Posted from Bogus "TeaTalk discussion board"

The bigger issue with Usenet, IMHO, since ideas get passed around and shared frequently, is whether or not someone's post is, in fact, copyrightable.

That is, certainly the (hopefully) unique way that I write an idea is my own product. But is the message I conveyed really mine, or did I get it from somewhere else and am simply relaying it?

And simply being the first person to post something on Usenet does not give one claim to copyright, as there are many other sources to information in the world.

You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries.

Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you want THEM to make the copies, its a different story.

Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested.

Sasha.

Alex ChaihorskykZmod.21044$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com11/22/04

First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon, I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good.

Michael

Michael,

I expressed my lack of interest in the subject but I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle. That I do not do. So, I am not interested in commenting on the matter, but if directly asked or challenged, I will honor my opponents with my answer.

Sasha.

You asked if they're tangible. Once they become distributed and printable, they are. (Your thoughts aren't printable. Your words on screen, once printable by yourself or others, are. Quite a difference.)

Again, you asked if they're "tangible." Simple question. I answered it. They're as tangible as any other writing.

No, what you did - is you interpreted "tangible". You said that printABLE tangible. And I said only printED may be tangible. And it will be up to courts to decide. Also note, that you added a new argument to your first one - before it was tangible because it was printable, now it becomes tangible "once they become DISTRIBUTED and printable". And you did not define "distributed". Let me ask you a question - how about

1. The text on your screen that you just typed or
2. Typed and saved on your disk?
3. Typed and saved on private network
4. Types and saved on public network.

They are all "printable", right?

Also - it is not enough to be printable or even printed (tangible)- it has to be dated. So what if you produced a piece of paper with a poem, how do we know that you have not written it AFTERWARDS? With paper copies there is at least paper and ink expertise, it may not be enough, but at least it is possible. Computer dates can be changed to anything you want both in your machine or changed later by anyone who has admin password at the server or who can hack it. You cannot call this type of record "tangible" IMHO.

BTW, you thoughts are as "printable" as the words on your screen that you just typed. In the first case the interface are your fingers and in the second - computer printer. But there is no difference in principle, because both can fail and the original will disappear. And it is not different if you saved it or not - because there is no guarantee that your text is retrievable from the disk. And there is no guarantee that it is retrievable without errors. You can recall it from your memory or restore it from computer memory, but both will not be guaranteed exact copies, unlike printED copies.

And, just for fun - just to show you that tangibility may also have degrees, not jus tangible - non-tangible - what if you wrote a poem with your lipstick on glass? How about if you did it with your finger on the frozen bus window? How tangible is (sorry) pee on the snow? Will it become tangible if you take a picture of it? Not really - even if the chemicals of the film can be dated. Better if the chemicals of development can be dated, but the best case scenario would be if some crazy reporter takes a picture of your poem and publishes that picture in a paper. Then, you have tangible record.

Regards,

Sasha.

Considering some of the boneheaded and actually illegal polices that managements I have dealt with have implemented, you have a much higher opinion of management than I.

Yes, because Kinkos has been sued by publishers for making copies. How long until a publisher sues because they let people make copies?

After all, they've also sued VCR manufactures, CD-burner manufactures, digital duplication software manufacturers,...

Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. ;)

Yes, this would be right up Jim's alley.

(Scary thing is, that the more I think about it, the more I agree with him!)

Printable by you. Distributed if you're talking about printed by others. Tangible as any other words on paper.

If a book is tangible, so are your words on screen.

I'm not interpreting a thing. Merely stating the obvious.

But you didn't and even if you did... if I would trust a legal opinion on copyright issues of a guy on the tea group on the net named "Derek" who calls me "dude", they would need to take me to the doctor, wouldn't they?

Sasha.

Sasha,

If I had wished to accuse you of leaving the field of battle I would have. You you claim was "implicit" is actually an assumption.

Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for me.

I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to my honor. I said you were challenging.

You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has smileys or anything else attached (or not).

Sasha.

Since you've decided to make this a confrontation, Sasha...

"I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle"

Was someone else posting from your account?

Actually, what I would say is that my .sig is randomly selected by my newsreader from a large text file of different comments and quotations.

There was nothing intentional or personal about it. It's not a camouflaged insult. It's a random occurrence.

You are assuming confrontation and insult where none exists. Since my .sig may have contributed to that, I apologize.

One does not have to be a legal scholar to hold an informed position on the confused status of copyright law in the U.S. - particularly given the number of articles that have been written over the last 5 years regarding the DMCA. One need not hold a J.D. to be able to understand that there is a great deal of variability in how copyright laws are interpreted.

Now, if you happen to have something against Gaelic first names, that's a different issue altogether, as is your elitist response to the use of the word "dude."

Definitely I have nothing against Gaelic names. Ok, Ok, I have nothing against Gaelic names, dude. :)

Sasha.

I was wrong, you were right. Sorry, my fault.

Sasha.

"That's much better, thank you," he said while offering a cup of tea and a crumpet.

Now you just wait just a darned minute!

How the heck are we supposed to get a good-old-fashioned, all-out flame war going if we start apologizing to one another?

Dang it. Spoiled my afternoon. I had all sorts of frustrations I was going to let loose.

Now, I suppose, I'll have to settle for another cup of tea.

Oh it's the guy claiming it is public domain when he rips off this group for his website then copyright violation when somebody else does it. You got a discussion board for your website up and running yet?

Jim

...sink hole...