Re: [bolger] Re: Big Sharpies
I guess I'll never get too old to learn; I stand corrected. Bob Hicks
claims no rights, but you are on your own with the author's implicit
copyright. Thanks, Chris.
Don Hodges, back to ripping planks for inwale blocks, a job I'm more
qualified for than intellectual property law
claims no rights, but you are on your own with the author's implicit
copyright. Thanks, Chris.
Don Hodges, back to ripping planks for inwale blocks, a job I'm more
qualified for than intellectual property law
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Crandall <crandall@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Big Sharpies
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Donald Hodges wrote:
>
> > MAIB is not copyrighted, unless the author claims it for a particular
> > article. I didn't see any claim of copyright on this piece. Bob
> > Hicks doesn't pay for content and claims no rights to it. He did not
> > say it, but distribution of snips is probably beneficial to his
> > subscription list.
>
> Actually, this isn't so. If someone reprinted my MAIB articles for
> profit, I'd sue. (If not for profit, I'd write a stern postcard.)
>
> Nowadays, one needn't write "copyright" on a text to assert the right.
> Copyright is assumed--it belongs to the author--these laws changed in the
> Reagan era.
>
>
> Of course, when my articles are reprinted, with permission, I'm flattered.
> I ask for no $ and no cents, perhaps because I have a real job.
>
>
> Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
> Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
> I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
> Click Here!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/13/_/3457/_/964465769/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Donald Hodges wrote:
profit, I'd sue. (If not for profit, I'd write a stern postcard.)
Nowadays, one needn't write "copyright" on a text to assert the right.
Copyright is assumed--it belongs to the author--these laws changed in the
Reagan era.
Of course, when my articles are reprinted, with permission, I'm flattered.
I ask for no $ and no cents, perhaps because I have a real job.
Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
> MAIB is not copyrighted, unless the author claims it for a particularActually, this isn't so. If someone reprinted my MAIB articles for
> article. I didn't see any claim of copyright on this piece. Bob
> Hicks doesn't pay for content and claims no rights to it. He did not
> say it, but distribution of snips is probably beneficial to his
> subscription list.
profit, I'd sue. (If not for profit, I'd write a stern postcard.)
Nowadays, one needn't write "copyright" on a text to assert the right.
Copyright is assumed--it belongs to the author--these laws changed in the
Reagan era.
Of course, when my articles are reprinted, with permission, I'm flattered.
I ask for no $ and no cents, perhaps because I have a real job.
Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
Maybe you're right about the benefit. It sure is good advertising
for MAIB. Keep in mind that Bolger has a regular column in MAIB.
My inclination is to go to the original source and pay for
stuff like this, if it's still available. If not, I don't have any
qualms.
I might have fears, tho, if it's from one of those big organizations
that's trying to legislate eternal copyrights. Fortunately, that's
not
the case here.
For anyone who does want to get MAIB or a back issue, here's the
address:
29 Burley St.
Wenham, MA 01984-1943
I think it's $24/year for 24 issues, but that's from an issue from
last year.
My only connection to MAIB is that I subscribe.
for MAIB. Keep in mind that Bolger has a regular column in MAIB.
My inclination is to go to the original source and pay for
stuff like this, if it's still available. If not, I don't have any
qualms.
I might have fears, tho, if it's from one of those big organizations
that's trying to legislate eternal copyrights. Fortunately, that's
not
the case here.
For anyone who does want to get MAIB or a back issue, here's the
address:
29 Burley St.
Wenham, MA 01984-1943
I think it's $24/year for 24 issues, but that's from an issue from
last year.
My only connection to MAIB is that I subscribe.
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Donald Hodges" <dhodges@w...> wrote:
> MAIB is not copyrighted, unless the author claims it for a
particular
> article. I didn't see any claim of copyright on this piece. Bob
Hicks
> doesn't pay for content and claims no rights to it. He did not say
it, but
> distribution of snips is probably beneficial to his subscription
list.
>
> I believe I have a letter from him somewhere to confirm this. (I
asked
> before posting some photos on my web site.) I will not be drawn
into a
> debate or flamewar on this subject - just thought some might not
know it.
> Over and out...
>
> Don Hodges
>
> snip
> > > snip
> > My understanding is that back issues are available from MAIB
itself.
> > I
> > don't think anyone should abuse Mr. Hick's enterprise unless he
> > thinks
> > it should vanish. I certainly don't think so.
snip
MAIB is not copyrighted, unless the author claims it for a particular
article. I didn't see any claim of copyright on this piece. Bob Hicks
doesn't pay for content and claims no rights to it. He did not say it, but
distribution of snips is probably beneficial to his subscription list.
I believe I have a letter from him somewhere to confirm this. (I asked
before posting some photos on my web site.) I will not be drawn into a
debate or flamewar on this subject - just thought some might not know it.
Over and out...
Don Hodges
article. I didn't see any claim of copyright on this piece. Bob Hicks
doesn't pay for content and claims no rights to it. He did not say it, but
distribution of snips is probably beneficial to his subscription list.
I believe I have a letter from him somewhere to confirm this. (I asked
before posting some photos on my web site.) I will not be drawn into a
debate or flamewar on this subject - just thought some might not know it.
Over and out...
Don Hodges
----- Original Message -----
From: Lincoln Ross <lincolnr@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 8:23 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Big Sharpies
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
> > Perk!
> >
> > Anyone got wanna send me a xerox of the below article? (Copyright
> be
> damned!)
> >
> > snip
> My understanding is that back issues are available from MAIB itself.
> I
> don't think anyone should abuse Mr. Hick's enterprise unless he
> thinks
> it should vanish. I certainly don't think so.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/7078/13/_/3457/_/964358620/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>