QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 4 2010, 07:48 PM)
Seems our congenital liar is also not above a little bit of plagerism either:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
Arthur
I wrote that list. It appears so far that he's replying to it. I need to check into it more to see why, and if my list is going in some other guy's book or whatever. Whether I should feel offended or flattered about it I can feel good that he agreed with me about things none of you seem able to appreciate.
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
Arthur
I wrote that list. It appears so far that he's replying to it. I need to check into it more to see why, and if my list is going in some other guy's book or whatever. Whether I should feel offended or flattered about it I can feel good that he agreed with me about things none of you seem able to appreciate.
QUOTE
I wrote that list. It appears so far that he's replying to it.
Lying sack of sh*t, isn't he?
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 4 2010, 09:45 PM)
Not to mention it looks like Austin Torney understands "if".
As in "if God exists he is almost certainly an alien" seems to be pointing at no God.
At least the rest of the work sounds like someone putting down belief in God.
So not only did Nopeda plagerize, he plagerized from someone contradicting his core message.
I wrote that list and posted it here in this fu*king forum, and included the ifs when I did so. In fact, I believe that list it the first post in this thread. Later I posted it in some news groups, so if he stole it from ME which it certainly appears he did, then he did it from here or from the news groups. I can't believe he wrote the same thing word for word as close as it appears to be out of his own head like I did, so he must have taken if from me. Of course there's no telling how many other places it could have gotten posted to... Anyway I can feel good that he used it at least, especially considering you people who could not appreciate it.
As in "if God exists he is almost certainly an alien" seems to be pointing at no God.
At least the rest of the work sounds like someone putting down belief in God.
So not only did Nopeda plagerize, he plagerized from someone contradicting his core message.
I wrote that list and posted it here in this fu*king forum, and included the ifs when I did so. In fact, I believe that list it the first post in this thread. Later I posted it in some news groups, so if he stole it from ME which it certainly appears he did, then he did it from here or from the news groups. I can't believe he wrote the same thing word for word as close as it appears to be out of his own head like I did, so he must have taken if from me. Of course there's no telling how many other places it could have gotten posted to... Anyway I can feel good that he used it at least, especially considering you people who could not appreciate it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 2 2010, 08:34 PM)
Lying sack of sh*t, isn't he?
I wrote it apparently in May of 2009 to put in this forum and begin this thread, and later in the thread made some changes. Where that guy got it I would like to know.
Anybody believe the lying turd?
Didn't think so.
Didn't think so.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 4 2010, 09:45 PM)
Not to mention it looks like Austin Torney understands "if".
As in "if God exists he is almost certainly an alien" seems to be pointing at no God.
At least the rest of the work sounds like someone putting down belief in God.
So not only did Nopeda plagerize, he plagerized from someone contradicting his core message.
I wrote that list and he got it from me however he got hold of it. I also included the ifs right from the beginning, as we can see by the first post in this thread.
As in "if God exists he is almost certainly an alien" seems to be pointing at no God.
At least the rest of the work sounds like someone putting down belief in God.
So not only did Nopeda plagerize, he plagerized from someone contradicting his core message.
I wrote that list and he got it from me however he got hold of it. I also included the ifs right from the beginning, as we can see by the first post in this thread.
If you hate this forum so much, why do you keep coming back again, and again, and again, and again?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 2 2010, 09:12 PM)
If you hate this forum so much, why do you keep coming back again, and again, and again, and again?
To see if any of you can post something worth reading sometime. I didn't know that list was in somebody's book for example, and now I'm wondering where he got it. It's not word for word, but come to think of it I did post some of it in alt.satanism before posting here, and I've posted the ideas that God would not be restricted to any form or gender, and that he apparently made use of the evolutionary method of creation for years. So he might have gotten it from stuff I wrote in news groups before posting here.
To see if any of you can post something worth reading sometime. I didn't know that list was in somebody's book for example, and now I'm wondering where he got it. It's not word for word, but come to think of it I did post some of it in alt.satanism before posting here, and I've posted the ideas that God would not be restricted to any form or gender, and that he apparently made use of the evolutionary method of creation for years. So he might have gotten it from stuff I wrote in news groups before posting here.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 2 2010, 04:22 PM)
I didn't know that list was in somebody's book
I believe you, as you haven't shown any evidence that you even know what a book is.
I believe you, as you haven't shown any evidence that you even know what a book is.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 2 2010, 08:33 PM)
I wrote that list. It appears so far that he's replying to it. I need to check into it more to see why, and if my list is going in some other guy's book or whatever. Whether I should feel offended or flattered about it I can feel good that he agreed with me about things none of you seem able to appreciate.
I think you should read the ........"book" It is a kindle book, and I started reading a bit of it, and it is the biggest loada shite I have read for a long time (in my personal opinion)
The author cannot write and his facts on science are atrocious.
Here is one of my faves on Pg 22 of Scientific Implications by Austin P. Torney "In actuality, God guides the planets safely around the sun Through their orbits. So therefore GM (Gravity & Motion) = GGH (God's Guiding Hand) Many textbooks will have to be changed to show this truth"
Scientific Implications
At Pg 23 it gets even more weird "H2O Chemical formulae for water. It is thought that having such a small molecule of hydrogen attached to such a large molecule of oxygen, is what causes water to slide around, that makes water molecules so slippery. However it is God that micromanages every single atom and even what is inside of them"
It is clear, that this author is undoubtedly a frequenter of a forum such as this, and if you seem to be chuffed that he is discussing the same theory as you. To you that makes you obviously a serious scholar (cause I mean one other guy agrees), but in fact it only confirms two possible scenarios, there are either two such fools who agree on the same thing, or they are the same person.
I think you should read the ........"book" It is a kindle book, and I started reading a bit of it, and it is the biggest loada shite I have read for a long time (in my personal opinion)
The author cannot write and his facts on science are atrocious.
Here is one of my faves on Pg 22 of Scientific Implications by Austin P. Torney "In actuality, God guides the planets safely around the sun Through their orbits. So therefore GM (Gravity & Motion) = GGH (God's Guiding Hand) Many textbooks will have to be changed to show this truth"
Scientific Implications
At Pg 23 it gets even more weird "H2O Chemical formulae for water. It is thought that having such a small molecule of hydrogen attached to such a large molecule of oxygen, is what causes water to slide around, that makes water molecules so slippery. However it is God that micromanages every single atom and even what is inside of them"
It is clear, that this author is undoubtedly a frequenter of a forum such as this, and if you seem to be chuffed that he is discussing the same theory as you. To you that makes you obviously a serious scholar (cause I mean one other guy agrees), but in fact it only confirms two possible scenarios, there are either two such fools who agree on the same thing, or they are the same person.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 2 2010, 09:22 PM)
To see if any of you can post something worth reading sometime. I didn't know that list was in somebody's book for example, and now I'm wondering where he got it. It's not word for word, but come to think of it I did post some of it in alt.satanism before posting here, and I've posted the ideas that God would not be restricted to any form or gender, and that he apparently made use of the evolutionary method of creation for years. So he might have gotten it from stuff I wrote in news groups before posting here.
Nothing you write that you claim is your own writing, on a public forum such as this, is copyrighted. Maybe you should stop discussing your ideas, and you should also write a book.
Nothing you write that you claim is your own writing, on a public forum such as this, is copyrighted. Maybe you should stop discussing your ideas, and you should also write a book.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 2 2010, 08:49 PM)
I wrote it apparently in May of 2009 to put in this forum and begin this thread, and later in the thread made some changes. Where that guy got it I would like to know.
Send him an email and ask him:
His email is listed on the internet, so it is publically available : austintorn@aol.com
Scientific Implications on Google Books
Send him an email and ask him:
His email is listed on the internet, so it is publically available : austintorn@aol.com
Scientific Implications on Google Books
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 2 2010, 08:43 PM)
I wrote that list and posted it here in this fu*king forum, and included the ifs when I did so. In fact, I believe that list it the first post in this thread. Later I posted it in some news groups, so if he stole it from ME which it certainly appears he did, then he did it from here or from the news groups. I can't believe he wrote the same thing word for word as close as it appears to be out of his own head like I did, so he must have taken if from me. Of course there's no telling how many other places it could have gotten posted to... Anyway I can feel good that he used it at least, especially considering you people who could not appreciate it.
He never stole anything from you, you posted your opinion on a public forum, and thus gave away any copyright you thought you had. Thats why its called "public domain" andone can have a bite at the apple.
He never stole anything from you, you posted your opinion on a public forum, and thus gave away any copyright you thought you had. Thats why its called "public domain" andone can have a bite at the apple.
Copyright cannot be given away so.
The terms of service state: "Physforum.com does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board. With respect to content that you post or make available through a board, however, without limiting any other rights these usage terms afford to Physforum.com, you grant Physforum.com a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, and publicly display such content for the purpose of providing and promoting the Service." which seems to mean copyright resides with original authors.
But they can't effectively wield copyright against the forum not just due to the terms of service but by estoppel. PhysForum depends on the content you provide, and estoppel means you can't take back what you gave when PhysForum counted on your contributions being gifts.
Copyright is confusing, and in your jurisdiction may be different than I describe it. Nonetheless, I feel competent to declare when someone cuts and pastes a whole chapter from a copyrighted translation of the Bible that that is an abuse of the rights of the copyright holder.
The terms of service state: "Physforum.com does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board. With respect to content that you post or make available through a board, however, without limiting any other rights these usage terms afford to Physforum.com, you grant Physforum.com a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, and publicly display such content for the purpose of providing and promoting the Service." which seems to mean copyright resides with original authors.
But they can't effectively wield copyright against the forum not just due to the terms of service but by estoppel. PhysForum depends on the content you provide, and estoppel means you can't take back what you gave when PhysForum counted on your contributions being gifts.
Copyright is confusing, and in your jurisdiction may be different than I describe it. Nonetheless, I feel competent to declare when someone cuts and pastes a whole chapter from a copyrighted translation of the Bible that that is an abuse of the rights of the copyright holder.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 3 2010, 02:14 AM)
Copyright cannot be given away so.
But they can't effectively wield copyright against the forum not just due to the terms of service but by estoppel. PhysForum depends on the content you provide, and estoppel means you can't take back what you gave when PhysForum counted on your contributions being gifts.
I respectfully disagree, copyright can be given away, and is very often given away, by authors "surrendering" or giving away their copyright (if they had any copyright) by publishing to The Public Domain.
However, noPeda, had no material that was copyrightable in the first place. In The United States, copyright law as defined by United States Code 17 sec. 102(
which specifically excludes any idea.
Cornell Law School on copyright
In fact in several cases from The United Kingdom, Australia and other countries this concept of copyrighting AN IDEA has been affirmed in Supreme Court judgments in those countries and all found that you cannot copyright an idea.
Wikipedia Idea expression divide
NoPeda has an idea/concept/belief, that if god exists he must be an alien. It is a concept and can be demonstrated by the following statement:
NoPeda
In fact in several cases from The United Kingdom, Australia and other countries this concept of copyrighting AN IDEA has been affirmed in Supreme Court judgments in those countries and all found that you cannot copyright an idea.
Wikipedia Idea expression divide
NoPeda has an idea/concept/belief, that if god exists he must be an alien. It is a concept and can be demonstrated by the following statement:
NoPeda
Since I've become a weak agnostic I've been making a point of trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically
But they can't effectively wield copyright against the forum not just due to the terms of service but by estoppel. PhysForum depends on the content you provide, and estoppel means you can't take back what you gave when PhysForum counted on your contributions being gifts.
I respectfully disagree, copyright can be given away, and is very often given away, by authors "surrendering" or giving away their copyright (if they had any copyright) by publishing to The Public Domain.
However, noPeda, had no material that was copyrightable in the first place. In The United States, copyright law as defined by United States Code 17 sec. 102(
which specifically excludes any idea. Cornell Law School on copyright
QUOTE
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work
In fact in several cases from The United Kingdom, Australia and other countries this concept of copyrighting AN IDEA has been affirmed in Supreme Court judgments in those countries and all found that you cannot copyright an idea.
Wikipedia Idea expression divide
NoPeda has an idea/concept/belief, that if god exists he must be an alien. It is a concept and can be demonstrated by the following statement:
NoPeda
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work |
In fact in several cases from The United Kingdom, Australia and other countries this concept of copyrighting AN IDEA has been affirmed in Supreme Court judgments in those countries and all found that you cannot copyright an idea.
Wikipedia Idea expression divide
NoPeda has an idea/concept/belief, that if god exists he must be an alien. It is a concept and can be demonstrated by the following statement:
NoPeda
Since I've become a weak agnostic I've been making a point of trying to think about the possibility of God's existence realistically
My Underlining.
As physforum is generally a forum where ideas are exchanged, there is no copyright protection of such ideas, and that applies to us all. If we want to do research for the writing of text that may be copyrightable, then we can do so, but while we write here and exchange ideas, those ideas are not copyrightable in most countries around the world.......in my opinion. Austin P. Torney, however wrote a book (albeit in my opinion a bad one) and he has declared copyright, and is entitled to copyright protection.
Also see: Copyright in The Public Domain
As physforum is generally a forum where ideas are exchanged, there is no copyright protection of such ideas, and that applies to us all. If we want to do research for the writing of text that may be copyrightable, then we can do so, but while we write here and exchange ideas, those ideas are not copyrightable in most countries around the world.......in my opinion. Austin P. Torney, however wrote a book (albeit in my opinion a bad one) and he has declared copyright, and is entitled to copyright protection.
Also see: Copyright in The Public Domain
QUOTE
The terms of service state: "Physforum.com does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board. With respect to content that you post or make available through a board, however, without limiting any other rights these usage terms afford to Physforum.com, you grant Physforum.com a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, and publicly display such content for the purpose of providing and promoting the Service." which seems to mean copyright resides with original authors.
If the text is copyrightable in the first place, yes it belongs to the original author. I do not believe any idea any of us discuss here on this forum is copyrightable in any country. Copyright does not mean typing an idea, it is more substantial than that.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The terms of service state: "Physforum.com does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board. With respect to content that you post or make available through a board, however, without limiting any other rights these usage terms afford to Physforum.com, you grant Physforum.com a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, and publicly display such content for the purpose of providing and promoting the Service." which seems to mean copyright resides with original authors. |
If the text is copyrightable in the first place, yes it belongs to the original author. I do not believe any idea any of us discuss here on this forum is copyrightable in any country. Copyright does not mean typing an idea, it is more substantial than that.
Copyright is confusing, and in your jurisdiction may be different than I describe it. Nonetheless, I feel competent to declare when someone cuts and pastes a whole chapter from a copyrighted translation of the Bible that that is an abuse of the rights of the copyright holder.
Copyright is confusing, and in your jurisdiction may be different than I describe it. Nonetheless, I feel competent to declare when someone cuts and pastes a whole chapter from a copyrighted translation of the Bible that that is an abuse of the rights of the copyright holder.
Copyright is confusing/complicated.
There is a great quote listed on wikipedia:
Wikipedia Public Domain description
As for quoting from a copyrighted translation of the bible, it would depend on which version of the bible it was copied from. The Authorized King James Version has a perpetual copyright, which protects it.
From the same link above on Public Domain, comes the following:
Wikipedia Public Domain description
As for quoting from a copyrighted translation of the bible, it would depend on which version of the bible it was copied from. The Authorized King James Version has a perpetual copyright, which protects it.
From the same link above on Public Domain, comes the following:Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. For example, the Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain, but copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works
Personally NoPeda brought the ban upon himself, by not stating where he quoted the biblical text from. The bible was written in another language, and so it can be assumed that the translated text may have been copyrighted, and that is restricted in your terms of use. That is besides the fact that he makes no sense most of the time.
All the above is purley my personal opinion and is in no way a legal opinion.
There is a great quote listed on wikipedia:
QUOTE
Because copyright law is different from country to country Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being "different sizes at different times in different countries".
Wikipedia Public Domain description
As for quoting from a copyrighted translation of the bible, it would depend on which version of the bible it was copied from. The Authorized King James Version has a perpetual copyright, which protects it.
From the same link above on Public Domain, comes the following:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because copyright law is different from country to country Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being "different sizes at different times in different countries". |
Wikipedia Public Domain description
As for quoting from a copyrighted translation of the bible, it would depend on which version of the bible it was copied from. The Authorized King James Version has a perpetual copyright, which protects it.
From the same link above on Public Domain, comes the following:Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. For example, the Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain, but copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works
Personally NoPeda brought the ban upon himself, by not stating where he quoted the biblical text from. The bible was written in another language, and so it can be assumed that the translated text may have been copyrighted, and that is restricted in your terms of use. That is besides the fact that he makes no sense most of the time.
All the above is purley my personal opinion and is in no way a legal opinion.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 01:55 AM)
He never stole anything from you, you posted your opinion on a public forum, and thus gave away any copyright you thought you had. Thats why its called "public domain" andone can have a bite at the apple.
You're right he didn't steal it because as you say I did make it public. I got defensive about it because I was being accused by this group again, this time of something someone else did to me. I over reacted.
You're right he didn't steal it because as you say I did make it public. I got defensive about it because I was being accused by this group again, this time of something someone else did to me. I over reacted.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 3 2010, 02:14 AM)
Copyright is confusing, and in your jurisdiction may be different than I describe it. Nonetheless, I feel competent to declare when someone cuts and pastes a whole chapter from a copyrighted translation of the Bible that that is an abuse of the rights of the copyright holder.
Well to me it still seems better to post what the authors actually did write, than to give my own interpretation of it. I deliberately didn't post my interpretation of it specifically so it would not contaminate someone else's interpretation, and did that out of what I feel is respect for the material. So I should feel guilty for doing what I still consider to have been a good thing?
Well to me it still seems better to post what the authors actually did write, than to give my own interpretation of it. I deliberately didn't post my interpretation of it specifically so it would not contaminate someone else's interpretation, and did that out of what I feel is respect for the material. So I should feel guilty for doing what I still consider to have been a good thing?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 08:39 AM)
As physforum is generally a forum where ideas are exchanged, there is no copyright protection of such ideas, and that applies to us all. If we want to do research for the writing of text that may be copyrightable, then we can do so, but while we write here and exchange ideas, those ideas are not copyrightable in most countries around the world.......in my opinion. Austin P. Torney, however wrote a book (albeit in my opinion a bad one) and he has declared copyright, and is entitled to copyright protection.
So I thought about things and concluded some ideas, then shared them online, then another person put them in his book and copyrighted them, so now I can get in trouble for presenting my own ideas that he got from me. And I guess somehow this is supposedly my fault and I should feel guilty about this one too?
Does all this mean that whenever we post some ideas online we should put them on a list, and later regularly search for each one to make sure somebody else hasn't come along and put them in a book and copyrighted them? If we shouldn't do that for every idea we post, how are we to know which ones to do it for and which ones there's no need to?
So I thought about things and concluded some ideas, then shared them online, then another person put them in his book and copyrighted them, so now I can get in trouble for presenting my own ideas that he got from me. And I guess somehow this is supposedly my fault and I should feel guilty about this one too?
Does all this mean that whenever we post some ideas online we should put them on a list, and later regularly search for each one to make sure somebody else hasn't come along and put them in a book and copyrighted them? If we shouldn't do that for every idea we post, how are we to know which ones to do it for and which ones there's no need to?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 4 2010, 07:48 PM)
Seems our congenital liar is also not above a little bit of plagerism either:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
Arthur
How did you even happen to find that, btw?
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
Arthur
How did you even happen to find that, btw?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 09:47 AM)
How did you even happen to find that, btw?
I discovered something interesting about the guy that nopedals has apparently plagiarized...
http://www.myspace.com/toequestor
He has only 1 friend.
(P.S. He may also actually be a banned member here.)
http://www.myspace.com/toequestor
He has only 1 friend.
(P.S. He may also actually be a banned member here.)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM)
I discovered something interesting about the guy that nopedals has apparently plagiarized...
http://www.myspace.com/toequestor
He has only 1 friend.
(P.S. He may also actually be a banned member here.)
Oh - I remember him. The bad poet!
http://www.myspace.com/toequestor
He has only 1 friend.
(P.S. He may also actually be a banned member here.)
Oh - I remember him. The bad poet!
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 02:43 PM)
Does all this mean that whenever we post some ideas online we should put them on a list, and later regularly search for each one to make sure somebody else hasn't come along and put them in a book and copyrighted them? If we shouldn't do that for every idea we post, how are we to know which ones to do it for and which ones there's no need to?
I think you should make a major change in how you percieve the world. There is no conspiracy and no one is ALWAYS trying to accuse you of something. If you become less emotional in your postings, more open to others opinions (I know its hard) and do not make absolute assertions on subjects we do not have advanced knowledge of, people will respond differently.
You are dealing with a diverse selection of people here, and if you allow them to raise your emotional mind over your logical mind, they have won. The choice and responsibility is upon you.
Considered by whom? You?
Considered by whom? You?
By one's self. He being the "one" in this example, the answer is him.
Bullsh*t.
Bullsh*t.
I dunno to me it looks like one is an almond nutbar and the other is pistachio.
There does seem to be two different styles of thought here.
If I cared I would run one of those grammar analysis programs on each.
The list does seem to match Nopeda's nonsense more so than the other guys.
QUOTE
So I thought about things and concluded some ideas, then shared them online, then another person put them in his book and copyrighted them, so now I can get in trouble for presenting my own ideas that he got from me. And I guess somehow this is supposedly my fault and I should feel guilty about this one too?
You did not get into "trouble" for this. Because of your history and manner of debating on this forum, people are skeptical of you, and sadly, you only have yourself to blame for that.I think you should make a major change in how you percieve the world. There is no conspiracy and no one is ALWAYS trying to accuse you of something. If you become less emotional in your postings, more open to others opinions (I know its hard) and do not make absolute assertions on subjects we do not have advanced knowledge of, people will respond differently.
You are dealing with a diverse selection of people here, and if you allow them to raise your emotional mind over your logical mind, they have won. The choice and responsibility is upon you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So I thought about things and concluded some ideas, then shared them online, then another person put them in his book and copyrighted them, so now I can get in trouble for presenting my own ideas that he got from me. And I guess somehow this is supposedly my fault and I should feel guilty about this one too? |
You did not get into "trouble" for this. Because of your history and manner of debating on this forum, people are skeptical of you, and sadly, you only have yourself to blame for that.
I think you should make a major change in how you percieve the world. There is no conspiracy and no one is ALWAYS trying to accuse you of something. If you become less emotional in your postings, more open to others opinions (I know its hard) and do not make absolute assertions on subjects we do not have advanced knowledge of, people will respond differently.
You are dealing with a diverse selection of people here, and if you allow them to raise your emotional mind over your logical mind, they have won. The choice and responsibility is upon you.
Does all this mean that whenever we post some ideas online we should put them on a list, and later regularly search for each one to make sure somebody else hasn't come along and put them in a book and copyrighted them? If we shouldn't do that for every idea we post, how are we to know which ones to do it for and which ones there's no need to?
I think you should make a major change in how you percieve the world. There is no conspiracy and no one is ALWAYS trying to accuse you of something. If you become less emotional in your postings, more open to others opinions (I know its hard) and do not make absolute assertions on subjects we do not have advanced knowledge of, people will respond differently.
You are dealing with a diverse selection of people here, and if you allow them to raise your emotional mind over your logical mind, they have won. The choice and responsibility is upon you.
Does all this mean that whenever we post some ideas online we should put them on a list, and later regularly search for each one to make sure somebody else hasn't come along and put them in a book and copyrighted them? If we shouldn't do that for every idea we post, how are we to know which ones to do it for and which ones there's no need to?
No it does not mean that. When you post an idea, forget it, it belongs to the public domain.
Sadly some members here were also at fault, for immedietly making the assumption you plagarised, but as I say, that is because of how you conducted yourself prior to that on this forum. The truth it seems has come out, with a little bit of effort although we do not know if you plagarised or not. I will take your word for it, but others who have had longer dealings with you may not.
Sadly some members here were also at fault, for immedietly making the assumption you plagarised, but as I say, that is because of how you conducted yourself prior to that on this forum. The truth it seems has come out, with a little bit of effort although we do not know if you plagarised or not. I will take your word for it, but others who have had longer dealings with you may not.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 3 2010, 04:17 PM)
Let me google that for you
That's what I mean...Google what and why? Was he just looking to see if I'm the first person who ever realised that God isn't likely to be a native of Earth, or what?
That's what I mean...Google what and why? Was he just looking to see if I'm the first person who ever realised that God isn't likely to be a native of Earth, or what?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 03:31 PM)
That's what I mean...Google what and why? Was he just looking to see if I'm the first person who ever realised that God isn't likely to be a native of Earth, or what?
You didn't ask "why", you asked "how". I showed you one way it could be done.
Quit being a prick.
You didn't ask "why", you asked "how". I showed you one way it could be done.
Quit being a prick.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 3 2010, 04:34 PM)
(P.S. He may also actually be a banned member here.)
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 3 2010, 08:33 PM)
You didn't ask "why", you asked "how". I showed you one way it could be done.
The "why" is part of the "how" in this case you goofy doofus.
The "why" is part of the "how" in this case you goofy doofus.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 04:38 PM)
The "why" is part of the "how" in this case you goofy doofus.
So, you don't know 'why' or 'how' to use Google?
So, you don't know 'why' or 'how' to use Google?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 03:38 PM)
The "why" is part of the "how" in this case you goofy doofus.
Nope, just like religion/philosophy and science, they're two separate questions.
Nope, just like religion/philosophy and science, they're two separate questions.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 08:31 PM)
That's what I mean...Google what and why? Was he just looking to see if I'm the first person who ever realised that God isn't likely to be a native of Earth, or what?
And for some reason you copied a lot from someone who at least appears to have reached the opposite next conclusion.
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
And for some reason you copied a lot from someone who at least appears to have reached the opposite next conclusion.
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 05:27 PM)
Sadly some members here were also at fault, for immedietly making the assumption you plagarised, but as I say, that is because of how you conducted yourself prior to that on this forum. The truth it seems has come out, with a little bit of effort although we do not know if you plagarised or not. I will take your word for it, but others who have had longer dealings with you may not.
I've been attacked in a variety of ways since I started posting here and have simply been responding similarly. You may think otherwise, but I am convinced that I've been no more abusive and rude etc to other people than they have been to me. They don't like it back at them though. I wrote the things the guy put in his book and apparently I posted them to several news groups as well as here. It looks like he didn't include everything that's on the list, not that it matters much.
I've been attacked in a variety of ways since I started posting here and have simply been responding similarly. You may think otherwise, but I am convinced that I've been no more abusive and rude etc to other people than they have been to me. They don't like it back at them though. I wrote the things the guy put in his book and apparently I posted them to several news groups as well as here. It looks like he didn't include everything that's on the list, not that it matters much.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 3 2010, 08:44 PM)
And for some reason you copied a lot from someone who at least appears to have reached the opposite next conclusion.
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
I didn't copy a thing from him, and just claiming something is ludicrous doesn't explain anything but instead just brings up more questions like:
Does he think it's ludicrous to think that there are beings advanced enough to be considered Gods living anywhere in the Universe?
Or does he think it's ludicrous to think that if there are any they must have originated somewhere other than on Earth?
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
I didn't copy a thing from him, and just claiming something is ludicrous doesn't explain anything but instead just brings up more questions like:
Does he think it's ludicrous to think that there are beings advanced enough to be considered Gods living anywhere in the Universe?
Or does he think it's ludicrous to think that if there are any they must have originated somewhere other than on Earth?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 3 2010, 08:42 PM)
Nope, just like religion/philosophy and science, they're two separate questions.
Not in this case, and that's for me to decide not you since I'm the one asking. I'm interested in what he searched for and why. A person I know once found arguments I've had with advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" while searching for hot dogs, so I'm curious how someone bumped into this one.
Not in this case, and that's for me to decide not you since I'm the one asking. I'm interested in what he searched for and why. A person I know once found arguments I've had with advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" while searching for hot dogs, so I'm curious how someone bumped into this one.
QUOTE
Does he think it's ludicrous to think that there are beings advanced enough to be considered Gods living anywhere in the Universe?
Considered by whom? You?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 09:10 PM)
I didn't copy a thing from him, and just claiming something is ludicrous doesn't explain anything but instead just brings up more questions like:
Does he think it's ludicrous to think that there are beings advanced enough to be considered Gods living anywhere in the Universe?
Or does he think it's ludicrous to think that if there are any they must have originated somewhere other than on Earth?
Being considered a God does not make an alien a God.
AND there was a lot from his page in your posts not just the "if God exists then he must be an alien".
But my point was that he seems to be considering that as evidence that God does not exist.
Does he think it's ludicrous to think that there are beings advanced enough to be considered Gods living anywhere in the Universe?
Or does he think it's ludicrous to think that if there are any they must have originated somewhere other than on Earth?
Being considered a God does not make an alien a God.
AND there was a lot from his page in your posts not just the "if God exists then he must be an alien".
But my point was that he seems to be considering that as evidence that God does not exist.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 04:16 PM)
Not in this case, and that's for me to decide not you since I'm the one asking. I'm interested in what he searched for and why. A person I know once found arguments I've had with advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" while searching for hot dogs, so I'm curious how someone bumped into this one.
Then say what you mean there boy.
Nice kid, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
Then say what you mean there boy.
Nice kid, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 3 2010, 09:16 PM)
Not in this case, and that's for me to decide not you since I'm the one asking. I'm interested in what he searched for and why. A person I know once found arguments I've had with advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" while searching for hot dogs, so I'm curious how someone bumped into this one.
Ill tell you one way it could have happened. If I am ever suspicous of something someone wrote for whatever reason, for example scam emails, I google part of the text to see if there was an original source.
In fact very early on in this thread, TobyNotToby mentioned that he had googled "God + Alien" and came across dozens of references of people believing the same thing.
I am sure amongst the fans you have created since that time many checked up on stuff you said, but I believe Adoucette first announced the claim of plagirism. If you wanna know ask Adoucette. I am sure it is just as simple as searching God+Alien.
Ill tell you one way it could have happened. If I am ever suspicous of something someone wrote for whatever reason, for example scam emails, I google part of the text to see if there was an original source.
In fact very early on in this thread, TobyNotToby mentioned that he had googled "God + Alien" and came across dozens of references of people believing the same thing.
I am sure amongst the fans you have created since that time many checked up on stuff you said, but I believe Adoucette first announced the claim of plagirism. If you wanna know ask Adoucette. I am sure it is just as simple as searching God+Alien.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 3 2010, 08:44 PM)
And for some reason you copied a lot from someone who at least appears to have reached the opposite next conclusion.
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
We must have read different books. The one I read shows the author Arthur P Torney believes everything including molecules in water are controlled by god. He most certainly does not seem to be saying god does not exist. If I am wrong, please correct me, I have posted links and page references previously to those statements, maybe you could do the same?
He sure seems to think;
If God exists then he is an alien. And since that is ludicrous therefore God does not exist.
At least by judging the tone of the rest of what he says.
We must have read different books. The one I read shows the author Arthur P Torney believes everything including molecules in water are controlled by god. He most certainly does not seem to be saying god does not exist. If I am wrong, please correct me, I have posted links and page references previously to those statements, maybe you could do the same?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 10:35 PM)
We must have read different books. The one I read shows the author Arthur P Torney believes everything including molecules in water are controlled by god. He most certainly does not seem to be saying god does not exist. If I am wrong, please correct me, I have posted links and page references previously to those statements, maybe you could do the same?
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
This shows him saying "God is not needed".
Page 138
And later he says that only natural evidence has been found or something like that.
Are you sure you are not misunderstanding him? he says what must be true for something else to be true then shows it not to be true which means that the oringal thing is not true.
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
This shows him saying "God is not needed".
Page 138
And later he says that only natural evidence has been found or something like that.
Are you sure you are not misunderstanding him? he says what must be true for something else to be true then shows it not to be true which means that the oringal thing is not true.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 01:55 AM)
He never stole anything from you, you posted your opinion on a public forum, and thus gave away any copyright you thought you had. Thats why its called "public domain" andone can have a bite at the apple.
Would a newstand count as a public forum?
Does Time magazine give up all copyright to their cover?
Do broadcasters give up all copyright when they broadcast over the public airwaves?
Would a newstand count as a public forum?
Does Time magazine give up all copyright to their cover?
Do broadcasters give up all copyright when they broadcast over the public airwaves?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 08:39 AM)
I respectfully disagree, copyright can be given away, and is very often given away, by authors "surrendering" or giving away their copyright (if they had any copyright) by publishing to The Public Domain.
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 3 2010, 09:17 PM)
Considered by whom? You?
By one's self. He being the "one" in this example, the answer is him.
I hate to be the one to point this out but the book in question was published March 2010.
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 4 2010, 02:27 PM)
By one's self. He being the "one" in this example, the answer is him.
That would make any answers only valid for "him".
That would make any answers only valid for "him".
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 3 2010, 09:48 PM)
Being considered a God does not make an alien a God.
AND there was a lot from his page in your posts not just the "if God exists then he must be an alien".
But my point was that he seems to be considering that as evidence that God does not exist.
He put several things from my list in his book, unless he just happened to come up with the same stuff himself and then comment on his own ideas, which to me is so unlikely that I don't consider it a realistic possibility.
If he's convinced that God does not exist, then he's incapable of considering the possibility that he does in a realstic way. When people like that run into something that DOES consider the possibility of God in a realistic way of course they necessarily are mentally incapable of thinking about it that way, so they have to interpret it some other way than the way it actually is. Such people don't have the option of accepting it for what it actually is, because their brain won't go there.
AND there was a lot from his page in your posts not just the "if God exists then he must be an alien".
But my point was that he seems to be considering that as evidence that God does not exist.
He put several things from my list in his book, unless he just happened to come up with the same stuff himself and then comment on his own ideas, which to me is so unlikely that I don't consider it a realistic possibility.
If he's convinced that God does not exist, then he's incapable of considering the possibility that he does in a realstic way. When people like that run into something that DOES consider the possibility of God in a realistic way of course they necessarily are mentally incapable of thinking about it that way, so they have to interpret it some other way than the way it actually is. Such people don't have the option of accepting it for what it actually is, because their brain won't go there.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 4 2010, 02:36 PM)
If he's convinced that God does not exist, then he's incapable of considering the possibility that he does in a realstic way.
You don't understand that sometimes considering things in a realistic way means rejecting the posibility of that thing.
edit look at your stance on time as a physical thing. Did you reject that without considering it realistically?
Or do you believe you have considered it realistically then rejected it.
You don't understand that sometimes considering things in a realistic way means rejecting the posibility of that thing.
edit look at your stance on time as a physical thing. Did you reject that without considering it realistically?
Or do you believe you have considered it realistically then rejected it.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 3 2010, 10:31 PM)
Ill tell you one way it could have happened. If I am ever suspicous of something someone wrote for whatever reason, for example scam emails, I google part of the text to see if there was an original source.
In fact very early on in this thread, TobyNotToby mentioned that he had googled "God + Alien" and came across dozens of references of people believing the same thing.
I am sure amongst the fans you have created since that time many checked up on stuff you said, but I believe Adoucette first announced the claim of plagirism. If you wanna know ask Adoucette. I am sure it is just as simple as searching God+Alien.
Thank you for your support! You are the only one, afaik. I understand how to search for quotes, which is one reason I'm curious. The arguments I have with misnomer advocates can often also be found in different discussion groups as well as the news groups where they're originally posted. I've been posting some of the things on the list for several years, but the book included the idea that God would have to be an alien which I've been posting for a shorter period of time. That being the case, those are the quotes I searched for. I expected to see them turn up in some other discussion groups too since I posted them to some news groups also, but all I found were the posts to this forum, and the ones to a few news groups. It's not a popular idea because people in general don't like it...most religious people have an aversion to thinking of God as an alien, and of course people who don't consider the possibility of God's existence at all can't have any appreciation for it. It still seems pretty obvious to me though, regardless of all the people who don't happen to like it.
In fact very early on in this thread, TobyNotToby mentioned that he had googled "God + Alien" and came across dozens of references of people believing the same thing.
I am sure amongst the fans you have created since that time many checked up on stuff you said, but I believe Adoucette first announced the claim of plagirism. If you wanna know ask Adoucette. I am sure it is just as simple as searching God+Alien.
Thank you for your support! You are the only one, afaik. I understand how to search for quotes, which is one reason I'm curious. The arguments I have with misnomer advocates can often also be found in different discussion groups as well as the news groups where they're originally posted. I've been posting some of the things on the list for several years, but the book included the idea that God would have to be an alien which I've been posting for a shorter period of time. That being the case, those are the quotes I searched for. I expected to see them turn up in some other discussion groups too since I posted them to some news groups also, but all I found were the posts to this forum, and the ones to a few news groups. It's not a popular idea because people in general don't like it...most religious people have an aversion to thinking of God as an alien, and of course people who don't consider the possibility of God's existence at all can't have any appreciation for it. It still seems pretty obvious to me though, regardless of all the people who don't happen to like it.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:24 PM)
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
The fact that it is one?
The fact that it is one?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 4 2010, 02:52 PM)
The fact that it is one?
Nope.
It's publicly available but that does not make it public domain.
A shopping mall is a public place but is still private property.
This web site is a domain in of itself therefore not public domain.
Nope.
It's publicly available but that does not make it public domain.
A shopping mall is a public place but is still private property.
This web site is a domain in of itself therefore not public domain.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:29 PM)
I hate to be the one to point this out but the book in question was published March 2010.
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
Wow, I'll bet you do hate to point out something like that, but thank you for doing it even though you hate it. I can appreciate that I'm the only one who actually knows for a fact I didn't get those ideas from somewhere else, and the rest of you don't have the luxury of actually "knowing" the truth about it. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on this one, and for wanting to know what the truth is. This is a really weird one for me. A quick Google search showed that I posted the God/alien idea in alt.christnet etc on April 27, 2009 and in this forum on May 6.
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
Wow, I'll bet you do hate to point out something like that, but thank you for doing it even though you hate it. I can appreciate that I'm the only one who actually knows for a fact I didn't get those ideas from somewhere else, and the rest of you don't have the luxury of actually "knowing" the truth about it. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on this one, and for wanting to know what the truth is. This is a really weird one for me. A quick Google search showed that I posted the God/alien idea in alt.christnet etc on April 27, 2009 and in this forum on May 6.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:42 PM)
You don't understand that sometimes considering things in a realistic way means rejecting the posibility of that thing.
edit look at your stance on time as a physical thing. Did you reject that without considering it realistically?
Or do you believe you have considered it realistically then rejected it.
One the surface that all sounds sort of okay, but when we think about it in a little more detail we can come to the conclusion that if you really did learn to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, then you would not reject it. The fact that you did reject it shows that you can not think about it in a realistic way, even if you thought you could at one time. Maybe you did, and then later learned that what you were considering was not realistic and so decided God must not exist. I went through that phase for about a year and then learned to *try* to think about it realistically, which is a continuing process that I was hoping this forum would be about.
I was sure wrong about that, but that's why I began being a pest around here to begin with.
In regards to time: I can not think of the possibility of its existence in a realistic way because in order for it to exist and do as it is believed to do, it would need to have a lot of influence on everything in the Universe consistently and simultaneously and that would require energy and distribution of the energy. There are other things too, but that alone is enough that I've come to the conclusion it's not a realistic idea.
edit look at your stance on time as a physical thing. Did you reject that without considering it realistically?
Or do you believe you have considered it realistically then rejected it.
One the surface that all sounds sort of okay, but when we think about it in a little more detail we can come to the conclusion that if you really did learn to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, then you would not reject it. The fact that you did reject it shows that you can not think about it in a realistic way, even if you thought you could at one time. Maybe you did, and then later learned that what you were considering was not realistic and so decided God must not exist. I went through that phase for about a year and then learned to *try* to think about it realistically, which is a continuing process that I was hoping this forum would be about.
I was sure wrong about that, but that's why I began being a pest around here to begin with.In regards to time: I can not think of the possibility of its existence in a realistic way because in order for it to exist and do as it is believed to do, it would need to have a lot of influence on everything in the Universe consistently and simultaneously and that would require energy and distribution of the energy. There are other things too, but that alone is enough that I've come to the conclusion it's not a realistic idea.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 09:29 AM)
I hate to be the one to point this out but the book in question was published March 2010.
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
Yes, but the difference is Austin P. Torney claims copyright of those specific statements.
Which I presume means that he can also back up the fact that he originally authored them.
Particularly since he was writing about God being an Alien as far back as 2008.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sN2wsexhi...q=Alien&f=false
Arthur
I believe Nopeda posted his list before that.
Yes, but the difference is Austin P. Torney claims copyright of those specific statements.
Which I presume means that he can also back up the fact that he originally authored them.
Particularly since he was writing about God being an Alien as far back as 2008.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sN2wsexhi...q=Alien&f=false
Arthur
Van Daniken(sp) wrote about it in the 70's.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 4 2010, 03:50 PM)
Yes, but the difference is Austin P. Torney claims copyright of those specific statements.
Which I presume means that he can also back up the fact that he originally authored them.
Particularly since he was writing about God being an Alien as far back as 2008.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sN2wsexhi...q=Alien&f=false
Arthur
I wrote the list out of my own head, whether he just happened to write out something very similar out of his or not. I don't believe it, but I know dam* well I didn't get it from someone else. I don't doubt that other people have realised that God would have to be an alien since it's so obvious, but I never knew of anyone else to mention the idea before I did.
Which I presume means that he can also back up the fact that he originally authored them.
Particularly since he was writing about God being an Alien as far back as 2008.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sN2wsexhi...q=Alien&f=false
Arthur
I wrote the list out of my own head, whether he just happened to write out something very similar out of his or not. I don't believe it, but I know dam* well I didn't get it from someone else. I don't doubt that other people have realised that God would have to be an alien since it's so obvious, but I never knew of anyone else to mention the idea before I did.
QUOTE
I wrote the list out of my own head, whether he just happened to write out something very similar out of his or not.
Bullsh*t.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 4 2010, 12:02 PM)
I don't doubt that other people have realised that God would have to be an alien since it's so obvious, but I never knew of anyone else to mention the idea before I did.
I read Chariots of the Gods in the late 60's when I was a kid. It is by no means a new idea.
It is as unsubstantiated now as it was then.
It's not similar... it's identical - word for word.
I read Chariots of the Gods in the late 60's when I was a kid. It is by no means a new idea.
It is as unsubstantiated now as it was then.
QUOTE
I wrote the list out of my own head, whether he just happened to write out something very similar out of his or not. I don't believe it, but I know dam* well I didn't get it from someone else.
It's not similar... it's identical - word for word.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 4 2010, 06:18 PM)
I read Chariots of the Gods in the late 60's when I was a kid. It is by no means a new idea.
It is as unsubstantiated now as it was then.
It's not similar... it's identical - word for word.
What I read wasn't. Some parts were, but not all of it. I wonder if he took it word for word but not from the version I put in this forum, but I know I wrote a list for this particular forum, then revised it and added a few things later. Wherever he got it I know I got it from my own head, and find it hard to believe he got the same thing from his own head too.
It is as unsubstantiated now as it was then.
It's not similar... it's identical - word for word.
What I read wasn't. Some parts were, but not all of it. I wonder if he took it word for word but not from the version I put in this forum, but I know I wrote a list for this particular forum, then revised it and added a few things later. Wherever he got it I know I got it from my own head, and find it hard to believe he got the same thing from his own head too.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 4 2010, 05:10 PM)
Bullsh*t.
I dunno to me it looks like one is an almond nutbar and the other is pistachio.
There does seem to be two different styles of thought here.
If I cared I would run one of those grammar analysis programs on each.
The list does seem to match Nopeda's nonsense more so than the other guys.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:12 PM)
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0FYKAtX5...n.'&f=false
This shows him saying "God is not needed".
Page 138
And later he says that only natural evidence has been found or something like that.
Are you sure you are not misunderstanding him? he says what must be true for something else to be true then shows it not to be true which means that the oringal thing is not true.
I think I did misunderstand Austin P. Torn's writing, but it is (in my opinion) badly written. Everything is written in a first person persepctive, with no referencing , which makes you believe that what he is writing is his belief.
I tried to read more of the book, but it just gave me a headache.
This shows him saying "God is not needed".
Page 138
And later he says that only natural evidence has been found or something like that.
Are you sure you are not misunderstanding him? he says what must be true for something else to be true then shows it not to be true which means that the oringal thing is not true.
I think I did misunderstand Austin P. Torn's writing, but it is (in my opinion) badly written. Everything is written in a first person persepctive, with no referencing , which makes you believe that what he is writing is his belief.
I tried to read more of the book, but it just gave me a headache.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:20 PM)
Do broadcasters give up all copyright when they broadcast over the public airwaves?
QUOTE
Would a newstand count as a public forum?
NoQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would a newstand count as a public forum? |
No
Does Time magazine give up all copyright to their cover?
Does Time magazine give up all copyright to their cover?
No
QUOTE
Do broadcasters give up all copyright when they broadcast over the public airwaves?
No
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:24 PM)
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
Fredinjeddah quote
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
Fredinjeddah quote
QUOTE
I respectfully disagree, copyright can be given away, and is very often given away, by authors "surrendering" or giving away their copyright (if they had any copyright) by publishing to The Public Domain
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I respectfully disagree, copyright can be given away, and is very often given away, by authors "surrendering" or giving away their copyright (if they had any copyright) by publishing to The Public Domain |
And The Public Domain has what to do with this forum?
This forum is a public forum, and therefore is part of The Public Domain.
My statement above deals with those authors who have the right to copyright material. In those case there are authors who often "surrender" their copyright, usually by publishing their copyrighted text and stating for example "this text may be distributed freely" or "this text may be used for educational purposes only" etc. and thereby making it freely (or conditionally freely) availiable to the public, which means they have published it to The Public Domain. Ie: It is no longer copyright protected.
This forum/thread deals by and large with ideas, and where ideas are published on a pubic forum for anyone to read, they cannot be copyrighted by most copyright laws around the world.
As such they are deemed to be published to The Public Domain, as they are not copyrightable.
The Public Domain, in relation to copyright, is that which is intangible to private ownership. An idea cannot be copyrighted. I can make the statement "I do not believe in a god" and no one anywhere in the world would be able to sue me for copyright infringment, as it is an idea, and I am entitled to have my idea and write it down where I please.
My statement above deals with those authors who have the right to copyright material. In those case there are authors who often "surrender" their copyright, usually by publishing their copyrighted text and stating for example "this text may be distributed freely" or "this text may be used for educational purposes only" etc. and thereby making it freely (or conditionally freely) availiable to the public, which means they have published it to The Public Domain. Ie: It is no longer copyright protected.
This forum/thread deals by and large with ideas, and where ideas are published on a pubic forum for anyone to read, they cannot be copyrighted by most copyright laws around the world.
As such they are deemed to be published to The Public Domain, as they are not copyrightable.
The Public Domain, in relation to copyright, is that which is intangible to private ownership. An idea cannot be copyrighted. I can make the statement "I do not believe in a god" and no one anywhere in the world would be able to sue me for copyright infringment, as it is an idea, and I am entitled to have my idea and write it down where I please.
Nope being public does NOT make this the public domain.
Are songs in the public domain as soon as they are broadcast over the public airwaves?
This forum is NOT in the public domain any more than radio broadcasts are.
You can give up copyright by putting it in the public domain but you do not do so by posting here.
Phsyorg sets the rules of use on here and have not made it public domain.
If you create it, you have copyright. You can, but don't have to register material for it to be copyrighted.
This post is NOT in the public domain as far as copyright issues go.
edit did you know the song Happy Birthday is copyrighted? If you use it in a movie you have to pay to use it.
Are songs in the public domain as soon as they are broadcast over the public airwaves?
This forum is NOT in the public domain any more than radio broadcasts are.
You can give up copyright by putting it in the public domain but you do not do so by posting here.
Phsyorg sets the rules of use on here and have not made it public domain.
If you create it, you have copyright. You can, but don't have to register material for it to be copyrighted.
This post is NOT in the public domain as far as copyright issues go.
edit did you know the song Happy Birthday is copyrighted? If you use it in a movie you have to pay to use it.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 03:01 PM)
Nope.
QUOTE
It's publicly available but that does not make it public domain.
You are correct, just because something is publically available does not make it part of The Public Domain. What makes publically available information part of The Public Domain, is if it is not restricted (copyrighted). As an idea cannot be copyrighted, such publically available information is part of The Public DomainQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's publicly available but that does not make it public domain. |
You are correct, just because something is publically available does not make it part of The Public Domain. What makes publically available information part of The Public Domain, is if it is not restricted (copyrighted). As an idea cannot be copyrighted, such publically available information is part of The Public Domain
A shopping mall is a public place but is still private property
A shopping mall is a public place but is still private property
A shopping mall is not a public place. It is private property where the owners have given you permission to enter on certain conditions, that is very different to public property.
This web site claims no ownership to the opinions (ideas) posted by members on the site but restricts certain material being posted.
In fact in the terms of use, PHYSFORUM declares
QUOTE
This web site is a domain in of itself therefore not public domain.
This web site is a public forum. Anyone is allowed to read it subject to certain conditions. Kind of like the mall above, it is private property, but the owners consent to us all using their facilities on certain conditions.This web site claims no ownership to the opinions (ideas) posted by members on the site but restricts certain material being posted.
In fact in the terms of use, PHYSFORUM declares
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This web site is a domain in of itself therefore not public domain. |
This web site is a public forum. Anyone is allowed to read it subject to certain conditions. Kind of like the mall above, it is private property, but the owners consent to us all using their facilities on certain conditions.
This web site claims no ownership to the opinions (ideas) posted by members on the site but restricts certain material being posted.
In fact in the terms of use, PHYSFORUM declares "Any information that is disclosed on a Physforum.com message board becomes public information"
This web site claims no ownership to the opinions (ideas) posted by members on the site but restricts certain material being posted.
In fact in the terms of use, PHYSFORUM declares "Any information that is disclosed on a Physforum.com message board becomes public information"
This public information also forms part of The Public Domain if it is non copyrightable, such as an idea for example.
If you take Austin P. Torns "book" for example, it is publically available through googles on line book division, and a few other free on line distribution sites and even though it is also publically available, he has claimed copyright of the content of his book.
Austin P Torney has claimed copyright of the book and in effect the phrase
NoPeda, came to a public discussion forum, and said "he was thinking about gods existance and if god exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien" This is an idea, a concept that was being formulated and proposed.
Even if NoPeda wrote that phrase first, I very much doubt any court would have sympathy for NoPeda, as he chose to publish his opinion on a public discussion forum, and not in an on line book. By consenting to the terms of use of PHYSFORUM , No Peda consented to that opinion, becoming public information, for anyone to use.
One other issue that would do well to be discussed here, is whether or not NoPeda, infringed on the copyright of the bible (which version he used, we do not know) Even if it was The King James version which has a perpetual copyright. According to international law, he did not break the law by quoting the text. In terms of EU legislation, you are entitled to quote and copy any copyrighted text, in order to discuss, criticise or debate the text. (although you must cite the reference and credit the authors)
HOWEVER, the owners of PHYSFORM have the right at their sole discretion to determine what constitutes a violation of any of the usage terms on this forum.
If you take Austin P. Torns "book" for example, it is publically available through googles on line book division, and a few other free on line distribution sites and even though it is also publically available, he has claimed copyright of the content of his book.
Austin P Torney has claimed copyright of the book and in effect the phrase
QUOTE
If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien
. He wrote a "book" and made an absolute statement.NoPeda, came to a public discussion forum, and said "he was thinking about gods existance and if god exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien" This is an idea, a concept that was being formulated and proposed.
Even if NoPeda wrote that phrase first, I very much doubt any court would have sympathy for NoPeda, as he chose to publish his opinion on a public discussion forum, and not in an on line book. By consenting to the terms of use of PHYSFORUM , No Peda consented to that opinion, becoming public information, for anyone to use.
One other issue that would do well to be discussed here, is whether or not NoPeda, infringed on the copyright of the bible (which version he used, we do not know) Even if it was The King James version which has a perpetual copyright. According to international law, he did not break the law by quoting the text. In terms of EU legislation, you are entitled to quote and copy any copyrighted text, in order to discuss, criticise or debate the text. (although you must cite the reference and credit the authors)
HOWEVER, the owners of PHYSFORM have the right at their sole discretion to determine what constitutes a violation of any of the usage terms on this forum.
Nopeda's list is more than just an idea and is copyrighted by either him or the author of that book. If Nopeda did in fact write that list then that is all he had to to for it to be copyrighted.
Personally I think there is such a difference in nutbar style that I think the author thought that the list was public domain and included it in his book. I haven't bothered to look at the publisher but wouldn't be surprised if it's a vanity press.
You can claim to be Napoleon but that would not make it true. If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
And if you are drunk in a shopping mall I would not be surprised if the cops arrested you for being being drunk in a public place. It is private property but is considered out in public.
I would love to see Nopeda take onthe author. It would be fun to watch Almond Joy take on Oh Henry.
Personally I think there is such a difference in nutbar style that I think the author thought that the list was public domain and included it in his book. I haven't bothered to look at the publisher but wouldn't be surprised if it's a vanity press.
You can claim to be Napoleon but that would not make it true. If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
And if you are drunk in a shopping mall I would not be surprised if the cops arrested you for being being drunk in a public place. It is private property but is considered out in public.
I would love to see Nopeda take onthe author. It would be fun to watch Almond Joy take on Oh Henry.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 01:06 PM)
If you create it, you have copyright. You can, but don't have to register material for it to be copyrighted.
QUOTE
Phsyorg sets the rules of use on here and have not made it public domain
I disagree, but maybe the moderator would like to clarify.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Phsyorg sets the rules of use on here and have not made it public domain |
I disagree, but maybe the moderator would like to clarify.
This post is NOT in the public domain as far as copyright issues go.
This post is NOT in the public domain as far as copyright issues go.
I disagree. Anything that is not protected by copyright law and is posted as public information clearly falls under The Public Domain. An Idea cannot be copyrighted, although the writing down of an idea can be protected under copyright law.
NoPeda, was clearly formulating an opinion and idea, and the idea cannot claim relief under copyright law.
This has been the judgment of several Supreme Court hearings from all over the world. See previous link to Cornell's law school et al.
NoPeda, was clearly formulating an opinion and idea, and the idea cannot claim relief under copyright law.
This has been the judgment of several Supreme Court hearings from all over the world. See previous link to Cornell's law school et al.
QUOTE
edit did you know the song Happy Birthday is copyrighted? If you use it in a movie you have to pay to use it.
Yes I did know that.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 06:18 PM)
Nopeda's list is more than just an idea and is copyrighted by either him or the author of that book. If Nopeda did in fact write that list then that is all he had to to for it to be copyrighted.
. . .
If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
. . .
I would love to see Nopeda take onthe author. It would be fun to watch Almond Joy take on Oh Henry.
I'm curious what he would say about it. It seems that if he appreciates it enough to include it in his book he should appreciate it enough to acknowledge where he got it, especially considering the way he posted the ideas and then responded to them. But whatever on it...I don't intend to persue it myself. I know I wrote the list, and it doesn't look like he included the whole list in the book.
Even from your position it seems to me you should understand it's more likely that someone got quotes from the internet in 2009 and then put them in a book in 2010, than that somone got qoutes from a book published in 2010 and then posted them to the internet in 2009. I guess it's not a whole lot worse than some of the other absurd seeming ideas you people come up with though....
. . .
If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
. . .
I would love to see Nopeda take onthe author. It would be fun to watch Almond Joy take on Oh Henry.
I'm curious what he would say about it. It seems that if he appreciates it enough to include it in his book he should appreciate it enough to acknowledge where he got it, especially considering the way he posted the ideas and then responded to them. But whatever on it...I don't intend to persue it myself. I know I wrote the list, and it doesn't look like he included the whole list in the book.
Even from your position it seems to me you should understand it's more likely that someone got quotes from the internet in 2009 and then put them in a book in 2010, than that somone got qoutes from a book published in 2010 and then posted them to the internet in 2009. I guess it's not a whole lot worse than some of the other absurd seeming ideas you people come up with though....
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 4 2010, 02:12 PM)
he says what must be true for something else to be true then shows it not to be true which means that the oringal thing is not true.
What do you think he showed not to be true, and how did he show it?
What do you think he showed not to be true, and how did he show it?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 5 2010, 06:50 PM)
What do you think he showed not to be true, and how did he show it?
There is no solid evidence of highly alien Gods.
If God must be an alien and there is no evidence of alien Gods then the conclusion is no God.
There is no solid evidence of highly alien Gods.
If God must be an alien and there is no evidence of alien Gods then the conclusion is no God.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 06:18 PM)
I would love to see Nopeda take onthe author. It would be fun to watch Almond Joy take on Oh Henry.
"I do not believe god exists" I challenge anyone who has stated that phrase in those exact words, to sue me for copyright infringment. This is why ideas cannot be copyrighted. If you went down that road you would inhibit freedom of speech.
QUOTE
Nopeda's list is more than just an idea and is copyrighted by either him or the author of that book.
I was not discussing the list, I was referring to the phrase that was used, in any event I disagree with your interpretation. In the context of this forum, it was clearly the formulation of an idea, which is why it is not recommended to use this type of venue for distributing your own text you may deem to be copyrighted. No court (in my opinion) will come to your aid if you are that reckless."I do not believe god exists" I challenge anyone who has stated that phrase in those exact words, to sue me for copyright infringment. This is why ideas cannot be copyrighted. If you went down that road you would inhibit freedom of speech.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nopeda's list is more than just an idea and is copyrighted by either him or the author of that book. |
I was not discussing the list, I was referring to the phrase that was used, in any event I disagree with your interpretation. In the context of this forum, it was clearly the formulation of an idea, which is why it is not recommended to use this type of venue for distributing your own text you may deem to be copyrighted. No court (in my opinion) will come to your aid if you are that reckless.
"I do not believe god exists" I challenge anyone who has stated that phrase in those exact words, to sue me for copyright infringment. This is why ideas cannot be copyrighted. If you went down that road you would inhibit freedom of speech.
If Nopeda did in fact write that list then that is all he had to to for it to be copyrighted.
"I do not believe god exists" I challenge anyone who has stated that phrase in those exact words, to sue me for copyright infringment. This is why ideas cannot be copyrighted. If you went down that road you would inhibit freedom of speech.
If Nopeda did in fact write that list then that is all he had to to for it to be copyrighted.
If the list were copied ad verbatum, perhaps he could claim copyright infringement (although I doubt it), but as far as I am aware, the entire list was not published by Austin P. Thornton.
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
I think Toronto will lose this.
What they have might be considered a Trademark, not a copyright.
Sears also has a Trademark on their version of Live Green, but neither appears to infringe on the other.
http://www.sears.ca/content/corporate-info/eco
http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/index.htm
Arthur
QUOTE
Personally I think there is such a difference in nutbar style that I think the author thought that the list was public domain and included it in his book. I haven't bothered to look at the publisher but wouldn't be surprised if it's a vanity press.
The author I believe self publishes on line.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Personally I think there is such a difference in nutbar style that I think the author thought that the list was public domain and included it in his book. I haven't bothered to look at the publisher but wouldn't be surprised if it's a vanity press. |
The author I believe self publishes on line.
You can claim to be Napoleon but that would not make it true. If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
You can claim to be Napoleon but that would not make it true. If Nopeda wrote the list originally and did not give the author permissin to use it then Nopeda has the copyright to that list.
To the list maybe, but not the concept that god would be an alien if he existed. That is what I was referring to.
It is a place where the public mingle, but that in itself does not make it a public place. If it were, a house party with friends would be considered a public place. Your right to privacy would be horribly eroded if that were the law.
QUOTE
And if you are drunk in a shopping mall I would not be surprised if the cops arrested you for being being drunk in a public place. It is private property but is considered out in public.
Not wanting to get into a technical legal debate here, a shopping mall is not and cannot be classified as a public space or public property. Public space indicates it is owned by the public. In any event, it has little relevance to the discussion at hand in my opinion.It is a place where the public mingle, but that in itself does not make it a public place. If it were, a house party with friends would be considered a public place. Your right to privacy would be horribly eroded if that were the law.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 5 2010, 06:23 PM)
I disagree, but maybe the moderator would like to clarify.
I disagree. Anything that is not protected by copyright law and is posted as public information clearly falls under The Public Domain. An Idea cannot be copyrighted, although the writing down of an idea can be protected under copyright law.
NoPeda, was clearly formulating an opinion and idea, and the idea cannot claim relief under copyright law.
This has been the judgment of several Supreme Court hearings from all over the world. See previous link to Cornell's law school et al.
Yes I did know that.
To be clear this post is copyrighted. I have given up some limited copyright to the owners of this website. But I am not putting this post in the Public Domain.
I do not have to register this post for it to be protected by copyright law.
I did not say a mall is public property I said it is considered a public place. Is everyone there invited personally? Or can any member of the public go?
And to complicate things about the author using the list there is also a fair use issue.
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
I disagree. Anything that is not protected by copyright law and is posted as public information clearly falls under The Public Domain. An Idea cannot be copyrighted, although the writing down of an idea can be protected under copyright law.
NoPeda, was clearly formulating an opinion and idea, and the idea cannot claim relief under copyright law.
This has been the judgment of several Supreme Court hearings from all over the world. See previous link to Cornell's law school et al.
Yes I did know that.
To be clear this post is copyrighted. I have given up some limited copyright to the owners of this website. But I am not putting this post in the Public Domain.
I do not have to register this post for it to be protected by copyright law.
I did not say a mall is public property I said it is considered a public place. Is everyone there invited personally? Or can any member of the public go?
And to complicate things about the author using the list there is also a fair use issue.
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 03:23 PM)
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
I think Toronto will lose this.
What they have might be considered a Trademark, not a copyright.
Sears also has a Trademark on their version of Live Green, but neither appears to infringe on the other.
http://www.sears.ca/content/corporate-info/eco
http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/index.htm
Arthur
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 5 2010, 07:56 PM)
If the list were copied ad verbatum, perhaps he could claim copyright infringement (although I doubt it), but as far as I am aware, the entire list was not published by Austin P. Thornton.
. . .
the concept that god would be an alien if he existed. That is what I was referring to.
He didn't copy the list I posted here verbatim, nor did he copy everything on it. That's what makes me think he may have gotten it somewhere else like in a news group. And from my pov, the idea that God would have to be an alien is something everybody should figure out if they think about it a minute and ask themselves how he could possibly be native to Earth.
. . .
the concept that god would be an alien if he existed. That is what I was referring to.
He didn't copy the list I posted here verbatim, nor did he copy everything on it. That's what makes me think he may have gotten it somewhere else like in a news group. And from my pov, the idea that God would have to be an alien is something everybody should figure out if they think about it a minute and ask themselves how he could possibly be native to Earth.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 08:23 PM)
To be clear this post is copyrighted. I have given up some limited copyright to the owners of this website.
You have given license to copy, modify, etc. And you have given it irrevocably. Not the same thing as giving copyright itself.
You have given license to copy, modify, etc. And you have given it irrevocably. Not the same thing as giving copyright itself.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 08:23 PM)
To be clear this post is copyrighted. I have given up some limited copyright to the owners of this website. But I am not putting this post in the Public Domain.
I do not have to register this post for it to be protected by copyright law.
I did not say a mall is public property I said it is considered a public place. Is everyone there invited personally? Or can any member of the public go?
And to complicate things about the author using the list there is also a fair use issue.
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
I disagree that you can try and copyright your post. It is part of a discussion and debate. It is discussion used in the formulation of an opinion on what constitutes copyright infringment.
Everything we have been discussing regarding NoPeda and the phrase"If a god exists......" has to be viewd in context of the PHYSFORUM web site.
An internet forum is a place of discussion and debate. It is a place of opinion and learning. As such, things discussed on an internet forum, should be seen as the sharing of ideas. As I have stated before, ideas cannot be copyrighted, and to try and copyright text that you place on a discussion forum, would seem counter to the intent of an internet forum such as physforum.com.
Just as mathematic formula cannot be copyrighted (for example 1+1=2) so too can a philisophical concept (such as if a god exists.....) not be copyrighted. These theories are openly provided in order for society to hopefully develop.
To try copyright or even allow a concept phrase such as "God Exists" or "god does not exist" to be copyrighted, would potentially stop the discussion on that issue from being discussed by the public as a whole, who would be under threat of copyright infringment.
Allowing an idea to be copyrighted, would allow sinister forces opposed to an idea, to be able to copyright an idea, such as "god does not exist" thereby disallowing those that do want to write books with references to the idea "god does not exist" from doing so. This act of copyrighting an idea, would halt free discussion, debate and forward progression.
An internet forum is a forum for discussion and sharing of ideas. Anything anyone posts on this and other forums, should be considered public information, free to use for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The intent of this forum (who themselves do not charge a fee) is clearly the free and open sharing of ideas, and I believe its members are obliged to follow the forums intent, not their own.
In fact, your posting (and mine) became public information the minute we uploaded it. Public information is owned by the public and not by a specific person (such as copyright ownership) and therefore you and I have relinquished any right we had to the copyright of the information we upload.
This is my understanding of an internet forum.
I do not have to register this post for it to be protected by copyright law.
I did not say a mall is public property I said it is considered a public place. Is everyone there invited personally? Or can any member of the public go?
And to complicate things about the author using the list there is also a fair use issue.
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/20...9/14325171.html
If "live green" is copyrighted then "if God exists he must be an alien" should also be copyright by who ever first said it. And publishing it even online would help establish who has the copyright to it.
And remember this post is copyrighted.
I disagree that you can try and copyright your post. It is part of a discussion and debate. It is discussion used in the formulation of an opinion on what constitutes copyright infringment.
Everything we have been discussing regarding NoPeda and the phrase"If a god exists......" has to be viewd in context of the PHYSFORUM web site.
An internet forum is a place of discussion and debate. It is a place of opinion and learning. As such, things discussed on an internet forum, should be seen as the sharing of ideas. As I have stated before, ideas cannot be copyrighted, and to try and copyright text that you place on a discussion forum, would seem counter to the intent of an internet forum such as physforum.com.
Just as mathematic formula cannot be copyrighted (for example 1+1=2) so too can a philisophical concept (such as if a god exists.....) not be copyrighted. These theories are openly provided in order for society to hopefully develop.
To try copyright or even allow a concept phrase such as "God Exists" or "god does not exist" to be copyrighted, would potentially stop the discussion on that issue from being discussed by the public as a whole, who would be under threat of copyright infringment.
Allowing an idea to be copyrighted, would allow sinister forces opposed to an idea, to be able to copyright an idea, such as "god does not exist" thereby disallowing those that do want to write books with references to the idea "god does not exist" from doing so. This act of copyrighting an idea, would halt free discussion, debate and forward progression.
An internet forum is a forum for discussion and sharing of ideas. Anything anyone posts on this and other forums, should be considered public information, free to use for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The intent of this forum (who themselves do not charge a fee) is clearly the free and open sharing of ideas, and I believe its members are obliged to follow the forums intent, not their own.
In fact, your posting (and mine) became public information the minute we uploaded it. Public information is owned by the public and not by a specific person (such as copyright ownership) and therefore you and I have relinquished any right we had to the copyright of the information we upload.
This is my understanding of an internet forum.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 5 2010, 11:01 PM)
You have given license to copy, modify, etc. And you have given it irrevocably. Not the same thing as giving copyright itself.
We have also given permission for any information provided on the forum message boards, to become public information, if I am correct.
Although PHYSFORUM have nothing to do with 3rd parties and their claims to copyright. Your disclaimer and legislation protect you from that, however, you have in your terms of use, clearly stated that any such information posted, is now public information.
As members have to consent to this term (and I do), the information is automatically that of public information once I upload a post.
The question is of course, does public information have the right of copyright. I dont believe it does, but I suspect each case may differ as much as copyright differs from place, person and time.
We have also given permission for any information provided on the forum message boards, to become public information, if I am correct.
Although PHYSFORUM have nothing to do with 3rd parties and their claims to copyright. Your disclaimer and legislation protect you from that, however, you have in your terms of use, clearly stated that any such information posted, is now public information.
As members have to consent to this term (and I do), the information is automatically that of public information once I upload a post.
The question is of course, does public information have the right of copyright. I dont believe it does, but I suspect each case may differ as much as copyright differs from place, person and time.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 5 2010, 08:23 PM)
I did not say a mall is public property I said it is considered a public place. Is everyone there invited personally? Or can any member of the public go?
It is an open house party. Anyone can come. Still not a public place. Still private property.
A public place is owned by the public, hence the definition. This seems to be deteriorating into a tit for tat argument, and honestly, I cannot see the relevance to the discussion at hand.
However, a mall can be considered a semi public space, because the public are entitled to gather there on stricter conditions than given to a public space.
It is an open house party. Anyone can come. Still not a public place. Still private property.
A public place is owned by the public, hence the definition. This seems to be deteriorating into a tit for tat argument, and honestly, I cannot see the relevance to the discussion at hand.
However, a mall can be considered a semi public space, because the public are entitled to gather there on stricter conditions than given to a public space.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 5 2010, 09:03 PM)
I think Toronto will lose this.
What they have might be considered a Trademark, not a copyright.
Sears also has a Trademark on their version of Live Green, but neither appears to infringe on the other.
http://www.sears.ca/content/corporate-info/eco
http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/index.htm
Arthur
I agree, they will or should lose this case. You cannot copyright a concept or idea, but you can register a phrase as a trademark. Trademarks limit others potential economic abuse of such a phrase, but does not inhibit the use of the phrase.
It will be an interesting case to watch.
What they have might be considered a Trademark, not a copyright.
Sears also has a Trademark on their version of Live Green, but neither appears to infringe on the other.
http://www.sears.ca/content/corporate-info/eco
http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/index.htm
Arthur
I agree, they will or should lose this case. You cannot copyright a concept or idea, but you can register a phrase as a trademark. Trademarks limit others potential economic abuse of such a phrase, but does not inhibit the use of the phrase.
It will be an interesting case to watch.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 6 2010, 11:17 AM)
I disagree that you can try and copyright your post.
What try?
Copyright is basically "you create it, you have the copyright."
I may not be able to defend my copyright but that is a whole other matter.
You are simply not getting the essense of copyright.
Are you aware of something called radio? And that radio plays music?
And that the music is copyrighted? Even after it is broadcast over the airwaves?
How is this any different fundamentally?
I would love to know how you think copyrights can work if you lose copyright when the public is exposed to it.
It would be like the Chinese God that had unlimited power until it went to use it then it lost it's unlimited power.
And how is this place any different than a shopping mall? It's owned and operated as private cyber property. So why is the mall not a public place but this is?
If you want to end the tit for tat then start reading up on copyrights. After reading Rpenner's post I realize I need to brush up on the details again. But at least I"ve read up on it in the past.
What try?
Copyright is basically "you create it, you have the copyright."
I may not be able to defend my copyright but that is a whole other matter.
You are simply not getting the essense of copyright.
Are you aware of something called radio? And that radio plays music?
And that the music is copyrighted? Even after it is broadcast over the airwaves?
How is this any different fundamentally?
I would love to know how you think copyrights can work if you lose copyright when the public is exposed to it.
It would be like the Chinese God that had unlimited power until it went to use it then it lost it's unlimited power.
And how is this place any different than a shopping mall? It's owned and operated as private cyber property. So why is the mall not a public place but this is?
If you want to end the tit for tat then start reading up on copyrights. After reading Rpenner's post I realize I need to brush up on the details again. But at least I"ve read up on it in the past.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 6 2010, 11:05 PM)
What try?
QUOTE
Copyright is basically "you create it, you have the copyright."
I may not be able to defend my copyright but that is a whole other matter.
Oh if it were only that simple, but nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. I still disagree as I am entitled to do. The length of our debate on this subject, and the fact that we still disagree clealry shows we have differing opinions on copyright.I may not be able to defend my copyright but that is a whole other matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Copyright is basically "you create it, you have the copyright." I may not be able to defend my copyright but that is a whole other matter. |
Oh if it were only that simple, but nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. I still disagree as I am entitled to do. The length of our debate on this subject, and the fact that we still disagree clealry shows we have differing opinions on copyright.
You are simply not getting the essense of copyright.
You are simply not getting the essense of copyright.
Not in the manner you define it in context to this forum. You are trying to apply a blanket definition of copyright to a very specific situation. No court functions in that manner.
QUOTE
Are you aware of something called radio? And that radio plays music?
YesQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you aware of something called radio? And that radio plays music? |
Yes
And that the music is copyrighted?
And that the music is copyrighted?
Not all music, but certainly most music.
QUOTE
Even after it is broadcast over the airwaves?
Yes, if it has copyright rights.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even after it is broadcast over the airwaves? |
Yes, if it has copyright rights.
How is this any different fundamentally?
How is this any different fundamentally?
Music has specific copyright laws that protect music, and ideas and creative writing have copyright laws that govern those. If you read up on them, you will discover the distinct differences.
Music is not shared on a forum such as PHYSFORUM. The tool for distribution of music or ideas, has everything to do with the application of the copyright in question.
Music is not shared on a forum such as PHYSFORUM. The tool for distribution of music or ideas, has everything to do with the application of the copyright in question.
QUOTE
I would love to know how you think copyrights can work if you lose copyright when the public is exposed to it.
I dont understand this statement. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would love to know how you think copyrights can work if you lose copyright when the public is exposed to it. |
I dont understand this statement.
It would be like the Chinese God that had unlimited power until it went to use it then it lost it's unlimited power.
It would be like the Chinese God that had unlimited power until it went to use it then it lost it's unlimited power.
I dont understand the statement.
QUOTE
And how is this place any different than a shopping mall? It's owned and operated as private cyber property. So why is the mall not a public place but this is?
I will deal with this in a seperate thread so as not to enlarge this response too much.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And how is this place any different than a shopping mall? It's owned and operated as private cyber property. So why is the mall not a public place but this is? |
I will deal with this in a seperate thread so as not to enlarge this response too much.
If you want to end the tit for tat then start reading up on copyrights.
If you want to end the tit for tat then start reading up on copyrights.
And you assume my responses were off the top of my head without reading up and despite posting links to sites dealing with copyright. The only way to end the tit for tat, is to accept your version. Unfortunately I disagree with your interpretation of the law of copyright as it applies to ideas and in context of the PHYSFORUM website.
QUOTE
After reading Rpenner's post I realize I need to brush up on the details again. But at least I"ve read up on it in the past.
We all need from time to time to brush up on the details, and even then we can still disagree. Advocates do it all the time, hence court cases proceed to court. I still disagree with you, and will continue to do so, until convinced otherwise by you or someone else.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 6 2010, 11:05 PM)
And how is this place any different than a shopping mall? It's owned and operated as private cyber property. So why is the mall not a public place but this is?
This is an interesting question, which was discussed somewhat in Reno Vs ACLU in The Unites States Supreme Court.
One of the issues raised, was what to define the internet and sites found on the internet as. Analogies ranging from A City to a shopping mall were proposed. In essence, it was clear, that the context of the web site in question had to be determined in order to evaluate if it was to be considered a public place or not, regardless of private ownership.
So the question is, what is PHYSFORUM.COM? Is it akin to a shopping mall as you suggest, or is it akin to a public place as I suggest.
A shopping mall is owned by a private company, where shops pay rent in exchange for space, and the public are welcomed to enter the private property on certain conditions, with the intent of getting the public to spend money in said shops. A mall does not exist for non-financial purposes, and everything a mall does (even free shows) is to attract shoppers to spend money.
The same cannot be said of PHYSFORUM.COM. It makes no direct financial income from the presence of members. We are not charged to access the forum, nor are we exposed to any advertising of any sort.
It may be owned privately, although no where on the forum, is this made clear, and it could be government or institutionally owned either in part or in full. So because it is not clearly defined, we have no measure, other than the form it takes on the internet.
PHYSFORUM, clearly states:
This is an interesting question, which was discussed somewhat in Reno Vs ACLU in The Unites States Supreme Court.
One of the issues raised, was what to define the internet and sites found on the internet as. Analogies ranging from A City to a shopping mall were proposed. In essence, it was clear, that the context of the web site in question had to be determined in order to evaluate if it was to be considered a public place or not, regardless of private ownership.
So the question is, what is PHYSFORUM.COM? Is it akin to a shopping mall as you suggest, or is it akin to a public place as I suggest.
A shopping mall is owned by a private company, where shops pay rent in exchange for space, and the public are welcomed to enter the private property on certain conditions, with the intent of getting the public to spend money in said shops. A mall does not exist for non-financial purposes, and everything a mall does (even free shows) is to attract shoppers to spend money.
The same cannot be said of PHYSFORUM.COM. It makes no direct financial income from the presence of members. We are not charged to access the forum, nor are we exposed to any advertising of any sort.
It may be owned privately, although no where on the forum, is this made clear, and it could be government or institutionally owned either in part or in full. So because it is not clearly defined, we have no measure, other than the form it takes on the internet.
PHYSFORUM, clearly states:
QUOTE
Opinions expressed on a Physforum message board are those of the message author and not of Physforum.com. Likewise, Physforum.com makes no representations or warranties concerning the truth or falsity of any assertion of fact made by message authors (other than Physforum) on a Physforum.com message board.
and also QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Opinions expressed on a Physforum message board are those of the message author and not of Physforum.com. Likewise, Physforum.com makes no representations or warranties concerning the truth or falsity of any assertion of fact made by message authors (other than Physforum) on a Physforum.com message board. |
and also Physforum.com does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board
It also states :
This is more akin to a public place, where PHYSFORUM provides a space for authors to place their opinions for others to freely view. It is a public space. It is very simmilar in essence to a public park, where members of the public are allowed to gather and freely discuss their opinions on matters of physics and phiolosphy.
It follows the Café philosophique structure formed in France, where philosophers gathered in cafes to debate issues of phiosophy and science. There was no charge to be a member, and anyone was welcome, as long as they adhered to the rules of etiquette in debating.
It also follows the same structure as a class in university where philosophy is being discussed. No statement of opinion made (verbally or written on the board) in that class can be copyrighted, as it is a formulation of an idea and concept. Once you go on to write your book on your beliefs, philosophies etc, you can consider that to be copyrighted, but not during the formulation period.
PHYSFORUM have also made it clear, that by posting anything to any board, will make that information public and you are even warned to not place personal information in your postings.
If you decide to post a list which you consider to be personal and private and copyrighted on the forum, you cannot hold PHYSFORUM liable for any loss, as you were warned it was public information once it was posted. Public information is the antithesis of copyrighted material. It is in my opinion in The Public Domain.
PHYSFORUM may be a private owned entity (although there is no evidence of that) and even if it is, applying Reno Vs ACLUthe context of the forum has to be evaluated to determine the purpose and function of this forum.
The purpose of the PHYSFORUM site, is the sharing of ideas. A phrase such as "God does not exist" is an idea, and cannot be copyrighted.
This is my personal opinion and not that of PHYSFORM in any way whatsoever.
It also states :
QUOTE
Physforum.com provides access to its message boards to users who are at least eighteen (18) years old and to minors over the age of thirteen (13) who have parental permission
This is more akin to a public place, where PHYSFORUM provides a space for authors to place their opinions for others to freely view. It is a public space. It is very simmilar in essence to a public park, where members of the public are allowed to gather and freely discuss their opinions on matters of physics and phiolosphy.
It follows the Café philosophique structure formed in France, where philosophers gathered in cafes to debate issues of phiosophy and science. There was no charge to be a member, and anyone was welcome, as long as they adhered to the rules of etiquette in debating.
It also follows the same structure as a class in university where philosophy is being discussed. No statement of opinion made (verbally or written on the board) in that class can be copyrighted, as it is a formulation of an idea and concept. Once you go on to write your book on your beliefs, philosophies etc, you can consider that to be copyrighted, but not during the formulation period.
PHYSFORUM have also made it clear, that by posting anything to any board, will make that information public and you are even warned to not place personal information in your postings.
If you decide to post a list which you consider to be personal and private and copyrighted on the forum, you cannot hold PHYSFORUM liable for any loss, as you were warned it was public information once it was posted. Public information is the antithesis of copyrighted material. It is in my opinion in The Public Domain.
PHYSFORUM may be a private owned entity (although there is no evidence of that) and even if it is, applying Reno Vs ACLUthe context of the forum has to be evaluated to determine the purpose and function of this forum.
The purpose of the PHYSFORUM site, is the sharing of ideas. A phrase such as "God does not exist" is an idea, and cannot be copyrighted.
This is my personal opinion and not that of PHYSFORM in any way whatsoever.
You are almost as bad as Nopeda.
You assume that private property can not be a public place.
You assume public equates with public domain.
Physforum not making money would have no real bearing on copyright of material contained within it. Material does not lose copyright when it's put in library.
The vast majority of web sites that make money do not charge to use it.
And way to twist things. I would say that physforum not claiming ownership would make it less public domain.
and a public place does not equate with public domain.
Another analogy, if you leave your bike unlocked on the sidewalk you are not giving anyone the right to take it. It will probably be stolen but you have not given your bike away legally. Just because you can't practically enforce a copyright does not mean you don't have it.
Did you even read Arthur's link?
AND the most important thing is you keep saying "if it has been copyrighted"
Stop saying that and start saying "if the author has not yet put the material in the public domain."
I really don't understand what you think must be done to copyright something. All the author has to do is create it. It is automatically copyrighted.
It takes action to put it in public domain not action to copyright it. (until it expires)
That is the most fundamental aspect that I think you don't understand.
do you understand that the song "happy birthday" is copyright? You don't hear it in movies as much as you would expect because you have to pay to use it in a movie.
You assume that private property can not be a public place.
You assume public equates with public domain.
Physforum not making money would have no real bearing on copyright of material contained within it. Material does not lose copyright when it's put in library.
The vast majority of web sites that make money do not charge to use it.
And way to twist things. I would say that physforum not claiming ownership would make it less public domain.
and a public place does not equate with public domain.
Another analogy, if you leave your bike unlocked on the sidewalk you are not giving anyone the right to take it. It will probably be stolen but you have not given your bike away legally. Just because you can't practically enforce a copyright does not mean you don't have it.
Did you even read Arthur's link?
AND the most important thing is you keep saying "if it has been copyrighted"
Stop saying that and start saying "if the author has not yet put the material in the public domain."
I really don't understand what you think must be done to copyright something. All the author has to do is create it. It is automatically copyrighted.
It takes action to put it in public domain not action to copyright it. (until it expires)
That is the most fundamental aspect that I think you don't understand.
do you understand that the song "happy birthday" is copyright? You don't hear it in movies as much as you would expect because you have to pay to use it in a movie.
Yet again, my friend . Fred may have not read the link provided.
QUOTE
. Did you even read Arthur's link?
. Interesting and funny stuff. You can say interestingly funny stuff. At the end of the day i've learnt not to take things for granted. I'll have to re-visit most thing i think i know. You see, i use to think copyrighting was almost synonymous to patenting, as you have to physicaly present the claim. It follows that i know nothing about patenting either.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 7 2010, 03:41 PM)
You are almost as bad as Nopeda.
In what way am I almost as bad as NoPeda?
In what way am I almost as bad as NoPeda?
QUOTE
You assume that private property can not be a public place.
Legally it cannot. They are legally defined in very different ways. Do some research. Follow your own advice. You are entitled in law to do certain things in a public place that you may not be allowed to do on someones private property. For example stand on a soap box and make a political criticism. I doubt a mall would allow that.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You assume that private property can not be a public place. |
Legally it cannot. They are legally defined in very different ways. Do some research. Follow your own advice. You are entitled in law to do certain things in a public place that you may not be allowed to do on someones private property. For example stand on a soap box and make a political criticism. I doubt a mall would allow that.
You assume public equates with public domain.
You assume public equates with public domain.
I am not sure what you mean here by "public". Do you mean the public at large or if something is public information?
QUOTE
Physforum not making money would have no real bearing on copyright of material contained within it.
You are mis informed about the law on copyright. It has a distinct bearing.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Physforum not making money would have no real bearing on copyright of material contained within it. |
You are mis informed about the law on copyright. It has a distinct bearing.
Material does not lose copyright when it's put in library.
Material does not lose copyright when it's put in library.
I did not say it did.
QUOTE
The vast majority of web sites that make money do not charge to use it.
They make their money some how, but please provide examples of these "vast majority" that make money, and I can comment more fully thereon.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The vast majority of web sites that make money do not charge to use it. |
They make their money some how, but please provide examples of these "vast majority" that make money, and I can comment more fully thereon.
And way to twist things. I would say that physforum not claiming ownership would make it less public domain.
And way to twist things. I would say that physforum not claiming ownership would make it less public domain.
I am not twisting anything, I am stating my opinion. Please clarify what you mean by "it", are you referring to PHYSFORUM or the posts made on PHYSFORUM?
QUOTE
and a public place does not equate with public domain.
Maybe not, but information that is not copyrightable and that is distributed in a public place, is part of The Public Domain.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and a public place does not equate with public domain. |
Maybe not, but information that is not copyrightable and that is distributed in a public place, is part of The Public Domain.
Another analogy, if you leave your bike unlocked on the sidewalk you are not giving anyone the right to take it. It will probably be stolen but you have not given your bike away legally. Just because you can't practically enforce a copyright does not mean you don't have it.
Another analogy, if you leave your bike unlocked on the sidewalk you are not giving anyone the right to take it. It will probably be stolen but you have not given your bike away legally. Just because you can't practically enforce a copyright does not mean you don't have it.
I did not say this. I said you cannot copyright an idea.
QUOTE
Did you even read Arthur's link?
I did, thank you Arthur.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you even read Arthur's link? |
I did, thank you Arthur.
AND the most important thing is you keep saying "if it has been copyrighted"
AND the most important thing is you keep saying "if it has been copyrighted"
Please indicate which post I said that so I can check the context.
QUOTE
I really don't understand what you think must be done to copyright something. All the author has to do is create it. It is automatically copyrighted.
If that which the author has written is copyrightable. You are assuming everything you write is copyrightable, but I am afraid you misunderstand the law of copyright. Read Arthurs post again, and you will see what I mean. You cannot copyright a fact for example "A day has 24 hours in it" . Just because you wrote that, does not mean it is copyrightable. Get it. There are things that cannot be copyright protected in the first instance, so whether you write them or not, they are not copyrightable. Get it.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I really don't understand what you think must be done to copyright something. All the author has to do is create it. It is automatically copyrighted. |
If that which the author has written is copyrightable. You are assuming everything you write is copyrightable, but I am afraid you misunderstand the law of copyright. Read Arthurs post again, and you will see what I mean. You cannot copyright a fact for example "A day has 24 hours in it" . Just because you wrote that, does not mean it is copyrightable. Get it. There are things that cannot be copyright protected in the first instance, so whether you write them or not, they are not copyrightable. Get it.
It takes action to put it in public domain not action to copyright it. (until it expires)
It takes action to put it in public domain not action to copyright it. (until it expires)
If a copyright expires, it is automatically part of the public domain. If a copyright does not exist on something (because it cannot be copyrighted) like a fact, that to is part of the public domain automatically.
QUOTE
That is the most fundamental aspect that I think you don't understand.
DittoQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is the most fundamental aspect that I think you don't understand. |
Ditto
do you understand that the song "happy birthday" is copyright? You don't hear it in movies as much as you would expect because you have to pay to use it in a movie.
do you understand that the song "happy birthday" is copyright? You don't hear it in movies as much as you would expect because you have to pay to use it in a movie.
This is the second time you have quoted this, and I will reiterate my reply. Yes I do know this, it is not such a rare piece of information. What is your point regarding this information.
Remember in your reply, the law applying to music copyright and the law aplying to an idea, are vastly different. Read up on it.
Remember in your reply, the law applying to music copyright and the law aplying to an idea, are vastly different. Read up on it.
To cut to the chase what do you think is involved in getting something copyrighted?
and read the link Arthur gave.
Do you think something have to be done to have a copyright?
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
and read the link Arthur gave.
Do you think something have to be done to have a copyright?
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 12:48 AM)
Do you think something have to be done to have a copyright?
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
c) Write your text down. It should be substantive, and not a single phrase. It is best to trademark single phrases if you want to protect them, but copyright should be a substantive text. NoPeda's list for example would undoubtedly constitute a substantive text, but where his text is an idea, that portion is not automatically covered by copyright.....such as "If god exists he most certainly must be an alien", this is conjecture.
d) Post it on line. As the medium you have chosen is the WWW, you have to assume people from all over the globe will have access to your work. You bear a responsibility at this point to make it clear that your work is copyrighted. The laws on copyright vary from country to country, and currently, there are a few countries that specifically require you to include a copyright message in the text, in order to acquire copyright protection.
In those countries, just because you wrote or created it does not mean it is copyrighted. The best thing to do is include the reference "Copyright 2010 Fredinjeddah" for example or the symbol (which some countries do not accept) " © 2010 Fredinjeddah". This would eliminate any risk of someone claiming they did not know, and in almost every country around the world, this created text would be considered copyright........but remember that regardless of any copyright sign etc, if it is not copyrightable in the first place, (an idea or fact), the copyright reference does not apply to that portion of the text.
However, if a fact such as "a day has 24 hours" is written creatively such as " In the length of the day, which ticks by so slowly, it is hard to fathom that it only consists of 24 hours" that text as written is clearly copyrightable, even though it contains a fact. It seems confusing, but that is the current international acceptance of copyright.
The law determines, that the more virulent you are in making it clear that the work is copyright protected, the greater the damages you will receive if someone infringes on your copyright.
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
QUOTE
To cut to the chase what do you think is involved in getting something copyrighted?
a) The material must be copyrightable. It cannot be a fact or an idea or conjecture for example. b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
c) Write your text down. It should be substantive, and not a single phrase. It is best to trademark single phrases if you want to protect them, but copyright should be a substantive text. NoPeda's list for example would undoubtedly constitute a substantive text, but where his text is an idea, that portion is not automatically covered by copyright.....such as "If god exists he most certainly must be an alien", this is conjecture.
d) Post it on line. As the medium you have chosen is the WWW, you have to assume people from all over the globe will have access to your work. You bear a responsibility at this point to make it clear that your work is copyrighted. The laws on copyright vary from country to country, and currently, there are a few countries that specifically require you to include a copyright message in the text, in order to acquire copyright protection.
In those countries, just because you wrote or created it does not mean it is copyrighted. The best thing to do is include the reference "Copyright 2010 Fredinjeddah" for example or the symbol (which some countries do not accept) " © 2010 Fredinjeddah". This would eliminate any risk of someone claiming they did not know, and in almost every country around the world, this created text would be considered copyright........but remember that regardless of any copyright sign etc, if it is not copyrightable in the first place, (an idea or fact), the copyright reference does not apply to that portion of the text.
However, if a fact such as "a day has 24 hours" is written creatively such as " In the length of the day, which ticks by so slowly, it is hard to fathom that it only consists of 24 hours" that text as written is clearly copyrightable, even though it contains a fact. It seems confusing, but that is the current international acceptance of copyright.
The law determines, that the more virulent you are in making it clear that the work is copyright protected, the greater the damages you will receive if someone infringes on your copyright.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To cut to the chase what do you think is involved in getting something copyrighted? |
a) The material must be copyrightable. It cannot be a fact or an idea or conjecture for example.
b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
c) Write your text down. It should be substantive, and not a single phrase. It is best to trademark single phrases if you want to protect them, but copyright should be a substantive text. NoPeda's list for example would undoubtedly constitute a substantive text, but where his text is an idea, that portion is not automatically covered by copyright.....such as "If god exists he most certainly must be an alien", this is conjecture.
d) Post it on line. As the medium you have chosen is the WWW, you have to assume people from all over the globe will have access to your work. You bear a responsibility at this point to make it clear that your work is copyrighted. The laws on copyright vary from country to country, and currently, there are a few countries that specifically require you to include a copyright message in the text, in order to acquire copyright protection.
In those countries, just because you wrote or created it does not mean it is copyrighted. The best thing to do is include the reference "Copyright 2010 Fredinjeddah" for example or the symbol (which some countries do not accept) " © 2010 Fredinjeddah". This would eliminate any risk of someone claiming they did not know, and in almost every country around the world, this created text would be considered copyright........but remember that regardless of any copyright sign etc, if it is not copyrightable in the first place, (an idea or fact), the copyright reference does not apply to that portion of the text.
However, if a fact such as "a day has 24 hours" is written creatively such as " In the length of the day, which ticks by so slowly, it is hard to fathom that it only consists of 24 hours" that text as written is clearly copyrightable, even though it contains a fact. It seems confusing, but that is the current international acceptance of copyright.
The law determines, that the more virulent you are in making it clear that the work is copyright protected, the greater the damages you will receive if someone infringes on your copyright.
and read the link Arthur gave.
b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
c) Write your text down. It should be substantive, and not a single phrase. It is best to trademark single phrases if you want to protect them, but copyright should be a substantive text. NoPeda's list for example would undoubtedly constitute a substantive text, but where his text is an idea, that portion is not automatically covered by copyright.....such as "If god exists he most certainly must be an alien", this is conjecture.
d) Post it on line. As the medium you have chosen is the WWW, you have to assume people from all over the globe will have access to your work. You bear a responsibility at this point to make it clear that your work is copyrighted. The laws on copyright vary from country to country, and currently, there are a few countries that specifically require you to include a copyright message in the text, in order to acquire copyright protection.
In those countries, just because you wrote or created it does not mean it is copyrighted. The best thing to do is include the reference "Copyright 2010 Fredinjeddah" for example or the symbol (which some countries do not accept) " © 2010 Fredinjeddah". This would eliminate any risk of someone claiming they did not know, and in almost every country around the world, this created text would be considered copyright........but remember that regardless of any copyright sign etc, if it is not copyrightable in the first place, (an idea or fact), the copyright reference does not apply to that portion of the text.
However, if a fact such as "a day has 24 hours" is written creatively such as " In the length of the day, which ticks by so slowly, it is hard to fathom that it only consists of 24 hours" that text as written is clearly copyrightable, even though it contains a fact. It seems confusing, but that is the current international acceptance of copyright.
The law determines, that the more virulent you are in making it clear that the work is copyright protected, the greater the damages you will receive if someone infringes on your copyright.
and read the link Arthur gave.
I am not sure if you are being purposefully irritating, or if you were just born this way. I have read the link, I have stated so quite clearly. If you think something in the link contradicts what I say, POINT IT OUT, but stop telling me to read the link I have already read. At least there was no reference to happy birthday in this post!
b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
Show me in the law where that is a requirement.
It is a practical requirement though
Have you read copyright law?
Not that matters you say you read Arthur's link.
I'm going by the books and magazines and such I have on the subject, you seem to be the one going by what you believe.
And you are moving the goal posts same as you accuse Nopeda of doing.
I said if he wrote his list and the other guy used it pretty darn close then Nopeda has the copyright. I never said he has a case in court or that he could even get a cease and desist order issued. Just that he has copyright and didn't lose it posting here.
From the article.
You read that? and still argue?
How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
and more
You read that? and still argue?
How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
and more
Whatever your reason, its irrelevant - you control the copyright, and its your prerogative.
you really read the article? Really?
The whole thing contradicts what you are saying.
And you don't even understand the term Public Domain.
You get specific on the wrong things.
Oh and there are countries with basically no copyright laws. So how does that play into it when AFAIK Nopeda is American on an Amercian board, and the other Author is American publishing in the States?
And Boit how did he score points with that?
He is going by what he thinks. I'm going by what the law says.
you don't give up your copyright by posting here.
And Ive been talking about the list the whole time. Yes the author changed it a bit but it is still substantially the same drivel that Nopeda wrote which gives him the copyright to his expression and he did not give it up by posting here.
QUOTE
Do you think something have to be done to have a copyright?
Writing something down does not give automatic copyright. This is a laymans understanding of copyright, and is sadly perpetuated by on line web sites who try argue this. Copyright law is far more complex than that. It differs from country to country and from subject material to subject material. Music copyright differs from creative copyright etc.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you think something have to be done to have a copyright? |
Writing something down does not give automatic copyright. This is a laymans understanding of copyright, and is sadly perpetuated by on line web sites who try argue this. Copyright law is far more complex than that. It differs from country to country and from subject material to subject material. Music copyright differs from creative copyright etc.
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
I say you don't have to do anything but create to have a copyright and you don't lose it if you put it in a public place like here or a library.
You are entitled to believe what you want, but the law is clear on copyright, and it is the law that governs copyright, not what you necessarily think.
QUOTE
You are entitled to believe what you want, but the law is clear on copyright, and it is the law that governs copyright, not what you necessarily think.
LOL. Trying to draw parallels between this guy and Nopeda was ill advised, it reeked of strawman argument if my understanding of the term is correct. Fred, you have scored points here, I salute you.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 8 2010, 08:42 AM)
b)Find the appropriate forum to distribute your writing, like a blog for example.
Show me in the law where that is a requirement.
It is a practical requirement though
Have you read copyright law?
Not that matters you say you read Arthur's link.
I'm going by the books and magazines and such I have on the subject, you seem to be the one going by what you believe.
And you are moving the goal posts same as you accuse Nopeda of doing.
I said if he wrote his list and the other guy used it pretty darn close then Nopeda has the copyright. I never said he has a case in court or that he could even get a cease and desist order issued. Just that he has copyright and didn't lose it posting here.
From the article.
QUOTE
There it is - your baby. You sweated over your keyboard for six hours to craft two pithy sentences that simultaneously puts down your equally arrogant colleagues and bestows upon the world the secret to free energy. You can now send your baby out to the physics.brilliant.snob newsgroup secure in the knowledge that it is protected by copyright. As such, it is legally protected from indiscriminate copying to newspapers, magazines, and even the sanrio.hello.kitty newsgroup.
You read that? and still argue?
How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
and more
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There it is - your baby. You sweated over your keyboard for six hours to craft two pithy sentences that simultaneously puts down your equally arrogant colleagues and bestows upon the world the secret to free energy. You can now send your baby out to the physics.brilliant.snob newsgroup secure in the knowledge that it is protected by copyright. As such, it is legally protected from indiscriminate copying to newspapers, magazines, and even the sanrio.hello.kitty newsgroup. |
You read that? and still argue?
How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
and more
Whatever your reason, its irrelevant - you control the copyright, and its your prerogative.
QUOTE
There are those who would like their messages spread throughout the land, and the copyright minded of them will so state in their message with some statement to the effect:
This message may be freely copied, distributed or otherwise retransmitted.
By inserting this statement into the message or in the signature line, has this person put the message into the public domain? Not quite, a grant to the public domain must be explicit.
This message may be freely copied, distributed or otherwise retransmitted.
By inserting this statement into the message or in the signature line, has this person put the message into the public domain? Not quite, a grant to the public domain must be explicit.
you really read the article? Really?
The whole thing contradicts what you are saying.
And you don't even understand the term Public Domain.
You get specific on the wrong things.
Oh and there are countries with basically no copyright laws. So how does that play into it when AFAIK Nopeda is American on an Amercian board, and the other Author is American publishing in the States?
And Boit how did he score points with that?
He is going by what he thinks. I'm going by what the law says.
you don't give up your copyright by posting here.
And Ive been talking about the list the whole time. Yes the author changed it a bit but it is still substantially the same drivel that Nopeda wrote which gives him the copyright to his expression and he did not give it up by posting here.
All this is, of course, assuming that nopeda is not Arthur P Torney. If he is then this is all a moot point.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 02:11 PM)
Yes the author changed it a bit but it is still substantially the same drivel that Nopeda wrote which gives him the copyright to his expression and he did not give it up by posting here.
Sadly I have determined, it is as pointless debating with you as it is NoPeda. You change your argument mid phase, you never reply to questions, but post enough of them, you add things to your arguments that never existed "a man told me, humans can run a 4 minute mile" without clarifying that this is a change of and a new factor entered into debate.
It takes the fun out of debating. So have a go at someone else with more patience than I have (and I have a lot).
Sadly I have determined, it is as pointless debating with you as it is NoPeda. You change your argument mid phase, you never reply to questions, but post enough of them, you add things to your arguments that never existed "a man told me, humans can run a 4 minute mile" without clarifying that this is a change of and a new factor entered into debate.
It takes the fun out of debating. So have a go at someone else with more patience than I have (and I have a lot).
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 8 2010, 03:20 PM)
All this is, of course, assuming that nopeda is not Arthur P Torney. If he is then this is all a moot point.
From my position it seems almost as
for anyone to think I might be Torney, as it is to think I might have posted things here in 2009 that I got from a book in 2010...almost.
From my position it seems almost as
for anyone to think I might be Torney, as it is to think I might have posted things here in 2009 that I got from a book in 2010...almost.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 8 2010, 10:20 AM)
All this is, of course, assuming that nopeda is not Arthur P Torney. If he is then this is all a moot point.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 8 2010, 03:44 PM)
Sadly I have determined, it is as pointless debating with you as it is NoPeda.
You can't make me wrong when I'm not, but it seems you want me to say that I am when I'm not. To say that Mallards can't dive and chase fish is MUCH more honest than it is to say that they can when that rather vague statement is talking about Mallards as a group. And as I pointed out we are now experiencing an example of people trying to deliberately dishonestly create the false impression that they can ONLY because I pointed out that they can't. The fact that they are not classified as divers should be enough to tell anyone with any particle of brain that not only did I NOT come up with the idea myself, but that other people have made the same observation and are in general agreement about it.
Whether or not there have ever been any Mallards who have successfully chased and caught fish has never been the issue, but even so I've been going along with people's attempts to find examples supporting the idea that they can. Even though it's a lame change of subject I've encouraged people to try and as far as I know they still have only one example of baby Mallards doing it, and no examples of adult Mallards doing it. They have one example of an adult who was diving for shellfish coming back with a fish and at this point that's all I've seen. Those stupid pictures someone linked don't count for anything except another dishonest attempt.
So you're complaining because I'm not cooperating by:
1. accepting things as evidence when they are not.
2. changing my own pov because of those things which are not evidence.
Also remember that the same group of people who are trying to make it appear that Mallards can dive and chase fish, are the ones who tried to persuade me to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
You can't make me wrong when I'm not, but it seems you want me to say that I am when I'm not. To say that Mallards can't dive and chase fish is MUCH more honest than it is to say that they can when that rather vague statement is talking about Mallards as a group. And as I pointed out we are now experiencing an example of people trying to deliberately dishonestly create the false impression that they can ONLY because I pointed out that they can't. The fact that they are not classified as divers should be enough to tell anyone with any particle of brain that not only did I NOT come up with the idea myself, but that other people have made the same observation and are in general agreement about it.
Whether or not there have ever been any Mallards who have successfully chased and caught fish has never been the issue, but even so I've been going along with people's attempts to find examples supporting the idea that they can. Even though it's a lame change of subject I've encouraged people to try and as far as I know they still have only one example of baby Mallards doing it, and no examples of adult Mallards doing it. They have one example of an adult who was diving for shellfish coming back with a fish and at this point that's all I've seen. Those stupid pictures someone linked don't count for anything except another dishonest attempt.
So you're complaining because I'm not cooperating by:
1. accepting things as evidence when they are not.
2. changing my own pov because of those things which are not evidence.
Also remember that the same group of people who are trying to make it appear that Mallards can dive and chase fish, are the ones who tried to persuade me to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 8 2010, 03:44 PM)
Sadly I have determined, it is as pointless debating with you as it is NoPeda. You change your argument mid phase, you never reply to questions, but post enough of them, you add things to your arguments that never existed "a man told me, humans can run a 4 minute mile" without clarifying that this is a change of and a new factor entered into debate.
It takes the fun out of debating. So have a go at someone else with more patience than I have (and I have a lot).
I honestly didn't think I had to explain that.
I thought the essence of the parallel was painfully obvious.
Your red herring distractions to the parallel don't matter one whit.
What did I change of a fundamental nature?
I was talking about statements of the form "population X can do activity Y"
Are you going to say I changed again because this time I said x and y?
Nopeda was arguing one thing and the people arguing against him were arguing something different.
When Nopeda said "can't" he was talking in general. The other poeple were talking "ever". As in that Nopeda meant that no mallard can dive and catch fish.
Although if he had been honest he would have said that he had meant in general and admitted that there have been cases of mallards diving and catching fish.
Go back over the records and change every time Nopeda talked about mallards catching fish and replace it with humans running a four minute mile. Then tell me the analogy is illogical.
It takes the fun out of debating. So have a go at someone else with more patience than I have (and I have a lot).
I honestly didn't think I had to explain that.
I thought the essence of the parallel was painfully obvious.
Your red herring distractions to the parallel don't matter one whit.
What did I change of a fundamental nature?
I was talking about statements of the form "population X can do activity Y"
Are you going to say I changed again because this time I said x and y?
Nopeda was arguing one thing and the people arguing against him were arguing something different.
When Nopeda said "can't" he was talking in general. The other poeple were talking "ever". As in that Nopeda meant that no mallard can dive and catch fish.
Although if he had been honest he would have said that he had meant in general and admitted that there have been cases of mallards diving and catching fish.
Go back over the records and change every time Nopeda talked about mallards catching fish and replace it with humans running a four minute mile. Then tell me the analogy is illogical.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 05:09 PM)
I honestly didn't think I had to explain that.
I thought the essence of the parallel was painfully obvious.
Your red herring distractions to the parallel don't matter one whit.
What did I change of a fundamental nature?
I was talking about statements of the form "population X can do activity Y"
Are you going to say I changed again because this time I said x and y?
Nopeda was arguing one thing and the people arguing against him were arguing something different.
When Nopeda said "can't" he was talking in general. The other poeple were talking "ever". As in that Nopeda meant that no mallard can dive and catch fish.
Although if he had been honest he would have said that he had meant in general and admitted that there have been cases of mallards diving and catching fish.
Go back over the records and change every time Nopeda talked about mallards catching fish and replace it with humans running a four minute mile. Then tell me the analogy is illogical.
It wasn't and it isn't. See my reply under that thread.
I thought the essence of the parallel was painfully obvious.
Your red herring distractions to the parallel don't matter one whit.
What did I change of a fundamental nature?
I was talking about statements of the form "population X can do activity Y"
Are you going to say I changed again because this time I said x and y?
Nopeda was arguing one thing and the people arguing against him were arguing something different.
When Nopeda said "can't" he was talking in general. The other poeple were talking "ever". As in that Nopeda meant that no mallard can dive and catch fish.
Although if he had been honest he would have said that he had meant in general and admitted that there have been cases of mallards diving and catching fish.
Go back over the records and change every time Nopeda talked about mallards catching fish and replace it with humans running a four minute mile. Then tell me the analogy is illogical.
It wasn't and it isn't. See my reply under that thread.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2010, 04:14 PM)
You can't make me wrong when I'm not, but it seems you want me to say that I am when I'm not.
QUOTE
To say that Mallards can't dive and chase fish is MUCH more honest than it is to say that they can when that rather vague statement is talking about Mallards as a group.
But none of us are saying they do always dive and catch fish, only that they can and it has been recorded that some do.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To say that Mallards can't dive and chase fish is MUCH more honest than it is to say that they can when that rather vague statement is talking about Mallards as a group. |
But none of us are saying they do always dive and catch fish, only that they can and it has been recorded that some do.
And as I pointed out we are now experiencing an example of people trying to deliberately dishonestly create the false impression that they can ONLY because I pointed out that they can't.
And as I pointed out we are now experiencing an example of people trying to deliberately dishonestly create the false impression that they can ONLY because I pointed out that they can't.
It only seems to be you saying this, not anyone else. No one in reply (that I can recall) has said Mallard ducks are ONLY diving ducks, and ONLY catch and eat ONLY fish. They are saying that there are examples of this happening though.
You are putting words into your opponents mouth that do not exist, because you want to be the super duper winner of the debate, and you wanna be right.
If Mallard ducks have been witnessed to dive and hunt for fish, and someone provides sufficient evidence, that this seems to be a common practice, then the classification would change. As it is now, it seems to be an exception, so that is why the classification stands, BUT science is a changing study, not a fixed one like the bible.
You are putting words into your opponents mouth that do not exist, because you want to be the super duper winner of the debate, and you wanna be right.
QUOTE
The fact that they are not classified as divers should be enough to tell anyone with any particle of brain that not only did I NOT come up with the idea myself, but that other people have made the same observation and are in general agreement about it.
No one , other than you is arguing this. Stop saying things that are not true, or people will label you a liar. Remember, classifications are not written in stone, they can change, and I am sure some species classifications have changed, as other more scientific observations have been made. If Mallard ducks have been witnessed to dive and hunt for fish, and someone provides sufficient evidence, that this seems to be a common practice, then the classification would change. As it is now, it seems to be an exception, so that is why the classification stands, BUT science is a changing study, not a fixed one like the bible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that they are not classified as divers should be enough to tell anyone with any particle of brain that not only did I NOT come up with the idea myself, but that other people have made the same observation and are in general agreement about it. |
No one , other than you is arguing this. Stop saying things that are not true, or people will label you a liar. Remember, classifications are not written in stone, they can change, and I am sure some species classifications have changed, as other more scientific observations have been made.
If Mallard ducks have been witnessed to dive and hunt for fish, and someone provides sufficient evidence, that this seems to be a common practice, then the classification would change. As it is now, it seems to be an exception, so that is why the classification stands, BUT science is a changing study, not a fixed one like the bible.
Whether or not there have ever been any Mallards who have successfully chased and caught fish has never been the issue, but even so I've been going along with people's attempts to find examples supporting the idea that they can.
If Mallard ducks have been witnessed to dive and hunt for fish, and someone provides sufficient evidence, that this seems to be a common practice, then the classification would change. As it is now, it seems to be an exception, so that is why the classification stands, BUT science is a changing study, not a fixed one like the bible.
Whether or not there have ever been any Mallards who have successfully chased and caught fish has never been the issue, but even so I've been going along with people's attempts to find examples supporting the idea that they can.
WOW. This has been your very issue. You do not believe ANY mallard can dive and catch fish, and have gone to great pains to argue exactly that. Now its not the issue. Just admit you were wrong. The longer you perpetuate your false belief, the harder it is to admit you were wrong, but ultimately, you are only fooling yourself.
QUOTE
Even though it's a lame change of subject I've encouraged people to try and as far as I know they still have only one example of baby Mallards doing it, and no examples of adult Mallards doing it.
Again not true. Examples have been provided.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even though it's a lame change of subject I've encouraged people to try and as far as I know they still have only one example of baby Mallards doing it, and no examples of adult Mallards doing it. |
Again not true. Examples have been provided.
They have one example of an adult who was diving for shellfish coming back with a fish and at this point that's all I've seen.
They have one example of an adult who was diving for shellfish coming back with a fish and at this point that's all I've seen.
Pray tell how you know that Mallard was diving for shellfish and not fish. Do you talk to a collective of Mallards and you know this duck personally?
Get help, if not for us, for yourself. I mean it, get help!
QUOTE
Also remember that the same group of people who are trying to make it appear that Mallards can dive and chase fish, are the ones who tried to persuade me to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
People are entitled to their opinions. Just because they say one thing somewhere, does not make them neccesarily wrong somewhere else. Because you have lost your argument, you are now starting a personal character attack. Soooo transparent! native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. Get help, if not for us, for yourself. I mean it, get help!
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2010, 02:11 PM)
you really read the article? Really?
QUOTE
Show me in the law where that is a requirement.
It is a practical requirement though
I quoted Reno vs ACLU. Read it.It is a practical requirement though
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Show me in the law where that is a requirement. It is a practical requirement though |
I quoted Reno vs ACLU. Read it.
Have you read copyright law?
Have you read copyright law?
Yes I have.
QUOTE
Not that matters you say you read Arthur's link.
The link is interesting, but that is not reading law.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not that matters you say you read Arthur's link. |
The link is interesting, but that is not reading law.
I'm going by the books and magazines and such I have on the subject, you seem to be the one going by what you believe.
I'm going by the books and magazines and such I have on the subject, you seem to be the one going by what you believe.
Try reading a law book, or cited case history, that is actually where the law is contained in. I am going by what I have been taught, and what I have formulated after reading case history, which ultimately accumilates in what I believe.
QUOTE
And you are moving the goal posts same as you accuse Nopeda of doing.
I would ask you for an example, but you will not provide one, because you do what NoPeda does, make a statement of opinion with no evidence. But please give me an example of where I am moving the goal paost.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you are moving the goal posts same as you accuse Nopeda of doing. |
I would ask you for an example, but you will not provide one, because you do what NoPeda does, make a statement of opinion with no evidence. But please give me an example of where I am moving the goal paost.
I said if he wrote his list and the other guy used it pretty darn close then Nopeda has the copyright. I never said he has a case in court or that he could even get a cease and desist order issued. Just that he has copyright and didn't lose it posting here.
I said if he wrote his list and the other guy used it pretty darn close then Nopeda has the copyright. I never said he has a case in court or that he could even get a cease and desist order issued. Just that he has copyright and didn't lose it posting here.
Where did you say this?
QUOTE
You read that? and still argue?
How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
Vastly different. I never referred to the list NoPeda made, only the statement "If god exists he must undoubtedly be an alien". This statement is conjecture. It is an idea. It is not a scientific formulae that solves the problems of world energy as per the example.How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You read that? and still argue? How is Nopeda's list any different from the "two pithy sentences", how is "physics.brilliant.snob" any difference from here? |
Vastly different. I never referred to the list NoPeda made, only the statement "If god exists he must undoubtedly be an alien". This statement is conjecture. It is an idea. It is not a scientific formulae that solves the problems of world energy as per the example.
The whole thing contradicts what you are saying.
The whole thing contradicts what you are saying.
No it doesn't it supports my argument. You cannot copyright an idea or a fact or conjecture in the first place.
QUOTE
Oh and there are countries with basically no copyright laws.
Try reading what I write. I said: QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh and there are countries with basically no copyright laws. |
Try reading what I write. I said: The laws on copyright vary from country to country, and currently, there are a few countries that specifically require you to include a copyright message in the text, in order to acquire copyright protection. In those countries, just because you wrote or created it does not mean it is copyrighted.
Where do I say some countries have no copyright laws? I know you wont answer this , because you never answer any question I ask.
The question is always, where and when did the alleged infringment occur? (hypothetically speaking now)
In my opinion the infringment would have occured when Thornton published his book on line. If he published it in the US, then it should fall under the state in the US where Thornton resides and/or published from. That States laws on copyright would have to be read and consulted.
QUOTE
So how does that play into it when AFAIK Nopeda is American on an Amercian board, and the other Author is American publishing in the States?
Jurisdiction on the internet is another very complicated issue.The question is always, where and when did the alleged infringment occur? (hypothetically speaking now)
In my opinion the infringment would have occured when Thornton published his book on line. If he published it in the US, then it should fall under the state in the US where Thornton resides and/or published from. That States laws on copyright would have to be read and consulted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So how does that play into it when AFAIK Nopeda is American on an Amercian board, and the other Author is American publishing in the States? |
Jurisdiction on the internet is another very complicated issue.
The question is always, where and when did the alleged infringment occur? (hypothetically speaking now)
In my opinion the infringment would have occured when Thornton published his book on line. If he published it in the US, then it should fall under the state in the US where Thornton resides and/or published from. That States laws on copyright would have to be read and consulted.
And Boit how did he score points with that?He is going by what he thinks. I'm going by what the law says.
The question is always, where and when did the alleged infringment occur? (hypothetically speaking now)
In my opinion the infringment would have occured when Thornton published his book on line. If he published it in the US, then it should fall under the state in the US where Thornton resides and/or published from. That States laws on copyright would have to be read and consulted.
And Boit how did he score points with that?He is going by what he thinks. I'm going by what the law says.
You mean the law (of which State in the US we don't know) you read in magazines and on web sites?
QUOTE
you don't give up your copyright by posting here.
It becomes public information when you post on this forum. You can only give something up, such as copyright, if you have it in the first instance.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you don't give up your copyright by posting here. |
It becomes public information when you post on this forum. You can only give something up, such as copyright, if you have it in the first instance.
And Ive been talking about the list the whole time. Yes the author changed it a bit but it is still substantially the same drivel that Nopeda wrote which gives him the copyright to his expression and he did not give it up by posting here.
And Ive been talking about the list the whole time. Yes the author changed it a bit but it is still substantially the same drivel that Nopeda wrote which gives him the copyright to his expression and he did not give it up by posting here.
I do not recall Thornton using anything more than one sentence, but correct me if I am wrong. (And please give me an actual reference to a page in the book I can check)
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 9 2010, 02:49 PM)
Pray tell how you know that Mallard was diving for shellfish and not fish. Do you talk to a collective of Mallards and you know this duck personally?
I was wrong about that part, but up until yesterday I had thought that particular example was from one of the groups who were diving for shelfish. I was wrong about it being part of one of those groups. The fact that it was only down for about 3 seconds instead of a longer period of time like the shellfish divers is MORE indication that it just happened across a dead or injured fish so there was no chase. You apparently imagine a chase. I do not.
I was wrong about that part, but up until yesterday I had thought that particular example was from one of the groups who were diving for shelfish. I was wrong about it being part of one of those groups. The fact that it was only down for about 3 seconds instead of a longer period of time like the shellfish divers is MORE indication that it just happened across a dead or injured fish so there was no chase. You apparently imagine a chase. I do not.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 9 2010, 03:37 PM)
I never referred to the list NoPeda made, only the statement "If god exists he must undoubtedly be an alien". This statement is conjecture. It is an idea. It is not a scientific formulae
I never made that statement. It's beginning to look very much like you can't be trusted.
I never made that statement. It's beginning to look very much like you can't be trusted.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2010, 10:51 AM)
I never made that statement. It's beginning to look very much like you can't be trusted.
Yikes.
He quoted you correctly to start with:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=465506
Later he merely switched "certainly" with its synonym "undoubtedly" when using it as an example of an idea (the use was NOT in any debate about the veracity of the actual statement you made)
And since the definition of undoubtedly is in fact certainly, it's hardly an example of him claiming you had a position you did not in fact have.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/undoubtedly
To derive from that mere switching of words with equivalent meaning that he can't be trusted is an extreme position, not supported by the facts.
It does however reinforce the fact that YOU can't be trusted.
Arthur
Yikes.
He quoted you correctly to start with:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=465506
Later he merely switched "certainly" with its synonym "undoubtedly" when using it as an example of an idea (the use was NOT in any debate about the veracity of the actual statement you made)
And since the definition of undoubtedly is in fact certainly, it's hardly an example of him claiming you had a position you did not in fact have.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/undoubtedly
To derive from that mere switching of words with equivalent meaning that he can't be trusted is an extreme position, not supported by the facts.
It does however reinforce the fact that YOU can't be trusted.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.