 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
be making huge amounts of money from something I've done. I'd guess that would
be the sentiment of most anyone.
It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.
Bob
"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwv com> wrote in message
news:02qwOFwCACVzmNuIIhFA93G01sNJ@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:51:38 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
|
| >I'm not sure that this gives the POV-Team any rights to further distribute
| >our work or the messages posted here but it seems possible that it might.
|
| I don't get that impression from that statement at all. In fact, it
| makes me wonder how the POV-Team could own the copyrights to mine and
| other people's comments. I think they don't have the rights to
| re-publish what I, or others, have said here without permission.
|
| For a moment, I considered that perhaps this is considered a public
| forum and the comments part of some sort of public record, but they
| claim in the above statement that this is a *private* forum, and seem
| to claim ownership of the contents.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset about anything here. I'm just not
| sure how much ownership they might have over comments and concepts
| expressed by myself or others. Under US law, I own the copyright to
| anything I create, from the moment of it's creation, unless I decide
| to transfer all or part of those rights to another party. However,
| this is an international forum, and that is sure to complicate things
| in ways I can't predict. Personally, I would never publish anything
| here that I considered a valuable secret anyway.
|
| I don't care too much at this point if we lose the older messages. It
| might be nice to keep an eternal archive of old files, but eventually
| the storage space would be an issue again, even if we were to solve it
| for the moment. Nothing lasts forever, and sometimes holding onto the
| past gets in the way of one's future.
|
| later,
| Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:02:23 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Any statement like that is open to various interpertaions unless it is
>clearly spelled out and the server copyright warning appended to each
>message on this server is a clear case of this.
A clear case of which?
A: "being clearly spelled out"
B: "open to various interpretations"
VBG,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
>be making huge amounts of money from something I've done. I'd guess that would
>be the sentiment of most anyone.
>It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.
>
Like I said, I'm not upset, and I'm certainly not worried. I tried to
convey that in my post. I'm just curious as to exactly what the
POV-Team owns the copyright to, as expressed in that statement.
Perhaps it is the overall "structure" of the discussion group, but not
the content itself?
I'm not worried, but it would be interesting to know exactly what the
legal status of messages posted here is. I believe I understood the
reason for the POV-Team issuing the statement, but so many times words
such as that have unforseen consequences, or sometimes because of poor
wording are unenforceable for their intended purpose.
Is there an international, intellectual property expert in the house?
:)
later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:09:06 -0500, Glen Berry wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
><omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>
>>I try not to worry about any of it except for the possibility that someone might
>>be making huge amounts of money from something I've done. I'd guess that would
>>be the sentiment of most anyone.
>>It would have to be more than coinage and dollar bills too though.
>>
>
>Like I said, I'm not upset, and I'm certainly not worried. I tried to
>convey that in my post. I'm just curious as to exactly what the
>POV-Team owns the copyright to, as expressed in that statement.
>Perhaps it is the overall "structure" of the discussion group, but not
>the content itself?
That statement doesn't say anything about the POV-Team owning the copyright.
To recap, the statement says:
|This copyrighted article comes from a private news server and may
|NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
It doesn't say who owns the copyright, just that it's copyrighted. It is
copyrighted, by the person who posted it. The statement is there to remind
those who would redistribute the article that they may not do so without
the permission of the coypright holder, i.e. you or me or Ken or whoever.
By posting here, you implicitly gave the POV-Team permission to redistribute
your article to others who connect to this server to read news, but you did
so with the assumption that it would stay on this server and wouldn't go any
further, so distributing it in any other way would likely be in violation of
the implicit license you agreed to by posting it.
I am not, however, a lawyer, and I also do not presume to speak for the POV
Team here, so take what I've said above as the opinion of one plain ol'
ordinary person.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:04:30 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:27:38 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
>wrote:
>
>>How can there not be enough room on the server? I thought there was only
>>about two CDs worth of stuff in all the groups.
>
>It's less than a CD's worth. There's the ftp server and web server and
>all the resources they contain. This should sum up to about 512 MB
>which seems a good round number for a chunk of rented space.
I was under the impression that this is a colocated server, not a chunk of
rented space. But as you mentioned, this news server is not the only thing
running on this machine:
C:\WINDOWS>nslookup
> news.povray.org
Name: news.povray.org
Address: 204.213.191.228
> www.povray.org
Name: www.povray.org
Address: 204.213.191.228
> ftp.povray.org
Name: ftp.povray.org
Address: 204.213.191.228
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2000 09:34:17 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
wrote:
>I am not, however, a lawyer, and I also do not presume to speak for the POV
>Team here, so take what I've said above as the opinion of one plain ol'
>ordinary person.
It sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. It seemed to me that
the copyright was *implied* to belong to the server owner, but as you
point out, it never explicitly states who actually owns the copyright.
I believe it is quite possible for the POV-Team to own copyrights for
the news forum, but not own the individual messages. Magazines state
that their contents are copyrighted in their name. At the same time,
many of the images used in the magazine belong to photographers that
have simply sold limited reproduction rights for their images. In a
situation like that, the magazine would be copyrighted by it's owner,
and the individual photos are owned and copyrighted by their
respective authors. Of course, there are detailed contracts involved
in such a situation to make it clear exactly what limited rights are
being granted to the magazine by the photographer.
I always thought it was silly to see a magazine state something like:
"No part of this publication may be reproduced in part or in whole
without the express written consent of the publisher." This is
nonsense for most magazines, because they don't own the copyrights to
everything in the magazine. (I'm thinking of things such as those
pictures licensed from outside sources.) In order to legally reproduce
an image from such a situation, one would contact the photographer or
his agent, and *not* the magazine, even though the magazine fine print
would lead you to believe otherwise.
Now that I've said all that, I realize that this should probably be
moved to povray.off-topic, if anyone wants to discuss it further.
later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I was under the impression that this is a colocated server, not a chunk of
> rented space. But as you mentioned, this news server is not the only thing
> running on this machine:
That was my mistake for assuming that it was rented space. You are correct
in that it is a colocated server under the direct control of Chris Cason
(I was privately corrected on that mistake).
> C:\WINDOWS>nslookup
> > news.povray.org
> > www.povray.org
> > ftp.povray.org
You can add www.irtc.org to that list.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> I admit that I know exactly what the intent of the server copyright warning
> is. I just thought I would play the "word" lawyer or devils advocate so to
> speak :)
>
> Any statement like that is open to various interpertaions unless it is
> clearly spelled out and the server copyright warning appended to each
> message on this server is a clear case of this.
Any statement that is open to various interpertations is equivocation and it is
still the admin's legal responsibility if these images turn up somewhere
without the posters' consent.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, well, a nice shiny new server goes up to a hundred thousand or more. Of
course tis NG is probably not that demanding on a server so a low-end $30,000
one should suffice :-)
TonyB wrote:
> >Now let's see, if everyone in these NGs contributed a few hundred bucks you
> >could buy your own high-end server... maybe not a good plan :-)
>
> That would be a huge ammount of money...
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:35:15 -0800, Ken wrote:
>> C:\WINDOWS>nslookup
>> > news.povray.org
>> > www.povray.org
>> > ftp.povray.org
>
>You can add www.irtc.org to that list.
I don't have the inside information that you have (funny, that) but
I can tell that irtc.org doesn't have the same IP address:
> www.irtc.org
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: irtc.org
Address: 204.213.191.227
Aliases: www.irtc.org
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
