Posted from Bogus "TeaTalk discussion board"

Not sure the legal ramifications of that. Who gets copyrights to stuff on usenet?

Probably the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge that it's from usenet.

Nothing wrong with providing quick and easy access to r.f.d.t., but to imply that it's all on one's site is prob. a bad idea.

Sponsored by the Dragonwater Tea Company.

(presumably meaning the "free web interface)

A lot of organisations do this. I don't think it's unethical since it says "newsgroup."

The only place it's not acknowledged is on the front page that "pretends" to link to the TeaTalk forums. Of course, once you follow the link, every page says that it's Usenet.

I've got minor issues with the first link, but none at all with the interface.

Mike, let it be. I think if you really think about it - what's a big deal? legally its all public anyway, no copyrights or anything. Its free promotions of our group. And of our views.

Sasha.

The copyright belongs to the person who writes the message,and that applies to every message. The copyright to the entire collection of messages (a "compilation copyright") would go to the person who put the collection together; in this case, that is no one.

dmh

Alex,

My big beef is that they coined the term "TeaTalk" and portrayed this public domain group as being "theirs" by using the statement " 2,600 articles on our TeaTalk discussion board". To someone who is not Usenet savvy, and there are many, this could give the aura of credibility. For example: "If this vendor's discussion board is so popular then this vendor must be credible".

It really is a cool concept! I have no beef with the free interface, as a matter of fact I think the coding behind it is admirable, but if you are going to capitalize on the group then clearly portray it for what it is and maybe even educate people about the newsgroup concept. They do say on the second page: "This is a free web interface to the rec.food.drink.tea newsgroup." This is cool but how many people know what a rec.food.whatever is? Of about 100 home computer users where I work only about 5 of them know what a newsgroup is.

BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.

Mike

Mike Petro snipped-for-privacy@pu-erh.net

It's a shame that it's gone. It could easily have been modified to be more accurate and still provide the same service.

The site is still there though, they just took the link down on the first page.

Sorry, re-read copyright laws. Unless accompanied by a copyright statement, nothing is copyrighted. And this is without even touching the subject of USENET quoting. If you are right, each and every one of us would be guilty by including the previous message(s) like this:

Because copyright forbids duplication of the whole and any part of the material. So by including your message above mine like I did I am breaking copyright laws (if, according to you every individual message's copyright belong to an author?

Sasha.

Signatories to the Berne Convention, including the U.S., have agreed that the material is copyrighted when it is first affixed in tangible form -- unless the original author explicitly relinquishes his or her rights.

Copyright law does not and has never forbid duplication of "any part" of the material. (Congress members under the control of the RIAA and MPAA are in the process of changing this.)

Why do you ask others to "re-read copyright laws" without having done so yourself?

By releasing the article on Usenet, the author implicitly grants license for the quotation, duplication, reproduction, retransmission, and storage of copies of the article. That's the way Usenet works.

Yes, that is the way Usenet works. But "the way Usenet works" does *not* in my understanding have the force of law.

In any case, I thought that Usenet netiquette recommended that specific permission ought to be asked before __copying__ the entire article to anyone/anywhere else.

mikus

Sorry, but I have read at least the U.S. copyright law. (I'm a writer, and it's my business to know it.) Copyright resides in the creator at the moment the creation is fixed in a copyable form. The famous (c) symbol indicates merely that the copyright has been registered, and has no force in law as to whether or not the copyright exists.

In Usenet usage, permission to quote when replying is implicit. That, too, has no force in law. This is an area where usage is ahead of the law. Whether it falls under "fair use" doctrine has not been settled in a court of law, nor is it likely ever to be.

dmh

From:

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.

No, it doesn't forbid it. It provides the originator with the right to control the usage of that material. Nor is that control universal as you seem to think.

By participating in a usenet discussion, you are giving implicit approval for someone else to respond to your post and quote it. That is the nature of a newsgroup.

One cannot post one's copyrighted material through a system such as Usenet, with its store-and-forward mechanism and then claim copyright infringement because of it. One is implicitly granting some limited license to copy by posting.

Sort of. The article is going to be copied and recopied in its entirety as it propagates through the system. Netiquette recommends obtaining permission before using the article in its entirety. What exactly is the license granted by the (purported) copyright holder? I don't know.

Little or none of this, I presume, has any legal findings behind Usenet's method of operation. Further, it's off-topic so I'll not abuse the newsgroup further.

Alex ChaihorskySSRnd.20331$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com11/20/04

Sasha,

With all due respect, you ought to look again at copyright law, especially regarding the burden of proof. This is important for you if you intend publish.

Michael

Michael, -

I spoke to my patent lawyer and he told me never again to be involved in this kind of conversations because as he said "nobody really knows how to interpret all this". Is black and white dots on the screen of my computer "tangible"? If you read the messages on this thread you will find so many contradictions that it makes the issue nonsensical. Clearly it will some day be decided on by some court, appealed etc., etc. Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You decide. I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again.

Thanks.

Sasha.

Yes, I know. My comment was directed at the fact that the link, itself, was removed. It was, as far as I can tell, the only link to the newsgroup interface that was included on the site.

So, sure, we know where the page is. But how will new visitors to their site know?

So, it's a shame that the link is gone. It could easily have been modified to be more accurate, and still link to the newsgroup page.

Well, Clarinews, the clari.* hierarchy, distributed information over usenet which is clearly copyrighted content which they distribute in other ways as well.

As for no one really knowing how to interpret this, it's basically because nobody wants to make a stand that might one day come around to bite them in the bum. IMHO, it's self interest that is causing a large part of the confusion, not the issue itself.

Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed were they? Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a clue or even try to stop you?

Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... ;)

They can be printed, of course, same as any other writing.