Question for Ripon

It won't be too late, don't worry. I am still working on it. I am taking time because I just don't want my book another re-production. It will appear with some new dimention and with new information. I am getting prepared for a trip to India and China for some first hand information, then I will be able to say, how long it will take. Offcourse RFDT readers will know before anyone else.

Can you please tell me what sort of answer you couldn't find in the tea books which are avilable in the market right now? Just looking for some of your and other readers advice.

Ripon (from Bangladesh)

All of my posts have an implicit copyright which I stated in this newsgroup soon after it was formed. Any of my ideas which appear in published form without my permission is a violation of the copyright laws of the US. I don't know what's worse someone fleecing our pockets or our ideas.

Jim

On 16 Nov 2003, Space Cowboy posted the following to rec.food.drink.tea:

Actually, anything posted to this group is copyright of the original poster - providing said poster either created the post or had the right to post it.

There is no such thing as "implicit" or "explicit" copyright, and since 1989, one does not need to declare copyright for text to bey copyrighted in the U.S. Berne convention copyright policies are now pretty much the standard.

In fact, one has to explicity state that something IS public domain for it to be so.

On 16 Nov 2003, Derek posted the following to rec.food.drink.tea:

A clarification (I hit send a bit too quickly).

Also, issues of prior art would apply. Something posted with the belief that it was an original idea does not necessarily mean that it is such and therefore copyrighted.

So what does this mean for his book? It certainly seems that if someone post something in a public forum, they are expecting others to see it freely. As long as a person cites their sources, is there a problem?

Steve

On 16 Nov 2003, Steven Hay posted the following to rec.food.drink.tea:

Usenet posts are copyright the original poster (unless that post is actually an infringement). And if someone is directly quoted or even obviously paraphrased without credit, there are copyright issues. In other words, get permission and cite your sources.

That said, just because person X posted that "PDQ is a good idea for cleaning teapots" doesn't mean that person Y is violating copyright for including that information in a book. It could be common knowledge and may well exist elsewhere.

The other thing to keep in mind is that copyright infringement is a civil issue primarily. It only becomes a felony if you make more than 10 copies or the damages are greater than $2,500. All an individual can do in most situations is sue for damages and obtain an injunction against the supposed infringer.

However - you'd have one heck of a time proving damages from content that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection and a web browser.

snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com11/16/03

Ripon,

Now there is a *very* good question. I would like to read a book that includes detailed and accurate descriptions of tea varietals, tea production methods, and tea gardens. My wish is for a book that is technical in nature, right up to, but not including, the chemical formulas.

Conversely, what I don't want is a book that tells me how to brew different types of tea, and worse, one with recipes.

Michael

Space CowboysuTtb.3916$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net11/16/03

Jim, taking your implied question seriously, I would say that our ideas are in many cases worse.

Michael

"Space Cowboy" wrote in news:suTtb.3916$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Copyright protects words, not ideas. Let's say you posted an article that said "Tea smoked over applewood chips could be delicious" and elucidated over the course of a paragraph. (No, I am not suggesting that is true or you'd agree with it, just making up an example.) The words would be protected - nobody could use that paragraph as their own. However copyright does NOT keep someone from actually smoking some tea with applewood chips (maybe even selling it) or from stating the same idea using different wording (e.g. "We might make a yummy American version of lapsong souchong by smoking tea using applewood".)

I had to learn about this because I just negotiated a contract to write a book (not about tea).

Debbie

But it is not the idea that is copyrightable; rather, the expression is subject to copyright, so as long as those words have never been used in that order in that forum, copyright applies.

dmh

Copyright has nothing to do with citing sources. (That's an academic issue.) Copyright is, surprise, the right to copy the text. You can't take my novel, publish it under your name, and give me credit in a footnote. You need my permission to publish the novel. You need the permission of the copyright holder to copy the material.

dmh

David M. snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com11/17/03

David,

I believe that when it comes to music -- how relevant this is, I don't know

-- you can record and sell somebody else's song, but you must pay royalties. You don't need the writer or original singer's (or whoever/whatever copyright holder's) permission to release their song on disk. I'd guess that the internet chips are not all in yet when it comes to copyright. (I admittedly know nothing of this, however.) Come to think of it, disregard.

Michael

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when David M. Harris stepped up to the microphone and muttered:

No, it's not just an academic issue.

If you are quoting someone else, you should recognize their copyright and cite them appropriately. They are the owner of that "information" not you.

Citation does not equal authorization. And most copyright holders require that you at least provide citation to their information.

Copying in whole is substantially different from copying in part. I do not (necessarily) need your permission to take a two sentence quote from something you wrote, although the U.S. Copyright office strongly suggests that I do so.

It's nice that the copyright law says this is "fair use" but then goes on to say that I should get permission anyway.

They've gone out of their way to make the law clear and concise.

Well, you can do whatever you please, but you'll be breaking the law. You need the permission of the copyright holder to record the song legally.

dmh

You're right, ideas are protected by patent. Words are protected by copyright. However I can still sue for illegal patents under copyright laws. If I publish how to build a better mousetrap you can't patent it.

Jim

For better or worse there is still (mis)information here you can't find anywhere else. I know I've contributed original information not found elsewhere and so have others.

Jim

You specifically supercede from the international Berne convention by stating the copyright laws under which you publish. It doesn't have to be the country of your nationality. This is a common practice in the media. By default it is as you say.

Jim

"Space Cowboy" wrote in news:Dm6ub.3743$sb4.2063 @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

It's not a matter of copyright, it is the fact of prior discovery of the idea that could block a patent application. You could publish the plans for a better mousetrap and put them in the public domain and the guy who wants to patent the idea would still have a problem (maybe even a bigger one).

Debbie

It was open stage night in rec.food.drink.tea, when Space Cowboy stepped up to the microphone and muttered:

And given that your domain is a US domain, this suggests that you are posting under US copyright laws, which since 1989 have been in agreement with the Berne Convention.

If your local law follows the international standard, there's no difference.