Don't change the subject line, please!

David F. wrote:
I have not discussed this issue with Toke at all, but I have
written to you in private and asked you to remove "my part"
of the SNA fenny-award page. You refused flatly. You told
me that because I had published my opinion on a public NG,
you were free to use that opinion on your page without asking
first. I couldn't convince you that *I* have the copyright to what
I say, and that I do not wish to be quoted before knowing first.
You asked me whether I was afraid of somebody or something.
I am not; it is simply a matter of principle that I want to know
where I am to be quoted and in which context. I want to maintain
my right to say "no", and expected of course that you would
respect that. By refusing to remove anything quoted from me,
you have not respected my rights. In case you do not remember
this private discussion between us, I will be happy to forward
the related emails to you.

At that point I gave up discussing with you, knowing that your
main attitude is "don't argue with me, because you won't win".
The only thing I could say was DON'T DO IT IN THE FUTURE!

Ann Mette Heindorff



I have no wish to inflame any sensitive discussion points here,
but surely there is no question of having any 'copyright' control
over comments and opinions made on a Public NewsGroup?

Everything posted here is placed in the "Public Domain", and there
is no restriction on who can subscribe to the NG and read all of
the messages placed here, using the information as they wish.

If you do not wish to be quoted as having a particular view or opinion,
then why state it in the first place? Is it the truth or not?

I do not see the problem!

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

David.

Technically, under US law and probably that of most other countries, a
person does retain copyright on their own postings. The act of posting
a message to a newsgroup implies permission to make and keep copies on
newgroup servers, archives & etc., but does not place the message into
the public domain and does not allow unlimited use of it.

That being said, I have not read most of the rest of this thread, so I
cannot comment on the rest.

= Eric

From: Eric Bustad
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:49:08 -0700
Subject: On Humor and Insinuations. Was: Don't change the subject
line, please!

David F. wrote:
I have not discussed this issue with Toke at all, but I have
written to you in private and asked you to remove "my part"
of the SNA fenny-award page. You refused flatly. You told
me that because I had published my opinion on a public NG,
you were free to use that opinion on your page without asking
first. I couldn't convince you that *I* have the copyright to what
I say, and that I do not wish to be quoted before knowing first.
You asked me whether I was afraid of somebody or something.
I am not; it is simply a matter of principle that I want to know
where I am to be quoted and in which context. I want to maintain
my right to say "no", and expected of course that you would
respect that. By refusing to remove anything quoted from me,
you have not respected my rights. In case you do not remember
this private discussion between us, I will be happy to forward
the related emails to you.

At that point I gave up discussing with you, knowing that your
main attitude is "don't argue with me, because you won't win".
The only thing I could say was DON'T DO IT IN THE FUTURE!

Ann Mette Heindorff



I have no wish to inflame any sensitive discussion points here,
but surely there is no question of having any 'copyright' control
over comments and opinions made on a Public NewsGroup?

Everything posted here is placed in the "Public Domain", and there
is no restriction on who can subscribe to the NG and read all of
the messages placed here, using the information as they wish.

If you do not wish to be quoted as having a particular view or opinion,
then why state it in the first place? Is it the truth or not?

I do not see the problem!

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

David.

Technically, under US law and probably that of most other countries, a
person does retain copyright on their own postings. The act of posting
a message to a newsgroup implies permission to make and keep copies on
newgroup servers, archives & etc., but does not place the message into
the public domain and does not allow unlimited use of it.

That being said, I have not read most of the rest of this thread, so I
cannot comment on the rest.

= Eric

My understanding of this issue is the same as Eric's, but I think we're not
dealing with legalities here so much as civilities.

I probably would not post anything to this newsgroup if I thought there was
the liklihood that someone would use my words for their own uses without
permission being granted. In fact, several weeks ago I did post my thoughts
on some subject (I don't recall what) and Arlene Sullivan, at that time the
editor of the newsletter of Northwest Federation of Stamp Clubs, wrote to me
asking if she could include my post in her next issue. I gave my permission,
but I certainly appreciated her civility in first asking. Is this not just a
matter of common courtesy?

Bob

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 03:43:45 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

My understanding of this issue is the same as Eric's, but I think we're not
dealing with legalities here so much as civilities.

I probably would not post anything to this newsgroup if I thought there was
the liklihood that someone would use my words for their own uses without
permission being granted. In fact, several weeks ago I did post my thoughts
on some subject (I don't recall what) and Arlene Sullivan, at that time the
editor of the newsletter of Northwest Federation of Stamp Clubs, wrote to me
asking if she could include my post in her next issue. I gave my permission,
but I certainly appreciated her civility in first asking. Is this not just a
matter of common courtesy?

You know what's REAL FUNNY, is this... There must be a BIG stamp
coinkidink happening, or sometimes it surely as eggs is eggs seems
like some of the trades are following up on our topic matter in a
"timely" fashion after we discuss it.

Anyone EVER give that any thought? Hmmm?

OR - do they have stashed articles to conkidinkly follow up on
discussions when they choose?

I dunno!

Tracy Barber

Tracy Barber wrote:
coinkidink

So that's how you spell it!?
Not couenquidink?

= Eric

David F. wrote in message
...
I have not discussed this issue with Toke at all, but I have
written to you in private and asked you to remove "my part"
of the SNA fenny-award page. You refused flatly. You told
me that because I had published my opinion on a public NG,
you were free to use that opinion on your page without asking
first. I couldn't convince you that *I* have the copyright to what
I say, and that I do not wish to be quoted before knowing first.
You asked me whether I was afraid of somebody or something.
I am not; it is simply a matter of principle that I want to know
where I am to be quoted and in which context. I want to maintain
my right to say "no", and expected of course that you would
respect that. By refusing to remove anything quoted from me,
you have not respected my rights. In case you do not remember
this private discussion between us, I will be happy to forward
the related emails to you.

At that point I gave up discussing with you, knowing that your
main attitude is "don't argue with me, because you won't win".
The only thing I could say was DON'T DO IT IN THE FUTURE!



I have no wish to inflame any sensitive discussion points here,
but surely there is no question of having any 'copyright' control
over comments and opinions made on a Public NewsGroup?

Everything posted here is placed in the "Public Domain", and there
is no restriction on who can subscribe to the NG and read all of
the messages placed here, using the information as they wish.

If a read a book that is available to the public either
from bookstores or the library, and wish to quote
part(s) of it on a webpage, I would need the author's
(or the publisher's) prior consent. The same goes for
a newsgroup.


If you do not wish to be quoted as having a particular view or opinion,
then why state it in the first place? Is it the truth or not?

The fact that I state an opinion in a current discussion
on a newsgroup, does not automatically give others
the right to quote that opinion on a website, at least
not without asking first. As a legal person I can see
plenty of reasons for that; an example could be a wish
to rephrase an opinion to a less offensive language.

I do not see the problem!

The problem goes further. If I ask -- for any given
reason -- to have my opinion removed from that
webpage, the author of the page should do so, not
flatly refuse it on the grounds that he has found my
opinion in the public domain on a newsgroup, and
therefore has the *right* to use it, no matter what
I say.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I certainly do, and normally have no problems of
any kind with that. If we were not free to express
an opinion in a newsgroup, there would be no
discussion, and the group would die. However,
expressing an opinion in a newsgroup is not the
same as doing it (or being quoted for it) on another
person's webpage -- in the present case a rather
sarcastic one, that makes a point of general
derision.

Mette

"Douglas MYALL" wrote:

....snip
Best and respectful regards to all,
Didier Maistre

Chinese stamps collector

Well said Pierre!
BTW, I thought you were French, not Chinese.
Douglas

:-) Douglas! (That was a good one, but we are a few who don't speak English fluently!)

--
Mvh Toke
http://www.norbyhus.dk/
Collector of Danish Postal History

I do not see the problem!

The problem goes further. If I ask -- for any given
reason -- to have my opinion removed from that
webpage, the author of the page should do so, not
flatly refuse it on the grounds that he has found my
opinion in the public domain on a newsgroup, and
therefore has the *right* to use it, no matter what
I say.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I certainly do, and normally have no problems of
any kind with that. If we were not free to express
an opinion in a newsgroup, there would be no
discussion, and the group would die. However,
expressing an opinion in a newsgroup is not the
same as doing it (or being quoted for it) on another
person's webpage -- in the present case a rather
sarcastic one, that makes a point of general
derision.

Mette


OK, Mette, I follow that.

I do think, however, there's a very big difference between the
Publication of a Book by an Author, and a message posted
on this News Group!

Both sides of the discussion have "merit", and there is no
answer that will please everyone, so a little "civility" will go
a long way to resolving the issue.

A quick thought - Newspapers.....

Does this mean that a person, featured in a Newspaper, for
(say) involvement in a 'Crime' has the right to stop publication
of their details, true or not??

Tricky, Hmmmm???

David.

Does this mean that a person, featured in a Newspaper, for
(say) involvement in a 'Crime' has the right to stop publication
of their details, true or not??

As much as it's a matter of protecting the victim, in Denmark
any such question will be resolved by a judge for as long as
the case is still in court. After the final verdict the offender is
for "free hunt", whereas the victim can still claim protection
(and will most often do so).

But in my opinion a criminal court case and a civil "case" like
this are inconpatible. :-)

Mette

Bob Ingraham wrote in message
...
From: "A.M.Heindorff"
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:29:14 +0200
Subject: On Humor and Insinuations. Was: Don't change the
subject
line, please!

If a read a book that is available to the public either
from bookstores or the library, and wish to quote
part(s) of it on a webpage, I would need the author's
(or the publisher's) prior consent. The same goes for
a newsgroup.

- snip -

But books and most other publications seem to me to be in a realm
different
than that of the newsgroup, which is more akin to a conversation than a
publication. To quote words from our discussions on a private web page,
without the "owner's" permission, seems to me to be discourteous. At the
very least, permission should be sought.

The deplorable fact is that permission was not asked,
and a request for removal was refused !

Mette

While I'm not defending a refusal to remove portions of posts entered
in a newsgroup and used elsewhere ... netiquette says that any post
placed on a newsgroup or bulletin board is a public document UNLESS an
explicit notice of copyright and/or refusal to reuse is made/attached.

Remember, nearly all posts are archived and freely available for
years.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:50:25 +0200, "A.M.Heindorff"
found these unused words floating about:

Bob Ingraham wrote in message
...
Mette,

You cannot win, you know, as you have told me in the past. I am reminded
of
the (possibly paraphrased) Borg Collective quote from a Startrek -- The
Next
Generation episode: "We are the Borg lower your shields and surrender your
ships we will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own your culture will adapt to serve us resistance is futile we are the
Borg...." :^)

Paraphrased or not, this is the essential of this part of
the thread :-))

Mette




From: "A.M.Heindorff"
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:17:46 +0200
Subject: On Humor and Insinuations. Was: Don't change the
subject
line, please!

Victor Manta wrote in message
...
"Toke Nørby" wrote in message
news
- very big snip -

One can wonder what has Toke to do with this thing, and why does he
bring
it
in an unrelated thread. My only explanation is that as a (former?) FIP
juror
he tries to protect his comrades against the "bad" (in his eyes) SNA
irony.
Why haven't we heard something about those "logos" when we have
discussed
here the debacle of the FIP 2002 contest, and when the page was
published,
and why has he chosen for this, much later, an unrelated thread? No
idea,
just some suppositions. As concerning FIP's logos (actually these were
images of their awards) on the SNA sheet, they were replaced by
something
more funny a long time ago, so why speaking about the snows of
yesterday
(or
continue beating the same dead horse, if this sounds more familiar)?

The images of their awards is so similar to their copyrighted logo, that
it is self-protected.


The history of FIP contest related e-mails that SNA has allegedly
published
without approval is a *pure* invention. Period.

Victor, this is *not* true, and you know it. You have quoted
my posts from this NG, without my prior consent.

BTW, it is up to the authors
of those (which?)

me for one!

e-mails to write me if they feel concerned, and not up to
Toke to try playing a kind of role of the Sir Knight of the Sorrowful
Figure, and this especially when nobody asked him for that.

I have not discussed this issue with Toke at all, but I have
written to you in private and asked you to remove "my part"
of the SNA fenny-award page. You refused flatly. You told
me that because I had published my opinion on a public NG,
you were free to use that opinion on your page without asking
first. I couldn't convince you that *I* have the copyright to what
I say, and that I do not wish to be quoted before knowing first.
You asked me whether I was afraid of somebody or something.
I am not; it is simply a matter of principle that I want to know
where I am to be quoted and in which context. I want to maintain
my right to say "no", and expected of course that you would
respect that. By refusing to remove anything quoted from me,
you have not respected my rights. In case you do not remember
this private discussion between us, I will be happy to forward
the related emails to you.

At that point I gave up discussing with you, knowing that your
main attitude is "don't argue with me, because you won't win".
The only thing I could say was DON'T DO IT IN THE FUTURE!

Ann Mette Heindorff