While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
> reference. Look up the definition and use "argument directed at
> the man". This was the very argument that the Catholic church
> used to exonerate the Jewish culture from the death of Christ.
> You can only blame the individual. If I took the historical
> reference to Rosetta Stone and used it to describe my cheatsheet
> of Chinese English tea terms used first in 95 then this is an
> illustration or new description "similar but not the same as"
> which is protected by copyright. Speeches are copyright
> protected perse even if it is nothing more than reading from a
> dictionary. You'd still have to quote the speaker no matter
> what. I get the feeling you think I'm objecting to the specific
> use of Chinese English tea terms perse. I'm simply asking for
> the copycat website to remove the direct reference to rosetta
> (webpage name) or any inferences to the same name suggesting the
> same illustration.

Absolutely, I can infer an Ad Hominem. The generational comment was
intended to make me look like I don't understand the concepts of
originality and plagiarism because of when I was born. You weren't
attempting to criticize the generation, you were attempting to
discredit me based on that criticism.

The term rosetta stone is a public domain phrase for a method of
tranlsation (as well as the actual stone). It has already been used
to describe methods of translating between languages, including
cheatsheets. You cannot claim that the idea is original or even
"new" simply because you limit your cheatsheet only to the names of
teas. Well, you can "claim" it, but you have no legal basis because
people were using the term in long before 1995.

And here's the big news for you, Jim. You cannot copyright ideas
anyway. You can copyright an article. You can copyright a speech. You
can copyright the content of a post to a newsgroup. But you cannot
copyright the factual information contained within. If that were the
case, every school termpaper would be plagiarism by default since
someone else already wrote the information contained within.


Since you're in VCBC (apparently), I did a little digging about
Canadian copyright law and when copyright does not apply.

"Copyright is restricted to the expression in a fixed manner (text,
recording, drawing) of an idea; it does not extend to the idea
itself."

"Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain,
that is, they are everyone's property."

"Note too, that you cannot hold a copyright for a work that is in the
public domain. "

strategis.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#section04

You've got copyright on your rambling, presentation of the idea, Jim.
But you can't copyright the idea (which isn't actually "new"), nor
can you copyright the title - especially since the phrase is in the
public domain.

"Titles, names and short word combinations are usually not protected
by copyright. A "work" or other "subject-matter" for copyright
purposes must be something more substantial. However, ifa title is
original and distinctive, it is protected as part of the work it
relates to."

Guess what, Jim? "Rosetta stone" isn't original or distinctive,
either.

You want legal protection to keep others from using the term "rosetta
stone" in describing their translation pages? Then register the
trademark.

And let us know if CIPO approves it or laughs you out of their
office.

--
Derek

Until you spread your wings, you'll have no idea how far you can
walk.