Don't change the subject line, please!

Marcel [D*] wrote :

Hello Blair .... huhhh ... Douglas !
;-))

I am not Pierre, I am Didier.
I am french indeed, as well as Pierre.
I am a french collector of chinese stamps.

Best regards,

Didier Maistre

french collector of chinese stamps


He he he :-))))

Are you Didier ... or Marcel ?
;-)

BTW Didier, I agree with you on the need to adapt the Subject line to a
new content.

Paraphrasing Douglas :
"Well said Didier" !

And thanks to Douglas who kindly gave me the credits for your post ;-)

--
All the best,
Pierre Courtiade

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:14:40 +0100, John Ray
found these unused words floating about:

Bob Ingraham wrote:

(snip)

(Victor, you do not have my permission to post my
words -- ever -- on your web site.)

That goes for me, also.

Doesn't have any validity - you would need to place a caveat or 'sig'
on every post. G

J. A. Mc. wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:54:13 -0700, Eric Bustad
found these unused words floating about:


J. A. Mc. wrote:

NG = Open Public Forum - archivable and quotable. IIRC there was a
test case early in the life of the 'net'.

Do you have a cite for that? Not doubting you, I would really like to
know about this. And see for myself just what it covers.

= Eric


DejaNews should have the discussion(s) archived or you can google the
'netiquette, copyright, rights' string.

Googling on that string in Google Groups brings up 11,500 matches.
This may take a while. Do you remember about when this was? Usenet
goes back to 1979.

= Eric

Marcel [D*] wrote in article
...
Douglas MYALL wrote:


Didier Maistre
wrote
in
article ...
Hello there,
(...)
Best and respectful regards to all,

--
Didier Maistre

Chinese stamps collector

Well said Pierre!

BTW, I thought you were French, not Chinese.

Douglas

Hello Blair .... huhhh ... Douglas !
;-))

I am not Pierre, I am Didier.
I am french indeed, as well as Pierre.
I am a french collector of chinese stamps.

Best regards,

Didier Maistre

french collector of chinese stamps

Sorry about that. Well said anyway!

Douglas

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message
news

I guess that would be subject to each country's laws, but a NG and a
BB have long been determined to be an "open public forum" and thus not
copyrightable in the US.

Good to know it, thanks!
--
Victor Manta
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
1900 Links Online: http://pwmo.org/weblinks/links.asp
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John Ray" wrote in message
...
Bob Ingraham wrote:

(snip)

(Victor, you do not have my permission to post my
words -- ever -- on your web site.)

That goes for me, also.

John Ray, London UK.

I am not obliged, but by courtesy I won't cite any of you both in the
future on the SNA web site.

BTW, I don't remember of having cited ever Mr. John Ray, or even of having
the intention to do it, but I can be of course wrong.

Victor Manta
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been lurking for a while and feel the need to de-lurk because of
the disinformation regarding the "public domain" claim for Usenet
postings.

First some facts:
1) In all countries that follow the Berne Convention (most of Europe,
Canada, US, etc.), the copyright of any work belongs to the creator
exclusively whether a "copyright" symbol or word is included or not.
IOW, it's not required to protect a work. It's use does enhance
protection if disputed, but it is not required.

2) Unless the creator explicity states that the work is being placed in
the public domain, it isn't. Works fall into the public domain after
various lengths of time following the creation of the work or death of
the author. No usenet posting would be public domain on this basis.

3) If you post on Usenet you do so in the expectation that others will
quote you IN THAT FORUM. Because fo the nature of a newsgroup, it is
normal -- indeed desirable -- that people quote each other. Such quoting
(with attribution) is not a copyright infraction. The same applies to
blogs, discussion groups, chat rooms, e-mail, etc.

This discussion use of a creator's words does not cause the creator to
forfeit his/her copyright. The original work is still copyrighted, but
the quoting is a "fair use/dealings" part of the discussion process. The
copyright to any original work remains with the creator.

So the creator cannot forbid/prevents the quoting of the original work
for the purpose of discussion, but the creator maintains the copyright
of the original work.

4) Store/retrieve/forward functions of usenet servers are not copyright
infractions because they are a required part of the process in order to
prmotoe and further the discussion nature of usenet. Even the archived
copies of the messages on Google cannot be copyrighted by Google, not
because they are "public domain", but because they are simply being
stored/retrieved, though for longer periods of time than most other
servers.

5) Using all of a creator's original work outside of the discussion on
usenet is porbalby a copyright infringement. The more you use, the more
likely it is an infringement. The use of a creator's original work
requires proper attribution and may require the creator's permission.
The creator may be able to refuse permission to have his/her usenet
posting quoted.

The use of the usenet posting falls under fair use/fair dealings. That
is, it is possible to quote an author for some specific purposes (mostly
educational), without permission but with attribution, without
infringement.

So, if you are being quoted on a Web page (or in any media outside of
the newsgroup), and this is being done without your permission you may
have the right to have the quote removed if you can demonstrate it falls
outside "fair use"/"fair dealings" exclusions to copyright.

The smaller the quote, and the more the purpose is education, review,
parody, etc. the less likely you can claim a copyright infringement. The
larger the quote -- especially if it is the whole message -- and the
lesser the above excluded uses, the more likely it is a copyright
infringement. Sites with commercial/profit purposes or the use of a
quote for that purpose increase the likelihood of it being an
infringement.

Any person seeking to quote part or all of a message posted on usenet
should request permission to do so from the original author(s). If
permission is given, great. If it's withheld, then a decision has to be
made as to whether the usage would be considered fair use/dealings. If
it wouldn't, then the quote should not be used.

"Toke Nørby" wrote in message
...
Friends, your advice will be highly appreciated now. I want to stop
this discussion. Victor Manta simply won't/can't understand anything.
Please help me! or shall I just stop answering him?

Toke

Why do you need some "friends" to stop a discussion? Can't you take
decisions independently? Just stop it, if this is what your wish. This will
be also the best way for you to stay polite.

BTW, you are deadly wrong if you really think that I "won't/can't understand
anything". I put clearly cut questions and expected clear answers. You have
chosen to evade them - it's your choice. And no, I won't let you know either
my IQ or my qualification :-)))

I perfectly understood that no one of your commission has the intention to
tell what actually happened with those notes from the jurors, and why your
colleague Mr. Kiddle hasn't got them. OK, I will survive also without your
explanations, and I'm sure that others will survive too. Just don't tell
that you at FIP have an open and friendly policy (what Glasnost means in
Russian, a term that became used internationally after certain events).
Anyway, it is a big step forward that your commission has looked more
attentively at its resources, and that it has seen that if it doesn't change
something, it will experience the same chronic problems.

And now back to some wonderful French stamps that I have got today. Two were
already used for a special web page.

Victor Manta

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:22:52 -0700, Eric Bustad
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:54:13 -0700, Eric Bustad
found these unused words floating about:


J. A. Mc. wrote:

NG = Open Public Forum - archivable and quotable. IIRC there was a
test case early in the life of the 'net'.

Do you have a cite for that? Not doubting you, I would really like to
know about this. And see for myself just what it covers.

= Eric


DejaNews should have the discussion(s) archived or you can google the
'netiquette, copyright, rights' string.

Googling on that string in Google Groups brings up 11,500 matches.
This may take a while. Do you remember about when this was? Usenet
goes back to 1979.

= Eric

About 1995-7.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:09:08 +0200, Toke Nørby
found these unused words floating about:

Friends, your advice will be highly appreciated now. I want to stop
this discussion. Victor Manta simply won't/can't understand anything.

He understands quite clearly per his acknowledgement in another post.
You, OTOH, don't seem to follow that you have requirements to meet to
avoid possible problems in the future!

Please help me! or shall I just stop answering him?

-Your- decision to make. Same as disclaimers, civil action, etc.


And even you have asked him not to use your words without permission
- he still do not understand that he must not publish all what he
want. That's actually what he writes below.

That's called "Freedom of the Press" and if I read the statements
correctly, the email he received from the FIP was in response to an
inquiry cleary stating how any reply would be used.

Any positings here are in the public domain unless you specifically,
on EACH POST, so state conditions of use.

I still don't see this being attached, so your posts are -still- in
the public domain.

As to the FIP issue - those having spent funds for little or nothing,
DO deserve an answer and you, sir, should be helping, not obfuscating!

snip see DejaNews for back references.