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.

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/)

What is so special about what is posted here?

Sam, I appreciate your efforts but feel that this is paranoia.

"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.

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.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

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.

"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.

Meat Plow writes:

On 10 Apr 2009 17:33:10 -0400, (Samuel M.
Goldwasser)wrote:

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.

Whose posts here are protected under international copyright?

None, this is a public forum. The Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Web sites
however, are protected by copyright. And while posting something from the
S.E.R FAQ here is acceptable, someone then taking it and republishing
it as their own work is not.

--
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.

"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

"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.

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!

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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."

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

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.

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------