On 07/13/09 10:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If they quote a source and I use (I think it is) more than 20 words from
> the quotes, that puts me in violation of AP's copyright, even though they

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1301303&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28683769


-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Well, if you post on a public newsgroup, is there anything in the 
> law that states what rights you have?

Well, copyright, I'd assume. :-)

>     If I were to write a letter to the editor of a paper newspaper, who 
> has the rights? I'm assuming the newspaper does, but am not sure.

I'm not sure. That brings up a whole tangle of other stuff, including 
whether you asked them to publish it, whether there's specific laws that 
give the recipient property rights in mail they receive (yes, but maybe not 
license to reproduce), and so on.

There are laws that specifically allow (for example) web proxies to hold on 
to copies of pages, but it requires no change in form or content. Google 
often sites this as their permission, but even highlighting your search 
terms is changing form and content.


>     I had a thought the other day. You can include a header in your 
> posts that inform archivers like Google to delete the post after n days. 
> I believe Google complies. I don't know if it's binding, though.

Sure. But copyright is something everyone has to obey, regardless of whether 
I tell them in advance or not.

>     Other than people getting irritated, how much trouble would I get into?

That's what I'm saying. I have no idea.  I would think if google can take a 
post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines long 
after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue you were 
doing anything google wasn't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 21:13, Darren New wrote:
>> I had a thought the other day. You can include a header in your posts
>> that inform archivers like Google to delete the post after n days. I
>> believe Google complies. I don't know if it's binding, though.
>
> Sure. But copyright is something everyone has to obey, regardless of
> whether I tell them in advance or not.

	Yes, but would it be allowed for the people who run the POV-Ray 
newsgroups to, say, state that if someone posts on it, then the authors 
cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

	Or if that's too much, perhaps to simply state that by posting here, 
the authors are allowing their posts to be entered into the public domain.

>> Other than people getting irritated, how much trouble would I get into?
>
> That's what I'm saying. I have no idea. I would think if google can take
> a post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines
> long after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue
> you were doing anything google wasn't.

	Yes, but Google respects the headers that state that a posting should 
be deleted.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

You post on a newsgroup with the header suggesting that your message 
should not be archived beyond 30 days.

I notice this, and immediately reply to it, quoting your whole message, 
to ensure that your message *will* stay on Google's public archives 
indefinitely.

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Yes, but would it be allowed for the people who run the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups to, say, state that if someone posts on it, then the authors 
> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that anything the original author 
sends to a particular place belongs to the owner of that place.  That's what 
newspapers do with letters to the editor (at least those supposedly going 
into the "letters to the editor" column).

That's not what google does, tho.

>> That's what I'm saying. I have no idea. I would think if google can take
>> a post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines
>> long after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue
>> you were doing anything google wasn't.
> 
>     Yes, but Google respects the headers that state that a posting 
> should be deleted.

I understood what you're saying. I'm saying the law doesn't say anything 
about me having to put headers on my files to have my copyright respected.

> You post on a newsgroup with the header suggesting that your message 
> should not be archived beyond 30 days.
> 
> I notice this, and immediately reply to it, quoting your whole message, 
> to ensure that your message *will* stay on Google's public archives 
> indefinitely.

Yes, I understood that. I was talking about google (say) taking posts off 
the pov-ray servers and serving them to the entire world, including those 
who don't connect to the pov-ray server.

In your case, I think there would be a big argument over the implied license 
given to google and to google's other users. Certainly if google has a right 
to serve the messages to you, you have a right to make a copy for your own 
use. It's messy, but I don't think the inclusion of headers is going to 
change much.

You can already try the experiment. Post something on google's servers, and 
in the body say "I hereby license this for only 10 days for google's 
servers, after which license to reproduce this is revoked." Good luck 
getting google to follow that, altho legally it's likely the same as the 
headers.  The only difference would be if you actively agreed to google's 
terms and they described how you're giving them a perpetual license. But 
since google scrapes stuff from all over, you don't have to agree with 
google's terms to get google copying your copyrighted work.

There's nothing in the copyright laws requiring a robots.txt file in order 
to maintain your copyrights, is what I'm saying. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:37:52 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 07/13/09 10:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If they quote a source and I use (I think it is) more than 20 words
>> from the quotes, that puts me in violation of AP's copyright, even
>> though they
> 
> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=1301303&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28683769

LOL, good comment...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:13:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>     If I were to write a letter to the editor of a paper newspaper, who
>> has the rights? I'm assuming the newspaper does, but am not sure.
> 
> I'm not sure. That brings up a whole tangle of other stuff, including
> whether you asked them to publish it, whether there's specific laws that
> give the recipient property rights in mail they receive (yes, but maybe
> not license to reproduce), and so on.

There's usually a blurb in the "Letters" section of any newspaper that 
says "by sending us a letter, you agree that we may modify it for space 
purposes and you agree that we may print it" or something to that effect.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).

So, does this rule out software patents?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Well, which is why I'm not advocating eradicating copyright, but 
> merely limiting it. How many movies or pieces of software do you know of 
> that took over 20 years to produce a profit?

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/13/man-claims-he-got-lost-first/

There's another example. You don't want copyright so short that it's cheaper 
to just outwait it than to pay the copyright.

This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
>> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
>> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose 
>> computer).
> 
> So, does this rule out software patents?

Define "software patent".  I would think so, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message