>> This post is Intellectual Property, if you've made it available
>> for viewing on a website, you must remove it immediately.
>
>Referring to Usenet posts as 'Intellectual Property' made me laugh even
>louder...

Not only that, but the statement is completely false. First, by publishing on
USEnet, you've implicitly granted general permission for reproduction,
archiving, echoing, or mirroring, as demonstrated by Google Groups, among
numerous others. Secondly, USEnet is itself an unrestricted network of servers
which copy and share content, using nntp instead of http. And third, there is no
compulsion to "remove" anything which may have been published under the doctrine
of fair use from a Web site.

-- Larry (Yeah, I do work in actual IP for the US government)

pltrgyst wrote:

>>> This post is Intellectual Property, if you've made it available
>>> for viewing on a website, you must remove it immediately.
>>
>>Referring to Usenet posts as 'Intellectual Property' made me laugh
>>even louder...
>
> Not only that, but the statement is completely false. First, by
> publishing on USEnet, you've implicitly granted general permission for
> reproduction, archiving, echoing, or mirroring, as demonstrated by
> Google Groups, among numerous others. Secondly, USEnet is itself an
> unrestricted network of servers which copy and share content, using
> nntp instead of http. And third, there is no compulsion to "remove"
> anything which may have been published under the doctrine of fair use
> from a Web site.
>
> -- Larry (Yeah, I do work in actual IP for the US government)

I'm far from a copyright/intellectual property expert myself, but common
sense tells me that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to
enforce copyright/IP laws for Usenet posts. And IME, even plastering
copyright notices on websites does not deter certain people from
spidering and/or copying selected parts of a website - if and when they
feel like doing so. Sad, but true.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:01:16 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> pltrgyst wrote:
>
>>>> This post is Intellectual Property, if you've made it available
>>>> for viewing on a website, you must remove it immediately.
>>>
>>>Referring to Usenet posts as 'Intellectual Property' made me laugh
>>>even louder...
>>
>> Not only that, but the statement is completely false. First, by
>> publishing on USEnet, you've implicitly granted general permission for
>> reproduction, archiving, echoing, or mirroring, as demonstrated by
>> Google Groups, among numerous others. Secondly, USEnet is itself an
>> unrestricted network of servers which copy and share content, using
>> nntp instead of http. And third, there is no compulsion to "remove"
>> anything which may have been published under the doctrine of fair use
>> from a Web site.
>>
>> -- Larry (Yeah, I do work in actual IP for the US government)
>
> I'm far from a copyright/intellectual property expert myself, but common
> sense tells me that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to
> enforce copyright/IP laws for Usenet posts. And IME, even plastering
> copyright notices on websites does not deter certain people from
> spidering and/or copying selected parts of a website - if and when they
> feel like doing so. Sad, but true.

as far as i know, the mere act of writing something - 'published' or not -
givesw you a copyright. but, as you say, it would be difficult to collect
any copyright infringement damages unless someone was rash enough to
publish 'the sayings of chairman stu' and millions of people were rash
enough to buy it.

your pal,
blake

Stu wrote:

>
> I run a script to deter people from stealing off my domain, I have one
> area that I allow copying so no script.

So do I. It's called robots.txt - but it is only a deterrent as you say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt

<quote>

Disadvantages

The protocol is purely advisory. It relies on the cooperation of the web
robot, so that marking an area of a site out of bounds with robots.txt
does not guarantee privacy. Some web site administrators have tried to
use the robots file to make private parts of a website invisible to the
rest of the world, but the file is necessarily publicly available and
its content is easily checked by anyone with a web browser.
</quote>

> What I manly put the sig on
> for is sites like foodbanter and others, I like to give them a heads
> up that I won't tolerate theft of things I post. If more people did
> this the leeches wouldn't be able to exist.

Problem is, if there was an easy legal way to stop sites
doing 'mirroring' of Usenet posts they would have been taken down long
ago...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Stu wrote:
>
> >
> > I run a script to deter people from stealing off my domain, I have one
> > area that I allow copying so no script.
>
> So do I. It's called robots.txt - but it is only a deterrent as you say.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt

Interesting. Do you think Stu used a robot to get the content for his
site? I suppose it's possible that he got permission to copy all those
recipes, but I doubt it. I guess that's not fair of me, is it?

> Problem is, if there was an easy legal way to stop sites
> doing 'mirroring' of Usenet posts they would have been taken down long
> ago...

I always looked at "mirroring" and "archiving" as favors, not stealing.
I've never heard anybody complain that Google is stealing our posts,
because they keep them for longer than most newservers. FoodBanter is
another matter, since they don't seem too honest about what they are
doing.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Stu wrote:

>> I use IE, and I was able to copy and paste the passage above. Want me to
>> do some more? Because whatever *I* post will surely end up on
>> foodbanter.com.
>
> Fill yur boots

I'll take that as a "yes."

Say, foodbanter brethren, have you ever wondered how you can tell whether a
roast in the oven is done or not? Stu has found a chart which you can print
and tape onto your cabinet, telling the internal temperatures at which the
various meats are done.

Please note that Stu is not the *originator* of the chart. He just copied
the information from elsewhere, saved it into picture form, and put it onto
his website, www.shittyfoodfordesperatevirgins.com.

To save you the trouble of going to Stu's website, I have modified the
picture slightly and saved it at http://i41.tinypic.com/15n6hah.jpg

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Stu wrote:
>
> >> I use IE, and I was able to copy and paste the passage above. Want me to
> >> do some more? Because whatever *I* post will surely end up on
> >> foodbanter.com.
> >
> > Fill yur boots
>
> I'll take that as a "yes."
>
> Say, foodbanter brethren, have you ever wondered how you can tell whether a
> roast in the oven is done or not? Stu has found a chart which you can print
> and tape onto your cabinet, telling the internal temperatures at which the
> various meats are done.
>
> Please note that Stu is not the *originator* of the chart. He just copied
> the information from elsewhere, saved it into picture form, and put it onto
> his website, www.shittyfoodfordesperatevirgins.com.
>
> To save you the trouble of going to Stu's website, I have modified the
> picture slightly and saved it at http://i41.tinypic.com/15n6hah.jpg
>
> Bob

Bob, why are you so rude to Stu' about his website? It is very well put
together, informative and fun. As for the material, there is a TON of
valuable cooking information (like said chart) that is not copyrighted
information and is available to all.

I'm fixin' to write some sales websites soon and I was informed, for
instance, that visa card and other credit card logos are free for the
taking. That's just one example.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
"We're all adults here, except for those of us who aren't." --Blake Murphy

Om wrote:

> Bob, why are you so rude to Stu' about his website? It is very well put
> together, informative and fun. As for the material, there is a TON of
> valuable cooking information (like said chart) that is not copyrighted
> information and is available to all.

His site is almost completely plagiarized, and from some highly suspect
sources. Stu has posted many ****ed-up recipes from his website to this
forum. I (and others) have pointed out some of the flaws to him. In every
single case, even when the recipe was obviously blatantly wrong, Stu refused
to accept responsibility for the errors, saying that the recipes came from
some other source, and it's up to the original source to fix the errors,
even though they would remain ****ed-up on his web site after such a
correction could be made. So those ****ed-up recipes are still there on his
web site, still waiting for someone less knowledgeable to come along and
ruin dinner by following them. And Stu doesn't care enough to fix them.

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Om wrote:
>
> > Bob, why are you so rude to Stu' about his website? It is very well put
> > together, informative and fun. As for the material, there is a TON of
> > valuable cooking information (like said chart) that is not copyrighted
> > information and is available to all.
>
> His site is almost completely plagiarized, and from some highly suspect
> sources. Stu has posted many ****ed-up recipes from his website to this
> forum. I (and others) have pointed out some of the flaws to him. In every
> single case, even when the recipe was obviously blatantly wrong, Stu refused
> to accept responsibility for the errors, saying that the recipes came from
> some other source, and it's up to the original source to fix the errors,
> even though they would remain ****ed-up on his web site after such a
> correction could be made. So those ****ed-up recipes are still there on his
> web site, still waiting for someone less knowledgeable to come along and
> ruin dinner by following them. And Stu doesn't care enough to fix them.
>
> Bob

Have you tried being _polite_ about the errors? Constructive criticism
is far more acceptable than outright attacks. Attacks are not generally
going to be listened to.

I don't hesitate to make suggestions as to how to improve a recipe, but
I do it politely!
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
"We're all adults here, except for those of us who aren't." --Blake Murphy

Stu wrote:

>> To save you the trouble of going to Stu's website, I have modified the
>> picture slightly and saved it at http://i41.tinypic.com/15n6hah.jpg
>>
> Actually it is from one of our government websites, from which I got
> written permission to use, did you Bob?

I got written permission to copy from *your* website, which is exactly what
I did.


> It seems you've broken the law, as you've admitted freely here of taking
> it from my site, and are now supplying it to everyone.

Said it yourself: I got the material from *your* site. I think that if you
delve into the legalistics, you'll find that posting on your site gives you
responsibility for the material there, and how it gets used -- and YOU gave
permission. I know you love to duck any responsibility, but this time you'll
just have to suck it up and swallow.

Bob

Stu wrote:

> I understand that you're the product of a sperm bank gone bad, my
> condolences to your parents.

My parents have been dead for years. With any luck you'll be able to deliver
your condolences to them personally in the near future.

Bob

Stu blustered:

> Actually Om, the graphic is from one of our Canadian government
> websites, they are the copyrighted owners and I have authorization to
> use the graphic on my website. Bob is about to find that his action of
> removing the graphic from my website is not acceptable.

LOL. I'm still here, dumbass. I guess you didn't pay very close attention to
what I actually did. Huff and puff as much as you like, but your bluster's
only result is more laughter on my part. Any more empty threats you'd like
to make? Will you send the RCMP to my house next? Maybe a few members of the
Canadian Olympic curling team?

Bob

Stu wrote:

>> His site is almost completely plagiarized, and from some highly suspect
>> sources. Stu has posted many ****ed-up recipes from his website to this
>> forum. I (and others) have pointed out some of the flaws to him. In every
>> single case, even when the recipe was obviously blatantly wrong, Stu
>> refused to accept responsibility for the errors, saying that the recipes
>> came from some other source, and it's up to the original source to fix
>> the errors, even though they would remain ****ed-up on his web site after
>> such a correction could be made. So those ****ed-up recipes are still
>> there on his web site, still waiting for someone less knowledgeable to
>> come along and ruin dinner by following them. And Stu doesn't care enough
>> to fix them.
>
> This little tirade does not absolve you from removing copyrighted
> material from my website Bob.

But you know what *does* absolve me? The fact that YOU GAVE PERMISSION!
Shoulda just shut the **** up and fixed your site after I pointed out the
failure of your "script", but you didn't do that, and now I've made a fool
out of you -- and your shitty site.

Bob

Om wrote:

> If you want the graphic removed Stu', report abuse to tinypic and they
> will remove it post haste. They are good about that, especially since the
> graphic he posted contains profanity.

No, that's not accurate: It contains VULGARITY. Here are some examples of
the different types of expletives:

Profanity: Goddamn (religion-based)
Obscenity: **** (sexual)
Vulgarity: Shit (crude reference to bodily function)

See the difference?

At any rate, I see that the image is still there on tinypic, so either Stu
doesn't care enough to complain about it or tinypic felt that his complaint
lacked merit.

Bob

Stu wrote:

> You were not given permission to remove graphics, you took that on all
> by yourself. I could not give you permission to copy that graphic and
> then share it as it is not mine.
> I have written permission to use it from the owner, you do not.
> So you can explain it all to astraweb.com tomorrow.

I don't think I'll hold my breath. If astraweb contacts me, I can simply
point to your permission, and they'll drop the whole thing. By the way, I do
hope our foodbanter.com correspondents benefit from my debunking some
frequently asked cooking questions!

http://i43.tinypic.com/164015.jpg

Bob

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:40:36 -0500, Stu wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:55:08 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>Om wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, why are you so rude to Stu' about his website? It is very well put
>>> together, informative and fun. As for the material, there is a TON of
>>> valuable cooking information (like said chart) that is not copyrighted
>>> information and is available to all.
>>
>>His site is almost completely plagiarized, and from some highly suspect
>>sources. Stu has posted many ****ed-up recipes from his website to this
>>forum. I (and others) have pointed out some of the flaws to him. In every
>>single case, even when the recipe was obviously blatantly wrong, Stu refused
>>to accept responsibility for the errors, saying that the recipes came from
>>some other source, and it's up to the original source to fix the errors,
>>even though they would remain ****ed-up on his web site after such a
>>correction could be made. So those ****ed-up recipes are still there on his
>>web site, still waiting for someone less knowledgeable to come along and
>>ruin dinner by following them. And Stu doesn't care enough to fix them.
>>
>>Bob
>
> This little tirade does not absolve you from removing copyrighted
> material from my website Bob.

since you have said a lot of your material is from other sites, i'm not
sure you can complain about bob violating your 'copyright.'

blake

blake murphy wrote:
>Stu wrote:
>>Om wrote:
>>
>> Bob, why are you so rude to Stu' about his website? It is very well put
>> together, informative and fun. As for the material, there is a TON of
>> valuable cooking information (like said chart) that is not copyrighted
>> information and is available to all.
>
> This little tirade does not absolve you from removing copyrighted
> material from my website.
>
>since you have said a lot of your material is from other sites, i'm not
>sure you can complain about bob violating your 'copyright.'

Was something actually "removed" from the web site (that requires
hacking into the server on which it resides). Or was something just
'copied'... and if recipes those cannot be copyrighted, they're free
for the taking... I can't imagine someone would place a recipe on
their web site expecting no one copy it, a normal brained person would
*hope* folks copy the recipes... only a pinhead would go to the
trouble of placing recipes on a web site and expect them not to be
copied.

Stu blustered:

> So you can explain it all to astraweb.com tomorrow.

Still waiting, asshole...

See what happens when people call your childish bluffs?

http://blog.trendmicro.com/%E2%80%9C...-spam-attacks/

That was YOU sending out those "copyright infringement lawsuit" notices,
wasn't it? No, on second thought, you're not that smart.

Bob

On Mar 27, 5:34*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Stu wrote:
> >> To save you the trouble of going to Stu's website, I have modified the
> >> picture slightly and saved it athttp://i41.tinypic.com/15n6hah.jpg
>
> > Actually it is from one of our government websites, from which I got
> > written permission to use, did you Bob?
>
> I got written permission to copy from *your* website, which is exactly what
> I did.
>
> > It seems you've broken the law, as you've admitted freely here of taking
> > it from my site, and are now supplying it to everyone.
>
> Said it yourself: I got the material from *your* site. I think that if you
> delve into the legalistics, you'll find that posting on your site gives you
> responsibility for the material there, and how it gets used -- and YOU gave
> permission. I know you love to duck any responsibility, but this time you'll
> just have to suck it up and swallow.

What is funny to me is the idea that anything on that wretched website
would be worth taking in the first place. I remember this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jaffees-Magic-.../dp/0446888699
In the preface, it told about the magician's code, and insisted that
the reason that they so fragrantly violated the code was because, "Our
tricks don't work."
>
> Bob

--Bryan

Omelet > wrote in newsmpomelet-518238.08593501042010
@news-wc.giganews.com:

> What laws (or are there any)
> about pulling a feed from Youtube? Do you need the permission of the
> video poster, or is it public domain? And how do I snag the link to add
> to the website page?


It's all in here Om.


http://www.youtube.com/youtubeonyoursite



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke.

Omelet > wrote in newsmpomelet-8932B8.09424201042010
@news-wc.giganews.com:

> In article
> >,
> Food Snob® > wrote:

>> > internet marketing that includes that. *What laws (or are there any)
>> > about pulling a feed from Youtube? *Do you need the permission of the
>> > video poster, or is it public domain? And how do I snag the link to
add
>> > to the website page?
>>
>> Go he
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SStEMsI4lqk
>> and click the button that says, "EMBED." It'll give you the html.
>>
>> > --
>> > Peace! Om
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> Thanks Bryan! But is there any copyright violation by doing so?



Obviously my posts aren't coming through!! No copyright whatsoever.



http://www.youtube.com/youtubeonyoursite

YouTube on Your Site

Whatever presence you have on the Internet—a large website, a blog, a
social network page, or pretty much anything else—there are many ways to
integrate YouTube into it. From simple video embeds to our full-powered
APIs, you can integrate video at all levels of technical expertise.

Bringing YouTube to your site is more than just adding some of the
millions of videos available on YouTube. It keeps your visitors interested
and allows self-expression and interaction with one of their favorite
services. And it brings your site, blog, or page into the YouTube video
community—an international network of users, creators, and sites connected
through the Web's largest collection of online videos.

We've highlighted some typical ways of integrating video content
below—just click the arrow next to the question to get the answer. If you
have any questions or suggestions, or projects that you would like us to
know about, please leave a post at the Developer Forum.

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke.

In article >,
PLucas > wrote:

> Obviously my posts aren't coming through!! No copyright whatsoever.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/youtubeonyoursite
>
> YouTube on Your Site
>
> Whatever presence you have on the Internet—a large website, a blog, a
> social network page, or pretty much anything else—there are many ways to
> integrate YouTube into it. From simple video embeds to our full-powered
> APIs, you can integrate video at all levels of technical expertise.
>
> Bringing YouTube to your site is more than just adding some of the
> millions of videos available on YouTube. It keeps your visitors interested
> and allows self-expression and interaction with one of their favorite
> services. And it brings your site, blog, or page into the YouTube video
> community—an international network of users, creators, and sites connected
> through the Web's largest collection of online videos.
>
> We've highlighted some typical ways of integrating video content
> below—just click the arrow next to the question to get the answer. If you
> have any questions or suggestions, or projects that you would like us to
> know about, please leave a post at the Developer Forum.
>
> --
> Peter Lucas

I got your post hon', but after I saw and answered his. :-)

Thanks!
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
"We're all adults here, except for those of us who aren't." --Blake Murphy

In article >,
PLucas > wrote:

> I am willing to bestow upon you an old motto of mine........ if you'd like
> to have it.
>
>
> "Success isn't so difficult. Just bite off more than you can chew, and
> then go do it."
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Lucas

I like the Thomas Edison quote better:

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it's usually dressing on
coveralls and looks like work."

;-)

I am not afraid of a little hard work...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
"We're all adults here, except for those of us who aren't." --Blake Murphy

Stu-Pid tried weaseling:

>>> So you can explain it all to astraweb.com tomorrow.
>>
>> Still waiting, asshole...
>>
>> See what happens when people call your childish bluffs?
>>
>> http://blog.trendmicro.com/%E2%80%9C...-spam-attacks/
>>
>> That was YOU sending out those "copyright infringement lawsuit" notices,
>> wasn't it? No, on second thought, you're not that smart.
>>
>
> I'm betting that they haven't read the email I sent, they'll get
> around to you eventually. Please be patient Bob.

So you're admitting that "tomorrow" was bullshit? Might just as well admit
that your entire complaint is bullshit while you're at it.

Come to think of it...

Foodbanter.com members, do you realize that not all pork should be cooked
the same way? Stu's website www.shittyfoodfordesperatevirgins.com has an
entire page dedicated to outlining the best ways of cooking the different
cuts of pork. Of course, since it's Stu's site, the actual material there
has been copied from other sources -- any ORIGINAL work on Stu's site is
quite minor, and not actually related to cooking. The material quoted was
stolen from elsewhere, and Stu has scummily failed to provide any
attribution. It's also not anything close to a complete treatment of the
topic, but your expectations should be very low anyway, if you've ever
visited Stu's site before.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2drv14h.jpg

Bob