Don't change the subject line, please!

J. A. Mc. wrote:

[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!

Oh, my!

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

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

Yes, you are right. Thanks for your help!

(...cut)

Mvh
Toke
http://www.norbyhus.dk/
Copyright by Toke Nørby :-)

Also represented in the parade were the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (one of its best known radio personalities, Bill Richardson, is
openly gay), the Anglican Church (which has sanctioned gay marriages).


Uhhh, boB:

The Anglican Communion has never sanctioned 'gay' marriages. I truly
doubt it ever will.

There have been some rogue priests and vicars who have performed
'blessings' of friendhip and/or committment. None are officially
recognized as 'marriages' by the Anglican Communion.

In the past couple of days there has been a terrible upheaval in the
Anglican Communion on the voting and codification of V. Gene Robinson
to the status of Bishop in the American Episcopal Church.

Bigotry runs high even in the "Offices" of the knighted servants of
God. I can only hope that those 'driven' folk do some inner searching.
A short time ago the invocation of female priests caused a like
upheaval. But fortunately it died down. I'm not so sure this issue
will quiesce as easily.

Jesus, Yaweh, Jehovah, the Lord of Christianity never addressed this
issue. His message was of love and tolerance! He never spoke of
divisiveness or separation. His followers did however - and some
modern believers are adamant that this springs from the tongue of God!
Of course the same edicts from the same early followers mandate
killing a sassy child! Are those followers killing their children? I
hope not!

Funny how folks grasp only the parts that suit their own objectives
and agendas.

Sorry for the way OFF TOPIC thread - I've previously ****ed, moaned
and bitched - now I'm doing it!

Dakota - Also known as Mike Kroggel - Lifetime member of the American
Episcopal Church.

Sorry folks but why do you not just agree that you disagree? Methinks
this discussion is likely to become vitriolic under a veneer of
politeness and please can we all be friends- or am I being naive? This
is supposed to be a hobby which makes friendship not enemies. Am I the
only person who thinks this is getting out of hand? If you must
disagree why not disagree in private people are going to take sides
and create even more discord.

Life is too short to make enemies.

With respect to both sides in the argument

Malcolm


Toke Nørby wrote in message . ..
J. A. Mc. wrote:

[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!

Oh, my!

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

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

Yes, you are right. Thanks for your help!

(...cut)

Mvh
Toke
http://www.norbyhus.dk/
Copyright by Toke Nørby :-)

Peter D wrote in article
. ..
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.

I had been thinking of making the same points but forbore because
copyright can be a minefield especially when commenting in an
international forum and because, as a subject, it is more than somewhat
off topic.

I agree with most of what Peter says but would like to add some additional
thoughts. Under the Berne convention what is protected is an original
literary work. It is for each jurisdiction, when drafting or interpreting
their own legislation giving effect to their Berne obligations, to
determine what these three words mean. I think it likely that an NG
posting would be pretty universally be considered to be literary. It will
often be considered original. Whether it will be viewed as a work is more
problematic. Unless a posting is all three it will not be copyrightable in
many countries, including the UK.

The defences of fair use and fair dealing are often confused with each
other and even more often are claimed under a misapprehension of what is
fair or in an unjustified attempt to brush the question of infringement
aside. Again, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as it is a matter of
interpretation and the answer depends on the facts of a particular case.
Under fair use an often decisive factor is the extent of the quotation. I
think it will be rare that a quotation of the whole would be considered
fair use. Under fair dealing the quotation will usually be considerable
and even the whole of the original. The Court would have to consider such
matters as the purpose of the alleged infringer's use of another's work
and whether such use harmed the original author in any way. The use of
another's work in a different context to that in which it was published
would also be pertinent.

It is worth, I think, reiterating Peter's point that, under Berne, an
author of an original literary work does not have to claim copyright in it
in any way (e.g. by use of the copyright symbol); the conferment of
copyright is automatic on publication. That right is infringed if a
substantial part of the work is copied without the consent of the
copyright owner. In any dispute, therefore, the fact that the author
expressly withheld consent would be an important, maybe deciding, factor.
Substantial in this context does not refer to the quantity of what is
taken but to the quality; a vital part of the work may often be but a
small part of the whole.

Among the countries which have joined the Berne convention and introduced
domestic legislation giving effect to it are the UK (1886), the USA
(1989), France (1886), Switzerland (1886), Denmark (1903, with
retrospective effect). Prior to 1989 the USA adhered to the Universal
Copyright Convention which *did* require a claim to copyright, hence the
very frequent use of the copyright symbol in that country; a requirement
that no longer obtains there.

Douglas

J. A. Mc. wrote:
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.

Well, I spent several hours googling for this without success. The only
court cases that I found were about people quoting from other sources
on USENET. I found discussions on the quoting of USENET messages, but
nothing about any court cases covering that.

= Eric

" ..... Many of them were bare breasted which I don't get ..... "
..
It seems that this situation requires further study, possibly at close
range.
..
Charlie Jensen


Live right,
Eat right,
Exercise ... ... ... Die anyway !

From:
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Gay Stamps

" ..... Many of them were bare breasted which I don't get ..... "
.
It seems that this situation requires further study, possibly at close
range.
.
Charlie Jensen

Give it up, Charlie. I've enquired further, and it turns out that they're
all dykes (meaning, they aren't interested in you or me, Charlie!) And, I
should add, that some of them were better seen at a considerable distance!

There is no local law forcing women to conceal their breasts, and the women
are basically saying "See, we can go naked just like guys."

To raise this to a higher, philatelic plane, are there any stamps that show
bare-breasted women? In my search for airplane topicals, I've just never
noticed..... :^)

boB (Offering the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap, since a long time ago)

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:00:46 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

From:
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Gay Stamps

" ..... Many of them were bare breasted which I don't get ..... "
.
It seems that this situation requires further study, possibly at close
range.
.
Charlie Jensen

Give it up, Charlie. I've enquired further, and it turns out that they're
all dykes (meaning, they aren't interested in you or me, Charlie!) And, I
should add, that some of them were better seen at a considerable distance!

There is no local law forcing women to conceal their breasts, and the women
are basically saying "See, we can go naked just like guys."

To raise this to a higher, philatelic plane, are there any stamps that show
bare-breasted women? In my search for airplane topicals, I've just never
noticed..... :^)

Liar, liar, pants on fire...!

Tracy Barber

Le Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:48:35 +0200, dans rec.collecting.stamps.discuss,
Toke Nørby a écrit :

When you answer to a posting in a thread - please don't change the
subject line as my news reader turn that answer into a brand new
posting - outside the original thread. It is much easier for (I'm
sure) most of us to keep the relevant posting in the original thread
if you leave the subject line unchanged!

So - please don't add "OT" (whatever) to the text in the subject line
even if you think the posting is OT. You can write that in the body of
the posting.

With your
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
look in Option - General settings - Messages list and uncheck « Start
a new thread when the subject changes »

NB : I use French located Forté Agent, the above texts are
back-to-English translations of what I could read. Maybe it will be
lightly different at your's.

--
DC

......and how about this lovely engraved 5 centime from Uruguay
with a delightful winged nymph.

http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox...oto&PhotoID=62

To raise this to a higher, philatelic plane, are there any stamps that
show bare-breasted women?