Subject: Mail digest
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:02:58 +0200 (METDST)
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:55:55 -0500
[email protected] wrote:
> Hey, of course it's basically illegal, but the main point made by most
> of the members was that it's poor to pick out someone and threat them.
> If anyone wanted to pursue this kind of 'theft', every owner of every
> page with any kind of copyrighted material should be sued, don't you
> think? And since that will most likely never happen, yes, it IS ok.
> That's kinda internet law :)
>
> Bye, Nadine <3
>
>
I prefer to believe BelleSoCal's assertion that everything is on the up and
up. And no, I do not agree with you at all. Sorry.
--
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
(281)498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only: http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators: http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:17:44 -0600 (CST)
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected] (danascx)
Comments: Originally Cc: [email protected]
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
*Most* copyright holders do not mind, as it is free advertising for them
(or for their show, or book, or album, or whatever). As long as the site
is *positive,* why should they object to free advertising? The copyright
is to protect the owner/creator so that someone doesn't come along and
claim it as their own and make money from it. A website doesn't do that.
I've been in the fandom business since '87, writing/editing/publishing
fanzines based on tv series, which is basically illegal and breaking all
kinds of copyright laws, but the fanzine business has never been closed
down because of that! It's still free advertising, and zines certainly
keep a show alive after it's been cancelled. And if a copyright holder
does decide to stop it, all they have to do is tell someone to stop
doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to be dragged off
to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't stop it
*after* being told to. Yeah, I guess it does all come down to "everyone
does it," but that doesn't seem to be such a terrible problem. *Most*
copyright holders allow it to happen, for whatever reason, mostly the
free publicity.
Nanci
With a handful of keys and a song to sing, now how could you ask for
more? -- Mandy
*Clowns don't belong in a hospital!*
*Neither do children.* -- Dr. Jeffrey Geiger
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:37:43 -0600
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Reply-To: "Dianne Smith"
Comments: Originally To: ,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Most? Do you have statistics to prove this?
-----
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
281-498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition:
http://www.highwired.net/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only:
http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators
http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom
http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
*Most* copyright holders do not mind, as it is free advertising for them
(or for their show, or book, or album, or whatever). As long as the site
is *positive,* why should they object to free advertising? The copyright
is to protect the owner/creator so that someone doesn't come along and
claim it as their own and make money from it. A website doesn't do that.
I've been in the fandom business since '87, writing/editing/publishing
fanzines based on tv series, which is basically illegal and breaking all
kinds of copyright laws, but the fanzine business has never been closed
down because of that! It's still free advertising, and zines certainly
keep a show alive after it's been cancelled. And if a copyright holder
does decide to stop it, all they have to do is tell someone to stop
doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to be dragged off
to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't stop it
*after* being told to. Yeah, I guess it does all come down to "everyone
does it," but that doesn't seem to be such a terrible problem. *Most*
copyright holders allow it to happen, for whatever reason, mostly the
free publicity.
Nanci
With a handful of keys and a song to sing, now how could you ask for
more? -- Mandy
*Clowns don't belong in a hospital!*
*Neither do children.* -- Dr. Jeffrey Geiger
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:02:46 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected], [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Isn't also fair to say that even Mandy Patinkin has seen the sight??
Michelle<------yawning over this trivia
In a message dated 11/30/99 4:41:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Subj: Re: copyright
> Date: 11/30/99 4:41:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: [email protected]
> Sender: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> In a message dated 11/30/99 12:38:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> >> I have no idea whether or not phantm is using copyrighted material
> without
> permission, but I find it very interesting that the attitude that has been
> voiced is that "everyone does it" so it is ok. I hope by the time we finish
> with this particular unit none of my students will feel that way. >>
>
> Until and unless someone proves me wrong definitively, I shall assume (
> having
> known the gifted PhantmPnts for some years now) that TT's website is not
> only
> well within the law but is also ethically and responsibly maintained.
>
> Should any of us assert otherwise without knowing all the facts, there's
> where the shame lies.
>
> Bev
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:04:46 -0600 (CST)
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected] (Dianne Smith)
Comments: Originally Cc: [email protected]
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
<>
No. But considering the thousands (if not millions?) of websites there
are, I think that backs up my statement without the actual numbers. If
*most* copyright holders objected, then there wouldn't be all those
websites, would there? Everyone would be sent "cease and desist" orders
and all those sites wouldn't be there anymore. The fact that *most* of
them are still in existence says a lot about how the copyright holders
feel. They love free publicity!
Nanci
With a handful of keys and a song to sing, now how could you ask for
more? -- Mandy
*Clowns don't belong in a hospital!*
*Neither do children.* -- Dr. Jeffrey Geiger
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:13:07 -0600
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Reply-To: "Dianne Smith"
Comments: Originally To:
Comments: Originally Cc:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
My guess is it would depend on if someone felt they were losing money from
the use of copyrighted materials. I know of a couple of photographers who
would call their lawyers to file suit before they'd notify someone who was
violating their copyrights because they've had to deal with this so much.
Remember, it's not the "star" that owns the copyright...it is the author, or
the photographer, or the poet...in other words, the creator. Of course the
person who the website (or book, or picture, or whatever) is about would
probably love the free publicity....but that person does not own the
copyright. And it is up to the copyright holder to determine how his or her
property is to be used. That's the law, like it or not.
-----
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
281-498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition:
http://www.highwired.net/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only:
http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators
http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom
http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: Dianne Smith
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
<>
No. But considering the thousands (if not millions?) of websites there
are, I think that backs up my statement without the actual numbers. If
*most* copyright holders objected, then there wouldn't be all those
websites, would there? Everyone would be sent "cease and desist" orders
and all those sites wouldn't be there anymore. The fact that *most* of
them are still in existence says a lot about how the copyright holders
feel. They love free publicity!
Nanci
With a handful of keys and a song to sing, now how could you ask for
more? -- Mandy
*Clowns don't belong in a hospital!*
*Neither do children.* -- Dr. Jeffrey Geiger
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:25:33 -0600
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Reply-To: "Dianne Smith"
Comments: Originally To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01BF3B60.4A298F00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BF3B60.4A298F00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My guess is it would depend on if someone felt they were losing money from
the use of copyrighted materials. I know of a couple of photographers who
would call their lawyers to file suit before they'd notify someone who was
violating their copyrights because they've had to deal with this so much.
Remember, it's not the "star" that owns the copyright...it is the author, or
the photographer, or the poet...in other words, the creator. Of course the
person who the website (or book, or picture, or whatever) is about would
probably love the free publicity....but that person does not own the
copyright. And it is up to the copyright holder to determine how his or her
property is to be used. That's the law, like it or not.
-----
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
281-498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition:
http://www.highwired.net/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only:
http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators
http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom
http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: Dianne Smith
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
<>
No. But considering the thousands (if not millions?) of websites there
are, I think that backs up my statement without the actual numbers. If
*most* copyright holders objected, then there wouldn't be all those
websites, would there? Everyone would be sent "cease and desist" orders
and all those sites wouldn't be there anymore. The fact that *most* of
them are still in existence says a lot about how the copyright holders
feel. They love free publicity!
Nanci
With a handful of keys and a song to sing, now how could you ask for
more? -- Mandy
*Clowns don't belong in a hospital!*
*Neither do children.* -- Dr. Jeffrey=20
----
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:42:01 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/30/1999 3:38:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> This is a unit
> that will be coming up in January, so I find the discussion very timely and
> plan to use some of what has been said to stir up some debate in class.
I assume that you will be getting appropriate permission from the writers of
the posts before using messages from a private mailing list in your
classroom, recognizing that they, too, are copyrighted.
Carol P. -----still irritated that a magazine chose to print part of a
letter I sent them WITHOUT including my name or professional credentials.
They said that they would never print someone's name without getting explicit
permission [and claimed to have tried e-mailing me and had the mail bounced
back]. I found it irresponsible that they used my words, but omitted my name
(which I HAD specifically included in my e-mail to them) and that they
further used my own words [which they had carefully NOT included in their
edited version of my letter) in composing their reply to my comments on their
inaccurate information in a tax-advice column.
I realize that by sending them the e-mail I am considered to have given
permission for its publication, but I would have thought that by including my
name (WITHOUT a request that it be withheld) I was also giving permission for
them to use my name and thereby attribute the comments to me. I don't think
that sending them an e-mail gave them permission to use my words as their
own, which they did. But folks don't seem to recognize that written material
is copyrighted when written whether or not the writer is a professional
writer and whether or not copyright notice is given.
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:05:35 -0600
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Reply-To: "Dianne Smith"
Comments: Originally To: ,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
No, because I will not be reproducing the emails or using anyone's name or
actual words..I will be using the gist of what is said to start a
discussion. Nice try, though.
-----
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
281-498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition:
http://www.highwired.net/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only:
http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators
http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom
http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
>In a message dated 11/30/1999 3:38:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
>> This is a unit
>> that will be coming up in January, so I find the discussion very timely and
>> plan to use some of what has been said to stir up some debate in class.
>
>I assume that you will be getting appropriate permission from the writers of
>the posts before using messages from a private mailing list in your
>classroom, recognizing that they, too, are copyrighted.
>
>Carol P.-----still irritated that a magazine chose to print part of a
>letter I sent them WITHOUT including my name or professional credentials.
>They said that they would never print someone's name without getting explicit
>permission [and claimed to have tried e-mailing me and had the mail bounced
>back]. I found it irresponsible that they used my words, but omitted my name
>(which I HAD specifically included in my e-mail to them) and that they
>further used my own words [which they had carefully NOT included in their
>edited version of my letter) in composing their reply to my comments on their
>inaccurate information in a tax-advice column.
>
>I realize that by sending them the e-mail I am considered to have given
>permission for its publication, but I would have thought that by including my
>name (WITHOUT a request that it be withheld) I was also giving permission for
>them to use my name and thereby attribute the comments to me. I don't think
>that sending them an e-mail gave them permission to use my words as their
>own, which they did. But folks don't seem to recognize that written material
>is copyrighted when written whether or not the writer is a professional
>writer and whether or not copyright notice is given.
>
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Happy Birthday!
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:08:55 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
My parents called me today to sing, "Happy Mandy's birthday" to me! I pass
there wishes along to Mandy and to all of you! :)
Robin
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday!
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:20:17 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/30/99 9:11:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> My parents called me today to sing, "Happy Mandy's birthday" to me! I pass
> there wishes along to Mandy and to all of you! :)
>
Horrors! I just read this! Of course I meant "their wishes"!
Robin ---tired English teacher, who currently teaches math and can,
therefore, get away with an occasional misspelling
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday!
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:20:34 -0800
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[email protected] wrote:
>
> My parents called me today to sing, "Happy Mandy's birthday" to me! I pass
> there wishes along to Mandy and to all of you! :)
>
> Robin
How cute! My mother (among others) just think Im insane... Laurie
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cooking Show repeat
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:55:55 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
The cooking show with Mandy will be replayed this Saturday at 1 pm pacific
time.
Kj
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cooking Show repeat
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:18:45 -0800
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
>The cooking show with Mandy will be replayed this Saturday at 1 pm pacific
>time.
>Kj
>
It is also scheduled at 4 p.m. Pacific Time this Friday (so presumably 7
p.m. ET)
Joanne
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:19:16 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/30/1999 8:03:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> I will be using the gist of what is said to start a
> discussion. Nice try, though.
It wasn't intended as a "try." You said that you "plan to use some of what
has been said to stir up some debate in class." I assumed that you meant the
words.
Carol P.
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:09:09 -0800
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
>In a message dated 11/30/1999 3:38:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
> >
> >> This is a unit that will be coming up in January, so I find the
>discussion very timely and plan to use some of what has been said to
>stir up some debate in class.
Come on! It's still Mandy's birthday here and you're just talking
about moulding young minds.......Carol
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:50:27 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/30/99 4:14:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
< Of course the person who the website (or book, or picture, or whatever) is
about would probably love the free publicity....but that person does not own
the copyright. And it is up to the copyright holder to determine how his or
her property is to be used. That's the law, like it or not. >
I think we all realize that. But Nancy has a point -- it's great free
publicity, and most holders of such intellectual property not only don't
mind, they actually encourage fans' use of logos, photos, lyrics, etc. (and
remember that even though a particular photographer may have taken a
particular picture, that photographer wouldn't necessarily own the rights to
the photo, depending on his/her employment contract -- for instance, most AP
photogs don't own their pictures; the AP does).
I'm only aware of one large, well-known copyright holder that is taking
action against fan websites, and that's the FOX Broadcasting Network.
[Oh, and would it be *terribly* rude of me to point out the incredibly huge
grammatical error in the following sentence? "Of course the person who the
website (or book, or picture, or whatever) is about" -- I mean, since you're
a teacher and a journalist and obviously know better and more than we
plebians, maybe I'm wrong. But I *believe* that sentence should read more
like this: "Of course, the person about whom the website is
would probably love the free publicity." But that's just me.]
Bev
FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
***************************************************************
What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
***************************************************************
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:31:00 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/30/99 3:22:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< And if a copyright holder does decide to stop it, all they have to do is
tell someone to stop doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to
be dragged off to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't
stop it *after* being told to. >>
Actually, a cease and desist order would only be issued *after* someone was
taken to court. I believe you're talking about what is commonly called a
"demand letter" (at least around here) -- i.e., a written communique
demanding that the addressee either (1) do something they haven't been doing
and should have [such as pay a bill], or (2) stop doing something they
shouldn't be doing [such as using copyrighted information without permission].
A cease and desist order might also be called a temporary restraining order
(which might later become a permanent injunction, if it went that far).
Sorry. I just *had* to strut my legal stuff there for a minute. It was a
rough weekend.
Bev
FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
***************************************************************
What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
***************************************************************
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spelling schmelling
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:44:28 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
In a message dated 11/24/99 8:54:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:
<< What Bev was saying was that KJ has her own unique and interesting
spelling and grammer, and while many people jumped all over her for it early
on, we have now come to love and enjoy her posts. She has a great sense of
humor, knows how to laugh at herself, and expresses herself in a way that can
be quite enjoyable. I don't always agree with her views, but I always get a
kick out of reading her e-mail. <<
That's *exactly* what I meant, Rene, and I thank you for clarifying my
thoughts and intent!
>> Your remark about asking the list owner to say something to someone who
doesn't use correct spelling and grammer, on the other hand, turned me off
completely. <<
Agreed, 100%. That's *my* job ... and Kendal's
>> We do need to be able to accept people who might have difficulties in
expressing themselves in writing without errors. I have a particular problem
with overdoing the spelling/grammer thing, because my youngest son is gifted
and learning disabled. <<
[...snippage of details in the interest of bandwidth...]
Agreed *again* Rene! Many times I've "called" someone on his/her spelling and
grammar, but it's usually on someone who has his/her head up his/her butt and
is thus more deserving (IMHO) of chastisement than one who at least makes an
effort. Okay, yeah, I'll admit it -- I've even been snarky with someone who
may or may not have made an effort, but that's usually been when I've been in
an extremely bad mood and I can't see the effort. I don't usually belabor the
point, though, figuring if someone is going to post a certain way, that's
just the way it is, and I have the choice of reading/not reading.
>> Not everyone wants to reread every reply they make to e-mail, not everyone
has the time to do this. I think people should have the right to take part in
a mailing list
whether their spelling and grammer are correct or not, as long as their mail
can be read and understood. Of course, they might be in for some knocking
about their errors, but people should just take that as a given and ignore
it. <<
You're reading my mind these days, honey bunch ;-)
>> Rene (who has her own pet peeve, people who write in all lower case
letters, because they are too busy to use the shift key . . .BULLETIN . . .it
takes way less time than using a (sometimes non-existant) spell checker or
constant re-reading, and even a third grader can do it!) <<
I'll second *that* emotion as well.
Bev
FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
***************************************************************
What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
***************************************************************
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:54:17 -0500
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Hi, all. I have been away from the list for a while, getting it on digest.
It is really not much fun on digest -- the one I get makes you forward each
message on the list to see it. Anyhow, I returned the other day and find
that we are all discussing copyrights. Has the topic of the list changed
from Mandy? I have maybe had 2 dozen messages on copyright....
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
In a message dated 11/30/99 3:22:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< And if a copyright holder does decide to stop it, all they have to do is
tell someone to stop doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to
be dragged off to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't
stop it *after* being told to. >>
Actually, a cease and desist order would only be issued *after* someone was
taken to court. I believe you're talking about what is commonly called a
"demand letter" (at least around here) -- i.e., a written communique
demanding that the addressee either (1) do something they haven't been doing
and should have [such as pay a bill], or (2) stop doing something they
shouldn't be doing [such as using copyrighted information without
permission].
A cease and desist order might also be called a temporary restraining order
(which might later become a permanent injunction, if it went that far).
Sorry. I just *had* to strut my legal stuff there for a minute. It was a
rough weekend.
Bev
FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
***************************************************************
What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
***************************************************************
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:14:14 -0600
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Comments: Originally To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>> "Joan Walsky" 12/01/99 01:54PM >>>
>Has the topic of the list changed from Mandy? I have >maybe had 2 dozen =
messages on copyright....
Yes. You missed the overthrow. Now all posts regarding Mandy must be =
clearly marked "OFF" or you will be expelled from the list.
Dinny Gump <-- sarcastic is as sarcastic does
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:13:17 -0500
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Comments: Originally To: [email protected], [email protected]
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
All I can say is that most of the people I work with who create intellectual
property are very protective of that property. What I create, whether it is
a news story, feature article, photograph, or whatever is mine, and unless I
sign my ownership away, I have the right to determine how it is used.
Most professional photographers sell their photographs for money. That is
how they make a living. Sometimes they sell the right to the photo for a
one-time only use and they retain the rights to the photo. When someone
takes that photo and uses it without permission, he/she diminishes the value
of the work. I don't think *most* copyright holders take too kindly to that.
Now, if the photographer signs away all rights, and the new owner tells you
that you can use it, you've got every right to do so. If a "star" buys the
rights to all photos and articles about him or her and says "Do whatever you
want with these," then you certainly have that right.
But then I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who works with this
kind of stuff all the time, not a fan. So I could be wrong. ;-)
--
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
(281)498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only: http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators: http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----------
>From:
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: copyright
>Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 14:31
>
> In a message dated 11/30/99 3:22:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << And if a copyright holder does decide to stop it, all they have to do is
> tell someone to stop doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to
> be dragged off to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't
> stop it *after* being told to. >>
>
> Actually, a cease and desist order would only be issued *after* someone was
> taken to court. I believe you're talking about what is commonly called a
> "demand letter" (at least around here) -- i.e., a written communique
> demanding that the addressee either (1) do something they haven't been doing
> and should have [such as pay a bill], or (2) stop doing something they
> shouldn't be doing [such as using copyrighted information without permission].
>
> A cease and desist order might also be called a temporary restraining order
> (which might later become a permanent injunction, if it went that far).
>
> Sorry. I just *had* to strut my legal stuff there for a minute. It was a
> rough weekend.
>
> Bev
> FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
> ***************************************************************
> What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
> ***************************************************************
>
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: copyright letters
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:22:08 -0500
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
I happen to agree...I am getting rather tired of reading emails about
copyrights. I know we all have ideas on many different subjects, but I
really wanted to be on a list about Mandy. I don't mind different
subjects, but think when one is being beaten into the ground, that it is
about time to end it and go on to something else - like MANDY!!
Just my opinion......
Jill
Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds
sang except those that sang best.
Henry Van Dyke
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: copyright
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:32:18 -0500
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
I have had this discussion on numerous lists many times -- mostly on lists
where people "snag" or "snatch" art to use as Outlook Express stationery,
crafts, etc. They share the art the take from web sites. Some of it is in
the "public domain." Other pieces are clearly marked with copyrights (which
are sometimes removed so that you wind up believing tha the stuff is in the
public domain). Still other pieces are marked in such a way that it is
clear that the creator expects it to be taken and is using it to draw people
to a web site. And so on.
I have learned that there are two points of view: one is that it is okay to
take this art, especially for "personal use" (that is, not to attempt to
make money from it), the other is that it is not okay to take it (since
scanning and submitting a greeting card, for example, in effect "steals" it
from the copyright holder who wants to sell it to all the people you are
giving it to on line).
It is almost a religious issue -- people either believe that "information is
free" or they do not. I've yet to see anyone change a point of view on this
and have given up the discussion.
Personally, I only post things I make or things I know are in the public
domain. In terms of Mandy art and CH, and such, it does seem to me that
certain photos are intended as publicity photos and others perhaps are
private, family pictures. I haven't even thought through this kind of
thing. Who owns the publicity photo? The photographer? Probably certain
rights to use it were sold to Mandy or the holding company or whomever. But
the photographer may well own certain rights to reproduce it. Permissions
can almost always be sought if there is concern.
I guess.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dianne Smith
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: copyright
All I can say is that most of the people I work with who create intellectual
property are very protective of that property. What I create, whether it is
a news story, feature article, photograph, or whatever is mine, and unless I
sign my ownership away, I have the right to determine how it is used.
Most professional photographers sell their photographs for money. That is
how they make a living. Sometimes they sell the right to the photo for a
one-time only use and they retain the rights to the photo. When someone
takes that photo and uses it without permission, he/she diminishes the value
of the work. I don't think *most* copyright holders take too kindly to that.
Now, if the photographer signs away all rights, and the new owner tells you
that you can use it, you've got every right to do so. If a "star" buys the
rights to all photos and articles about him or her and says "Do whatever you
want with these," then you certainly have that right.
But then I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who works with this
kind of stuff all the time, not a fan. So I could be wrong. ;-)
--
Dianne Smith, CJE
Bear Facts adviser
Alief Hastings High School
4410 Cook Road
Houston, TX 77072
(281)498-8110, ext. 2461
Bear Facts online edition: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/bearfacts
For Journalism Teachers Only: http://jteacher.com
Texas Association of Journalism Educators: http://members.xoom.com/TAJE
Online Classroom: http://www.highwired.com/Alief/JIsmith
----------
>From:
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: copyright
>Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 14:31
>
> In a message dated 11/30/99 3:22:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << And if a copyright holder does decide to stop it, all they have to do is
> tell someone to stop doing it ("cease and desist order"). No one is going to
> be dragged off to court and sued for millions of dollars, unless they don't
> stop it *after* being told to. >>
>
> Actually, a cease and desist order would only be issued *after* someone was
> taken to court. I believe you're talking about what is commonly called a
> "demand letter" (at least around here) -- i.e., a written communique
> demanding that the addressee either (1) do something they haven't been doing
> and should have [such as pay a bill], or (2) stop doing something they
> shouldn't be doing [such as using copyrighted information without
permission].
>
> A cease and desist order might also be called a temporary restraining order
> (which might later become a permanent injunction, if it went that far).
>
> Sorry. I just *had* to strut my legal stuff there for a minute. It was a
> rough weekend.
>
> Bev
> FEB; XFW#2001; SAA; NRMTPB; SAMC(TINC)
> ***************************************************************
> What if the Hokey Pokey really *is* what it's all about?
> ***************************************************************
>
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: about Channukah
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:51:49 PST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
hi Sue!!!
yes I got the channukah, u didnt got my anwer???????
so its on the 4 of December (my birthday!!!!)
I now that on this Channukah I will have to do a lot of home work but belife
(sp) me I am going to have some fun on this holiday...
hope u will too.
If u have any thing to ask me about that just wite me ok?
talk to u soon Meytal.
>From: [email protected]
>To: "meytal & ido shpindel"
>Subject: Re: happy birthday
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:29:37 +1100
>
>Hi Meytal,
>
> >well it so nice to know that in very far way place there is someone that
> >have birthday on the same date
> >well heppy birthday to your son too
>
>Thank you. Too bad I couldn't have had him just 4 days earlier! But in 1988
>I hadn't yet 'found' Mandy! That seems "inconceivable" to me now - as I
>feel I've loved him forever. The day that changed my life was sometime in
>early 1994, when he ran onto the David Letterman show with Tony Randall
>[real name Leonard Greenberg(?) (it's Green)] and sang
>Rock-a-bye.
>
>BTW, did you get my email to you asking when Channukah was - etc, etc, etc?
>
>Best wishes,
>Sue
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: What does Katheryn Grody look like?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:13:36 EST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 44 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Hello List:
I have a question that perhaps someone might answer for me. I am new to
Mandy but I would like to know a bit about his wife Kathryn Grody. I cannot
seem to imagine what she looks like and cannot find a photo of her anywhere
that looks like anything. If you have any information, please reply.
Thanks
Laura K.
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What does Katheryn Grody look like?
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 16:39:39 -0500
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
Comments: Originally Cc: [email protected]
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At 04:13 PM 12/1/99 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>I have a question that perhaps someone might answer for me. I am new to
>Mandy but I would like to know a bit about his wife Kathryn Grody. I cannot
>seem to imagine what she looks like and cannot find a photo of her anywhere
>that looks like anything.
There are a couple of candid photos of Kathryn here:
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/3389/belasco.htm
These were taken last November outside the Belasco Theatre in NYC. They'll
give you an idea of what she looks like, although she's really more
attractive in person than in the photos.
I also have a couple of magazine photos of Mandy and Kathryn somewhere. I
don't think they're on my site, but I can scan them and send them to you if
you'd like.
-Char
***************************************************************
Mandy Patinkin - High Flying Adored
http://home.att.net/~mosert/char/mandy.htm
***************************************************************
----------------Message-boundary
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What does Katheryn Grody look like?
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 13:41:49 PST
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected], [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_31cefbc2_19b22$4dc8862b"
X-Mailer: Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_31cefbc2_19b22$4dc8862b
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
this pic is taken from Phantm's site.
Poutchy
----Original Message Follows----
From:
To: [email protected]
Subject: What does Katheryn Grody look like?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:13:36 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
>From [email protected] Wed Dec 01 13:29:51 1999
Received: from [195.113.19.71] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
MHotMailBA0EDC690024D820F3E2C37113470AE40; Wed Dec 01 13:21:49 1999
Received: from ksvi.mff.cuni.cz by alfik.ms.mff.cuni.cz;
(8.8.8/v1.00/19990210.0854)id WAA26280; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:14:23 +0100 (MET)
Received: from KSVI/SpoolDir by ksvi.mff.cuni.cz (Mercury 1.44); 1 Dec 99
22:15:41 +0200 (METDST)
Received: from SpoolDir by KSVI (Mercury 1.44); 1 Dec 99 22:14:18 +0200
(METDST)
Errors-to:
Sender: [email protected]
X-listname:
Comments: Originally To: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 44 (via Mercury MTS (Bindery) v1.44)
Message-ID:
Hello List:
I have a question that perhaps someone might answer for me. I am new to
Mandy but I would like to know a bit about his wife Kathryn Grody. I cannot
seem to imagine what she looks like and cannot find a photo of her anywhere
that looks like anything. If you have any information, please reply.
Thanks
Laura K.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------=_NextPart_000_31cefbc2_19b22$4dc8862b
Content-Type: image/pjpeg; name="mpkghome.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mpkghome.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Click to view
/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD//gAC/9sAQwAKBwcIBwYKCAgICwoKCw4Y
EA4NDQ4dFRYRGCMfJSQiHyIhJis3LyYpNCkhIjBBMTQ5Oz4+PiUuRElDPEg3
>>>>>>>>>>>>skipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HTAGADx3pwiJqJ1wemDTSKULmkKUbKXYQacikMMVd34UDHWq00jt8o4BqWC3
CKrkZarUcZkwMUphIbB4pDE3ruGetODOo2kKyn+EiqE1v5TBsYzyMU1ZXiIw
cdwRVuKR7g5OMnvU3lSbtrDLfWla3Ck92A603y9y4KjjpimqzKMbf1r/2Q==
------=_NextPart_000_31cefbc2_19b22$4dc8862b--
----------------Message-boundary--
-- End --