Copyright infringement watch
A couple weeks ago, someone emailed me that chunks of the
Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ were being used by so called "experts" on justanswer dot com in replies to questions, and getting paid for it! I notifed justanswer and they did remove the offending posts, but it's not clear that there was any further action taken, including any penalty in $$$ to the people doing this, or to justanswer. And, apparnetly there is no way to search through anything more than a day or so old to see if there were more copyright violations. So, to keep watch, someone would have to check through all postings on a daily basis, which is clearly not something desirable. It's acceptable to use Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ material privately for any reasonable purpose. What's not permitted is to benefit financially from redistributing it, or pieces of it, in any form. Comments and suggestions welcome. -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
Copyright infringement watch
On 4/10/2009 2:33 PM Samuel M. Goldwasser spake thus:
A couple weeks ago, someone emailed me that chunks of the Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ were being used by so called "experts" on justanswer dot com in replies to questions, and getting paid for it! I notifed justanswer and they did remove the offending posts, but it's not clear that there was any further action taken, including any penalty in $$$ to the people doing this, or to justanswer. And, apparnetly there is no way to search through anything more than a day or so old to see if there were more copyright violations. So, to keep watch, someone would have to check through all postings on a daily basis, which is clearly not something desirable. It's acceptable to use Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ material privately for any reasonable purpose. What's not permitted is to benefit financially from redistributing it, or pieces of it, in any form. Welcome to the brave new world of web scraping, a "win-win" form of "entrepreneurship", "value adding" and "resource leveraging" and other such bull**** that form the basis of today's money-grubbing, gold-mining economy ... -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) |
Copyright infringement watch
What is so special about what is posted here?
Sam, I appreciate your efforts but feel that this is paranoia. |
Copyright infringement watch
"Charles" writes:
What is so special about what is posted here? Sam, I appreciate your efforts but feel that this is paranoia. Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. it's not what's posted here. It's what's at: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/sammenu.htm and at the other mirror sites. Anything here is totally public without restrictions. -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
Copyright infringement watch
|
Copyright infringement watch
Franc Zabkar writes:
On 10 Apr 2009 17:33:10 -0400, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) put finger to keyboard and composed: A couple weeks ago, someone emailed me that chunks of the Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ were being used by so called "experts" on justanswer dot com in replies to questions, and getting paid for it! I notifed justanswer and they did remove the offending posts, but it's not clear that there was any further action taken, including any penalty in $$$ to the people doing this, or to justanswer. And, apparnetly there is no way to search through anything more than a day or so old to see if there were more copyright violations. So, to keep watch, someone would have to check through all postings on a daily basis, which is clearly not something desirable. It's acceptable to use Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ material privately for any reasonable purpose. What's not permitted is to benefit financially from redistributing it, or pieces of it, in any form. Comments and suggestions welcome. I haven't seen any of the justanswer postings, but would it be acceptable to post a section of the S.E.R. FAQ provided that the poster linked to it, and thereby gave it the attribution that it deserved? I do things like that in this newsgroup, but of course I'm not paid for it. What the copyright page at www.repairfaq.org/sam/copyright.htm says specifically is: "Use of any material from the FAQs in any way, shape, or form without attribution is strictly prohibited no matter what the intent, even if free. And not to put too fine a point on it in case this isn't obvious: This means that it is totally illegal to incorporate *any* FAQ material in a product or service (or advertising or promotional material for a product or service) that is sold for profit without prior authorization - period. In addition, placing FAQ material on a page with sponsored links as with the Google AdSense program, or for use as a means of attracting visitors to your Web site to boost traffic and advertising revenue is also forbidden. Violation of any of these principles will not be tolerated and legal action will be considered if a friendly reminder is not adequate to correct the transgression." Putting a link in and saying: "Go to this link to find the answer." is acceptable. They can earn their $9 or whatever doing that. But coying and pasting blocks of text from the FAQs is not. But the sort of bozos who knowingly plagerize would never provide a link since that would take the person to *another* Web site where they could then find answers for free in the future! :) Note that posting sections of the S.E.R FAQ to USENET groups with attribution is always OK because they are free. -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
Copyright infringement watch
"Samuel M. Goldwasser" wrote in message ... "Charles" writes: What is so special about what is posted here? Sam, I appreciate your efforts but feel that this is paranoia. Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. it's not what's posted here. It's what's at: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/sammenu.htm and at the other mirror sites. Anything here is totally public without restrictions. Thanks for the clarification. |
Copyright infringement watch
"Meat Plow" wrote:
Whose posts here are protected under international copyright? Each and every one of them, by the individual contributor(s). Enforcing the copyright, however, is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Jon |
Copyright infringement watch
"Meat Plow" wrote:
Eh sorry you'd have to cite some legal precedence to convince me that comments posted in a public forum are under some sort of copyright protection. Books and documents in a public library have copyright protection. Paintings and sculptures in a public art museum have copyright protection. Articles in newspapers have have copyright protection. (The rub occurs when material deserving of copyright protection is propagated across various countries' borders.) Nor I suppose would I even be allowed to use your post in my reply without your permission. Not if you claim the contents of the other post was your creation. You are woefully mis-informed on what theft by plagiarism is and what copyright means. |
Copyright infringement watch
Allodoxaphobia wrote: "Meat Plow" wrote: Eh sorry you'd have to cite some legal precedence to convince me that comments posted in a public forum are under some sort of copyright protection. Books and documents in a public library have copyright protection. Paintings and sculptures in a public art museum have copyright protection. Articles in newspapers have have copyright protection. (The rub occurs when material deserving of copyright protection is propagated across various countries' borders.) Nor I suppose would I even be allowed to use your post in my reply without your permission. Not if you claim the contents of the other post was your creation. You are woefully mis-informed on what theft by plagiarism is and what copyright means. Or even 'Fair Use'. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! |
Copyright infringement watch
Meat Plow wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:10:50 -0700, "Jon Danniken" wrote: "Meat Plow" wrote: Whose posts here are protected under international copyright? Each and every one of them, by the individual contributor(s). Enforcing the copyright, however, is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Eh sorry you'd have to cite some legal precedence to convince me that comments posted in a public forum are under some sort of copyright protection. If that were the case then the posts wouldn't be allowed to propagate world wide to individual servers without an agreement. Nor I suppose would I even be allowed to use your post in my reply without your permission. The classic reference about Usenet & copyright: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html --- 3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them. Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of. Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place. --- -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Copyright infringement watch
In article ,
Meat Plow wrote: What you cite, art and literary works, are published and displayed with the authors and artists intent as registered copyrights. Posts in this newsgroup are not under the same protection unless the publisher issues a disclaimer of registered copyrighted material with each post of which I've never seen. Sorry, Meat. Any creative work is protected by copyright law from the moment of its creation. Letter to Mom, drawing on the napkin at the diner, or newsgroup post. You do not need to register a copyright to make it valid, nor do you need to state "this is copyrighted yada yada yada." |
Copyright infringement watch
Smitty Two wrote:
Sorry, Meat. Any creative work is protected by copyright law from the moment of its creation. Letter to Mom, drawing on the napkin at the diner, or newsgroup post. You do not need to register a copyright to make it valid, nor do you need to state "this is copyrighted yada yada yada." Only in the U.S. and only since the late 1980s. In order for it to be properly protected, you do need both the copyright notice with the year and "all rights reserved". In the US if you do not file a copy with the US Library of Congress you loose the right to obtain damages beyond those specified by law, if you do you can ask for tripple damages. There is also no such thing as an international copyright, the Berne Convention provides reciprotity, meaning that something under copyright protection in the US is under copyright protection here, but according to Israeli law, not US law. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
Copyright infringement watch
In article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: Smitty Two wrote: Sorry, Meat. Any creative work is protected by copyright law from the moment of its creation. Letter to Mom, drawing on the napkin at the diner, or newsgroup post. You do not need to register a copyright to make it valid, nor do you need to state "this is copyrighted yada yada yada." Only in the U.S. and only since the late 1980s. You may be right about international law, I don't know. But, "since the late 80's" ... where did you hear that? My mom, a full-time freelance writer with hundreds of published works over her lifetime, authored a handbook on copyright law in the mid-sixties or so, and the law read then as I have stated. |
Copyright infringement watch
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: Sorry, Meat. Any creative work is protected by copyright law from the moment of its creation. Letter to Mom, drawing on the napkin at the diner, or newsgroup post. You do not need to register a copyright to make it valid, nor do you need to state "this is copyrighted yada yada yada." Only in the U.S. and only since the late 1980s. Not so. It's the case in every country that's a signatory to the Berne Convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works In order for it to be properly protected, you do need both the copyright notice with the year and "all rights reserved". That used to be the case, but now it isn't: --- Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention. --- In the US if you do not file a copy with the US Library of Congress you loose the right to obtain damages beyond those specified by law, if you do you can ask for tripple damages. Correct. There is also no such thing as an international copyright, It amounts to the same thing: --- Since almost all nations are members of the World Trade Organization, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights requires non-members to accept almost all of the conditions of the Berne Convention. As of September 2008[update], there are 164 countries that are parties to the Berne Convention. --- the Berne Convention provides reciprotity, meaning that something under copyright protection in the US is under copyright protection here, but according to Israeli law, not US law. Yes, but the minimum protections are the same: --- The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created. In addition to establishing a system of equal treatment that internationalised copyright amongst signatories, the agreement also required member states to provide strong minimum standards for copyright law. --- -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter