From: pautrey on
On Aug 9, 7:29 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> Bob Officer wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
> > <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>news:hn5s5612lpukb8qdpttnunao8jb72mh8vv(a)4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>news:55lr56hkfm3gpj685uue14vbbllja7361h(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:korq569q0jsfa71gdbfvvj01ulka3sa80i(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
> >>>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:l9jq56191gu32m5e2odjbh42vh496s9qqj(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "pautrey" <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:ac2f4d9e-3a1e-4c16-a418-bf7a95acbf8b(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> July 12, 2010
>
> >>>>>>>>>> How Microbes Defend and Define Us
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewante...
> >>>>>>>>> Carole this was a copyright article.
>
> >>>>>>>>> What compelled you to steal it?  Well rpautrey stole it and has been
> >>>>>>>>> reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
> >>>>>>>> Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days as per
> >>>>>>>> usual,
> >>>>>>>> although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
> >>>>>>> Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his accomplice
> >>>>>>> in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
> >>>>>>> internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know the UK
> >>>>>>> courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US federal
> >>>>>>> courts?
> >>>>>> I've never heard of it.
> >>>>>> Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why not?
> >>>>> The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it was
> >>>>> published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
> >>>> Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the article will
> >>>> appear?
> >>> Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
> >>> basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
> >>> other countries accept the copyrights of the author.
>
> >>>>> If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
> >>>>> accomplice in someone else's crime.
> >>>> You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
> >> No, you're wrong.
> >> I only included one para of the original article in my reply although did
> >> forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
>
> > Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.
>
> >>> No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
> >>> article....
>
> >>> If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.
>
> >>>>> The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
> >>>>> excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never the
> >>>>> entire article.
> >>>> OK, that is easy.
> >>> Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.
>
> >>>>> You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.
>
> >>>>> I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:
>
> >>>>> <cite>
> >>>>> © 2010 The New York Times Company
> >>>>> </cite>
> >>>> I guess I did.
> >>> I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
> >>> care about.
> >> Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
>
> > There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
> > ">>>" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).
>
> > One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.
>
> >>> Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
> >>> copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents [sic], they
> >>> will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.
>
> >> Thanks for the info.
>
> > I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
> > prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
> > $50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.
>
> > I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
> > recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
> > vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
> > smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
> > the AP Lawyers hours.  All over copyright violation.
>
> The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
> bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.
>
> They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.
>
> Jeff

--------------------------

Yawn!
From: dr_jeff on
pautrey wrote:
> On Aug 9, 7:29 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>> news:hn5s5612lpukb8qdpttnunao8jb72mh8vv(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:55lr56hkfm3gpj685uue14vbbllja7361h(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:korq569q0jsfa71gdbfvvj01ulka3sa80i(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>>>>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:l9jq56191gu32m5e2odjbh42vh496s9qqj(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "pautrey" <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ac2f4d9e-3a1e-4c16-a418-bf7a95acbf8b(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> July 12, 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>> How Microbes Defend and Define Us
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewante...
>>>>>>>>>>> Carole this was a copyright article.
>>>>>>>>>>> What compelled you to steal it? Well rpautrey stole it and has been
>>>>>>>>>>> reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
>>>>>>>>>> Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days as per
>>>>>>>>>> usual,
>>>>>>>>>> although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
>>>>>>>>> Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his accomplice
>>>>>>>>> in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
>>>>>>>>> internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know the UK
>>>>>>>>> courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US federal
>>>>>>>>> courts?
>>>>>>>> I've never heard of it.
>>>>>>>> Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why not?
>>>>>>> The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it was
>>>>>>> published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
>>>>>> Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the article will
>>>>>> appear?
>>>>> Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
>>>>> basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
>>>>> other countries accept the copyrights of the author.
>>>>>>> If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
>>>>>>> accomplice in someone else's crime.
>>>>>> You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
>>>> No, you're wrong.
>>>> I only included one para of the original article in my reply although did
>>>> forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
>>> Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.
>>>>> No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
>>>>> article....
>>>>> If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.
>>>>>>> The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
>>>>>>> excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never the
>>>>>>> entire article.
>>>>>> OK, that is easy.
>>>>> Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.
>>>>>>> You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.
>>>>>>> I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:
>>>>>>> <cite>
>>>>>>> � 2010 The New York Times Company
>>>>>>> </cite>
>>>>>> I guess I did.
>>>>> I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
>>>>> care about.
>>>> Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
>>> There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
>>> ">>>" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).
>>> One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.
>>>>> Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
>>>>> copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents [sic], they
>>>>> will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.
>>>> Thanks for the info.
>>> I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
>>> prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
>>> $50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.
>>> I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
>>> recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
>>> vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
>>> smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
>>> the AP Lawyers hours. All over copyright violation.
>> The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
>> bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.
>>
>> They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> --------------------------
>
> Yawn!

Yeah, it is tiring hearing about people stealing from other people,
which is what copyright violation is.

Jeff
From: pautrey on
On Aug 10, 8:58 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> pautrey wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 7:29 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> >> Bob Officer wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
> >>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hn5s5612lpukb8qdpttnunao8jb72mh8vv(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:55lr56hkfm3gpj685uue14vbbllja7361h(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:korq569q0jsfa71gdbfvvj01ulka3sa80i(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
> >>>>>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:l9jq56191gu32m5e2odjbh42vh496s9qqj(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "pautrey" <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:ac2f4d9e-3a1e-4c16-a418-bf7a95acbf8b(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> July 12, 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How Microbes Defend and Define Us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewante...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carole this was a copyright article.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What compelled you to steal it?  Well rpautrey stole it and has been
> >>>>>>>>>>> reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
> >>>>>>>>>> Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days as per
> >>>>>>>>>> usual,
> >>>>>>>>>> although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
> >>>>>>>>> Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his accomplice
> >>>>>>>>> in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
> >>>>>>>>> internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know the UK
> >>>>>>>>> courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US federal
> >>>>>>>>> courts?
> >>>>>>>> I've never heard of it.
> >>>>>>>> Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why not?
> >>>>>>> The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it was
> >>>>>>> published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
> >>>>>> Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the article will
> >>>>>> appear?
> >>>>> Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
> >>>>> basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
> >>>>> other countries accept the copyrights of the author.
> >>>>>>> If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
> >>>>>>> accomplice in someone else's crime.
> >>>>>> You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
> >>>> No, you're wrong.
> >>>> I only included one para of the original article in my reply although did
> >>>> forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
> >>> Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.
> >>>>> No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
> >>>>> article....
> >>>>> If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.
> >>>>>>> The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
> >>>>>>> excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never the
> >>>>>>> entire article.
> >>>>>> OK, that is easy.
> >>>>> Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.
> >>>>>>> You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.
> >>>>>>> I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:
> >>>>>>> <cite>
> >>>>>>> © 2010 The New York Times Company
> >>>>>>> </cite>
> >>>>>> I guess I did.
> >>>>> I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
> >>>>> care about.
> >>>> Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
> >>> There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
> >>> ">>>" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).
> >>> One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.
> >>>>> Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
> >>>>> copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents [sic], they
> >>>>> will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.
> >>>> Thanks for the info.
> >>> I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
> >>> prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
> >>> $50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.
> >>> I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
> >>> recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
> >>> vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
> >>> smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
> >>> the AP Lawyers hours.  All over copyright violation.
> >> The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
> >> bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.
>
> >> They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > Yawn!
>
> Yeah, it is tiring hearing about people stealing from other people,
> which is what copyright violation is.
>
> Jeff

FU Fake MD!
From: dr_jeff on
pautrey wrote:
> On Aug 10, 8:58 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>> pautrey wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 7:29 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hn5s5612lpukb8qdpttnunao8jb72mh8vv(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:55lr56hkfm3gpj685uue14vbbllja7361h(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:korq569q0jsfa71gdbfvvj01ulka3sa80i(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>>>>>>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l9jq56191gu32m5e2odjbh42vh496s9qqj(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pautrey" <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ac2f4d9e-3a1e-4c16-a418-bf7a95acbf8b(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 12, 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How Microbes Defend and Define Us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewante...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carole this was a copyright article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What compelled you to steal it? Well rpautrey stole it and has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days as per
>>>>>>>>>>>> usual,
>>>>>>>>>>>> although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his accomplice
>>>>>>>>>>> in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
>>>>>>>>>>> internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know the UK
>>>>>>>>>>> courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US federal
>>>>>>>>>>> courts?
>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard of it.
>>>>>>>>>> Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why not?
>>>>>>>>> The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it was
>>>>>>>>> published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
>>>>>>>> Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the article will
>>>>>>>> appear?
>>>>>>> Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
>>>>>>> basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
>>>>>>> other countries accept the copyrights of the author.
>>>>>>>>> If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
>>>>>>>>> accomplice in someone else's crime.
>>>>>>>> You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
>>>>>> No, you're wrong.
>>>>>> I only included one para of the original article in my reply although did
>>>>>> forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
>>>>> Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.
>>>>>>> No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
>>>>>>> article....
>>>>>>> If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.
>>>>>>>>> The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
>>>>>>>>> excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never the
>>>>>>>>> entire article.
>>>>>>>> OK, that is easy.
>>>>>>> Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.
>>>>>>>>> You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.
>>>>>>>>> I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:
>>>>>>>>> <cite>
>>>>>>>>> � 2010 The New York Times Company
>>>>>>>>> </cite>
>>>>>>>> I guess I did.
>>>>>>> I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
>>>>>>> care about.
>>>>>> Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
>>>>> There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
>>>>> ">>>" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).
>>>>> One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.
>>>>>>> Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
>>>>>>> copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents [sic], they
>>>>>>> will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.
>>>>>> Thanks for the info.
>>>>> I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
>>>>> prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
>>>>> $50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.
>>>>> I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
>>>>> recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
>>>>> vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
>>>>> smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
>>>>> the AP Lawyers hours. All over copyright violation.
>>>> The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
>>>> bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.
>>>> They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.
>>>> Jeff
>>> --------------------------
>>> Yawn!
>> Yeah, it is tiring hearing about people stealing from other people,
>> which is what copyright violation is.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> FU Fake MD!

Wow!

I hope you have a great night, too!
From: David on
dr_jeff wrote:
> pautrey wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 7:29 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hn5s5612lpukb8qdpttnunao8jb72mh8vv(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:55lr56hkfm3gpj685uue14vbbllja7361h(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:korq569q0jsfa71gdbfvvj01ulka3sa80i(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
>>>>>>>>>> <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:l9jq56191gu32m5e2odjbh42vh496s9qqj(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pautrey" <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ac2f4d9e-3a1e-4c16-a418-bf7a95acbf8b(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 12, 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How Microbes Defend and Define Us
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewante...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carole this was a copyright article.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What compelled you to steal it? Well rpautrey stole it and
>>>>>>>>>>>> has been
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days
>>>>>>>>>>> as per
>>>>>>>>>>> usual,
>>>>>>>>>>> although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
>>>>>>>>>> Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his
>>>>>>>>>> accomplice
>>>>>>>>>> in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
>>>>>>>>>> internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know
>>>>>>>>>> the UK
>>>>>>>>>> courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US
>>>>>>>>>> federal
>>>>>>>>>> courts?
>>>>>>>>> I've never heard of it.
>>>>>>>>> Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why
>>>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>> The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
>>>>>>> Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the
>>>>>>> article will
>>>>>>> appear?
>>>>>> Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
>>>>>> basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
>>>>>> other countries accept the copyrights of the author.
>>>>>>>> If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
>>>>>>>> accomplice in someone else's crime.
>>>>>>> You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
>>>>> No, you're wrong.
>>>>> I only included one para of the original article in my reply
>>>>> although did
>>>>> forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
>>>> Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.
>>>>>> No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
>>>>>> article....
>>>>>> If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.
>>>>>>>> The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
>>>>>>>> excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> entire article.
>>>>>>> OK, that is easy.
>>>>>> Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.
>>>>>>>> You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.
>>>>>>>> I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:
>>>>>>>> <cite>
>>>>>>>> � 2010 The New York Times Company
>>>>>>>> </cite>
>>>>>>> I guess I did.
>>>>>> I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
>>>>>> care about.
>>>>> Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
>>>> There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
>>>> ">>>" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).
>>>> One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.
>>>>>> Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
>>>>>> copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents
>>>>>> [sic], they
>>>>>> will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.
>>>>> Thanks for the info.
>>>> I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
>>>> prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
>>>> $50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.
>>>> I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
>>>> recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
>>>> vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
>>>> smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
>>>> the AP Lawyers hours. All over copyright violation.
>>> The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
>>> bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.
>>>
>>> They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> Yawn!
>
> Yeah, it is tiring hearing about people stealing from other people,
> which is what copyright violation is.
>
> Jeff

If you put it out there, you should not think you have or deserve
control over it. If you do not want people using it keep it to yourself.
Once it is out, it is public. And the law is wrong, like you.