[nafex] Re: copyright & "terms of use"

[prcenter@webtv.net]

--- In nafex@egroups.com, fluffy bunny <the.fluffy.bunny@j...> wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> 
> As has already been pointed out by others you are wrong
> 
> My reply:
> 
> I suggest in the future you try reading in context before you make such
> unanimous statements.    The paragraph that proceeded your commentary
> made allowance for educational institutions, which is one of the
> quintessential components of your argument.
> 
> As our list moderator has subtely directed that this thread die, I
> suggest we both walk away from this or continue this in private e-mail. 
> 
> Very truly yours,
> 
>                       TFB
>

Well... here is your entire statement (in context):

(Warning! The following inforation has been ripped off from the NAFEX e-lis=
t website. Without permission of the author(s). and although this is illegal=
 according to the premis of some it is common practice even with those who c=
laim to frown on such things...)

"     Message 5667 of 5705

 From: fluffy bunny  <the.fluffy.bunny@j...>
Date: Wed Dec 13, 2000 10:44am
Subject: Re: copyright & "terms of use"

Tom Booth wrote: 
I would like to point out that this statement, rather than "holding no forc=
e" as aledged by some is actually a very clear and concise PUBLIC LEGAL DOCU=
MENT and a CONTRACT between NAFEX mambers and contributors to POMONA. 
My reply: 

Uhhh...well...Lets try it this way.   
Even if one were prepared to argue that this is a contract, it would then b=
e by definition a "unilateral" contract which in essence means anyone attemp=
ting to preserve their copyright status would be afforded the "loosest" inte=
rpretation of the law.   This in effect, would negate the alleged merits of =
the "notice" in POMONA.    
Obviously in such a circumstance the identity and status of the infringing =
party would be paramount in determing the extent to which copyright protecti=
on would be afforded.  Any corporate entity, business, of NAFEX itself would=
 be held to higher standard than would an individual passing information alo=
ng to third party. 

Very truly yours, 
                        TFB 
_________________________________________________ 

Try as I might I see no reference to "educational institutions" or making "=
allowances"...

What you do say is (warning! out of context [see above]):

"Any corporate entity, business, of NAFEX itself would be held to HIGHER ST=
ANDARD (warning! emphsis added by unscrupulous copyright infringer) than wou=
ld an individual passing information along to third party."

If you can interpret "higher standard" as "allowance"... I could understand=
 your point. But I don't.

Regardless I offer my appologies for any missunderstanding or missinterpret=
ation of your intended meaning.

As far as dropping the subject... I would certainly rather be transcribing =
back issues of POMONA for the NAFEX website than engaging in fruitless debat=
e here. Hopefully the project can now move forward.

Tom Booth

(anti-copyright notice: All rights under International and Pan-American Cop=
yright Conventions are hereby waived. I do not intend to prosicute anyone in=
 any manner whatsoever for reproducing in any form or by any means, includin=
g photostat, microfilm, xerography, or by incorporation into any information=
 retrieval system, electronic or mechanical or for forwarding posts.)


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/423498/_/976871407/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->