unless I'm mistaken, there are rare cases where other rulings can apply.

Best wishes,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: Check out Peele's web site

>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:12:07 -0000

>

>

> > But as to quotes by Ervin or Szasz, look into the fair use

>doctrine. The quotes may be covered by that doctrine. The closest I

>ever got to the fair use doctrine was when an attorney in a trial I

>was participating in copied a witness's entire doctoral dissertation

>for the purpose of doing cross. There was a terrific wrangle about

>whether it was fair use or not (the copying, not the cross), but when

>it became clear that nobody knew what they were talking about the

>objection was withdrawn.

> > ---

> > Kayleigh

>

>Thanks Kayleigh,

>

>That makes me feel a lot better. I had originally thought of it in

>that manner. I sure quoted a lot of people in a lot of term papers

>in the past. But I will make some contacts. I'll write to them

>all. Sowell is sindicated and I read his column yesterday. Says he

>gets tons of hate mail from teachers because of his criticism of the

>public schools, so maybe he won't even have time to read my letter.

>C.S. , British and deceased--well I don't know about that one.

>How about it U.K. folks.

>

>As far as my own stuff that I post here, I don't worry about that. I

>just don't want to infringe on others, especially my heros like

>Szasz, et al.

>

>Tommy

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

LOL.

It's called borrowing. I never really got around to the rest of

the site. I do that quite often. I just stick around long enough to

get what I need then move on. I realize I miss a lot that way but

I've got a lot of projects working at the same time.

One way around this is to pull the graphics in to your site via a

link from the originator's site. It's frowned upon as well but it's

not the same as steali...err borrowing.

Re: Re: Check out Peele's web site

,

Thank you, this is a great site. I will book mark it and pass it on

to my

students this fall. Although I suspect we will continue to " rip-off "

right

and left, this will help us all remember the rules. Did you check

out the

author of this pages home page? He has a lot of interesting stuff

about the

particulars of copy write entitlement there.

[Guest guest]

Pretty much. However; if someone lost their job over something

someone stole and reposted from this list I would say there would be

some hefty damages to collect.

Re: Re: Check out Peele's web site

If I read it all right, everything we post is copyrighted and whoever

posts

owns the copyright. However, if somebody copied and redistributed our

stuff,

then we could theoretically recover actual damages in a civil suit,

but such

damages would probably amount to $0.00. If somebody quoted us out of

context

then there might be defamation of character, but in practice this

wouldn't

amount to anything either except in extraordinary circumstances. So

for all

practical purposes we can't count on any kind of legal protection for

the

privacy of what we post here.

Is that about the gist of it?

-- wally

-----Original Message-----

>Yes, I realize the main issue is confidentiality, but somehow I read

the

copyright protection into it as well. Just an erroneous assumption

on my

part.

>---

>Kayleigh

>

> Zz

> zZ

> |\ z _,,,---,,_

> /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>

>

>

>>At 15:17 19/06/00 -0700, you wrote:

>>>Apparently I am wrong about missives posted to the net, but I

guess I

>>>don't have a feel for what Ken's notice means. (If anything.)

>>>

>>>Sorry if I misled anyone.

>>>---

>>>Kayleigh

>>

>>I gave Ken that bit and it actually comes from the equivalent

warning

>>section on the SMARTREC list's " Guidelines for Posting " message- I

just

>>borrowed the wording! (How's that for copyright theft?) That bit is

just a

>>warning to subscribers to not expect their messages to have any

real

>>confidentiality once they are out there on the net, it isn't a

disclaimer

>>for copyright purposes. And it is am appropriate warning- some of

the less

>>principled step diehards are subscribed here and report back to

their

>>klansmen on what they read here. I've read stuff on newsgroups from

this

>>list, always selectively quoted.

>>

>>Joe B.

>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:

http://click./1/5530/2/_/4324/_/961466547/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

[Guest guest]

What are the two instances?

Ben Bradley wrote:

> At 05:34 PM 6/19/00 -0700, Judith Stillwater wrote:

> >From the 12 step free home page on egroups:

> >

> > " Please bear in mind that any message you send to this list can be copied,

> >forwarded, saved, edited, or quoted out of context. Once you send something

> >to this list, it is there for anyone to see. There is no guarantee of

> >privacy or anonymity on this or any other Internet mailing list. "

> >

> >I'm pretty sure this is what Kayleigh was referring to.

> >

> >Judith

>

> Furthermore, this list currently has 223 subscribers. Clearly, the

> vast majority have never posted, but all can read the messages.

> How this relates to copyright: If one were to do any of the above

> things with any of our messages, it probably would be considered a

> violation of copyright law (many of our messages could be considered

> copyrightable works, and thus copyright law would apply). But the only

> reason to copy content here to somewhere else (that I can think of offhand,

> and that Ken appears to be referring to) would be out of malice, and the

> person doing it would be unlikely to know or care about copyright law.

> There have already been two instances of this.

[Guest guest]

> Rita et al,

>

> This is something I have wondered about for a while. For instance,

> earlier today I pasted and posted an article by Schaler on the A & E

> board. Should I have gotten his permission first? Also, I

contacted

> no one when I did my web site. I quoted authors and took paintings

> from art sites, etc.

>

Tommy,

Quotes as long as they are not excessively long fall under the " fair

use " doctrine. If you were to publish an entire article or a long

excerpt without permission you would be violating copyright. Posting

an article on a discussion board or an email list is a gray area (in

my layperson's mind)but I think it might also be considered fair use.

When the steppers post a thought of the day, etc. on a systematic

basis they are probably violating copyright.

If the art is not in the public domain, you should get permission

before posting it on your site.

Stuart

[Guest guest]

Thanks Stuart. I suppose the only long quote in my site is that of

Leo Pfeffer from " God Caesar, and the Constitution. "

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/index.html

Tommy

> > Rita et al,

> >

> > This is something I have wondered about for a while. For

instance,

> > earlier today I pasted and posted an article by Schaler on the

A & E

> > board. Should I have gotten his permission first? Also, I

> contacted

> > no one when I did my web site. I quoted authors and took

paintings

> > from art sites, etc.

> >

>

>

> Tommy,

>

> Quotes as long as they are not excessively long fall under

the " fair

> use " doctrine. If you were to publish an entire article or a long

> excerpt without permission you would be violating copyright.

Posting

> an article on a discussion board or an email list is a gray area

(in

> my layperson's mind)but I think it might also be considered fair

use.

> When the steppers post a thought of the day, etc. on a systematic

> basis they are probably violating copyright.

>

> If the art is not in the public domain, you should get permission

> before posting it on your site.

>

> Stuart

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita. folks

As Stanton is a lawyer I doubt he would lack discretion in such

cases.

Also, he did only use 's first name - no other identification.

P.

> >Holy s#@*! I just went to Stanton's web site to do some reading

and

> >the letter I wrote to him after the A & E program is posted, in its

> >entirety, on page one of the site! Never expected that - kind of

> >gave me a jolt. Anyway, for those who want to get a little

> >background on me, check out http://www.peele.net. Don't know how

long

> >it will be on there...

> >

> >Nic

> >

>

>

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.