Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > HTML Templates

Reply
Thread Tools

HTML Templates

 
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
In article <wlFYm.1417$(E-Mail Removed)>, William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but you don't get to pick your own definitions, especially for terms
>> that have well-established and internationally recognized meanings.

>And exactly how long have you believed that little things like facts or
>"well-established and internationally recognized meanings" have had any
>bearing whatsoever on what Neredbojias choses to believe is reality?
>

I haven't been participating in this newsgroup long enough to have formed any
opinions regarding the degree to which he or any of the other participants are
in contact with reality.

It looks as though that will change soon.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
dorayme wrote:

> He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
> repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
> to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
> the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.
>

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a fully working share.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
dorayme wrote:

> He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
> repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
> to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
> the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.
>

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a working share.

--
Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
dorayme wrote:

> He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
> repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
> to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
> the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.
>

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a working share.

--
Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
dorayme wrote:

> He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
> repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
> to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
> the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.
>

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain an adequate share.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
writing in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writing in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) .net:
>>
>> As with everything else, it's burden of proof. If I have a doodad

that
>> I created on January 1, 1998 and you make a copy of it and publish it

on
>> June 9, 2008, if I can prove that I created the work before you
>> published it, then I'm good to go.
>>
>> That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
>> themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.
>>

>
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa....html#register
>
> See 7th paragraph titled:
>
> "I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
>


Agreed, and when someone I knew a long time ago wanted to do this, I
said, it's called Poor Man's Copyright for a reason. If you are really
serious, you need to register it. The postmark will only show proof
that the envelope existed on that date, although it might be enough in
some cases.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

 
Reply With Quote
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2009
dorayme wrote:
> He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
> repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
> to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
> the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.
>

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain an adequate share.


--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
On 24 Dec 2009, "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed). net...
>> On 23 Dec 2009, David Segall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 Dec 2009, David Segall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You can hand-draw an original image, scan it,
>>>>>>and put it on your own website
>>>>>>because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go thru the whole legal
>>>>>>process to actually do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know where you live but this is not true in the United
>>>>> States
>>>>> <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork>,
>>>>> the United Kingdom <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm>
>>>>> or Australia
>>>>> <http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf..._Howdoyouobtai
>>>>> nc opyrightprotection>.
>>>>
>>>>I read your links and found them very interesting and informative
>>>>(even the one from Australia). However, other forms of babble can
>>>>be much more entertaining and legalese was never that popular as an
>>>>art form.
>>>
>>> You gave what you thought was legal advice. It does not need to be
>>> a popular art form. It does need to be correct.
>>>
>>> A web designer that followed your advice could face a major
>>> redesign if they followed your advice and based their design on
>>> copyrighted material that they were then forced to remove.

>>
>> Okay, that *could* happen.

>
> And it does.


What percentage of the time? 0.000003%?

>> But what are the chances? And if the
>> so-called copywrighted material ain't been registered,

>
> "Registering" copyright only has any meaning in the U S of A where,
> when it is "registered", one can gain monetory compensation for the
> misuse of the copyrighted material. If it is not "registered" in the
> U S of A then one can only issue the offender with a take-down
> notice, in the U S of A.


I'm in the U S of A and am talking about the U S of A. What they do in
Pango Pango is so many ping pong balls to me.

>> there is nothing
>> to force the intrepid designer to capitulate besides pure bluff,

>
> Yes there is. The law. If the intrepid designer does not heed a court
> order to capitulate then the intrepid designer is in contempt of
> court and could very well wind up in jail. Does that sound like
> "bluff"?


Yes, it does. What are the chances? 0.000003%?

>> anyway. However, I do admit that that probably does work in the
>> majority of cases.

>
> Yes. It does. That is why it is there. That is why the Berne
> Convention has been ratified by most countries in the world.


A non-sequitir regardless of the facts, but, yes, bluff does work many
times, especially in a dogmatic environment.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...otection_of_Li
> terary_and_Artistic_Works
>
> Scroll down about two thirds where it tells you about the U S of A
> and its idea of "registered works". And note the words used there:
> "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic". I publish a
> peice of work (say a web page). I automatically have copyright over
> that page. If you take that page and use it as your own then you are
> breaking the law.


No argument with that; I never said one wasn't "breaking the law".
However, one is bound to get away with it, noneheless.

> How bout you give it a go? Steal the design from microsoft.com, use
> it as your own, tell them you have, and then see what happens.


Come on, you know that's an illogical test case, and if I *did* happen
to "inadvertantly" publish copywrighted stuff, wouldn't it be rather
stupid to advertise the fact?

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
On 24 Dec 2009, David Segall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Dec 2009, David Segall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 Dec 2009, David Segall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You can hand-draw an original image, scan it,
>>>>>>and put it on your own website
>>>>>>because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go thru the whole legal
>>>>>>process to actually do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know where you live but this is not true in the United
>>>>> States
>>>>> <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork>,
>>>>> the United Kingdom <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm>
>>>>> or Australia
>>>>> <http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf..._Howdoyouobtai
>>>>> nc opyrightprotection>.
>>>>
>>>>I read your links and found them very interesting and informative
>>>>(even the one from Australia). However, other forms of babble can
>>>>be much more entertaining and legalese was never that popular as an
>>>>art form.
>>>
>>> You gave what you thought was legal advice. It does not need to be
>>> a popular art form. It does need to be correct.
>>>
>>> A web designer that followed your advice could face a major
>>> redesign if they followed your advice and based their design on
>>> copyrighted material that they were then forced to remove.

>>
>>Okay, that *could* happen. But what are the chances? And if the
>>so-called copywrighted material ain't been registered, there is
>>nothing to force the intrepid designer to capitulate besides pure
>>bluff, anyway.

>
> Why do you persist in giving really bad legal advice? This flyer from
> the Australian Copyright Council
> <http://www.copyright.org.au/G084.pdf> explains that in most
> countries, including Australia, there is no way to register your
> work. In the United States you only need to register immediately
> before you commence legal action. The flyer also explains how to
> prove it is your work if the "intrepid designer" is stupid enough to
> steal your work and then risk paying legal fees pretending that it is
> his own.
>
> I suspect that your motive is justifying the copyright material that
> you have on your web site. Accept that you are infringing copyright
> then relax! Your web site does not attract enough traffic to justify
> attention from the heavies like Digimark
> <https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/enterprise_tracking.asp> and I
> doubt if it has made you rich enough to sue. Just remove anything if
> you are told to do so. I have added some "fine print" to my site
> <http://www.profectus.com.au/> in the hope that it will pacify any
> visiting lawyers but it is probably useless.


My only motive is to clarify the reality of the situation. I certainly
do not advocate publishing others' copyrighted material and would be
aghast if I'd found that I had accidentally done so myself.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2009
On 24 Dec 2009, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2009, Adrienne Boswell<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writing in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) .net:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Dec 2009, Sherm Pendley<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neredbojias<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. General images, too. You can hand-draw an original image,
>>>>>> scan it, and put it on your own website and I can save the file
>>>>>> and use it at will because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go
>>>>>> thru the whole legal process to actually do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the US Copyright Office FAQ:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from
>>>>> the moment the work is created. You will have to register,
>>>>> however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a
>>>>> U.S. work."
>>>>>
>>>>> From<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ""Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
>>>> No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from
>>>> the moment the work is created. You will have to register,
>>>> however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S.
>>>> work""
>>>>
>>>> So...if you DON'T register, is the "copywrite" enforcible? If
>>>> your answer is "Yes,", how?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As with everything else, it's burden of proof. If I have a doodad
>>> that I created on January 1, 1998 and you make a copy of it and
>>> publish it on June 9, 2008, if I can prove that I created the work
>>> before you published it, then I'm good to go.

>>
>> No, you're not "good to go" if you haven't registered it. As a
>> matter of fact, you're totally helpless unless and until you put the
>> ol' thinking cap on and do something that's actually constructive in
>> protecting your property.

>
> Sigh. You're simply wrong as regards the law.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa....html#register


From the above link, and I quote:

"You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for
infringement of a U.S. work."

So, if you can't bring a lawsuit, what can you do? Report it to the
"proper authorities"? And what'll they do, whoever they are?
Remember, I'm talking about typical websites here, not Google or
something like that.

>>> That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
>>> themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.

>>
>> Like what good does that do? Hmm, did some judge in Cauliflower,
>> California or somewhere equally "quaint" rule in such a manner?
>> Supposed I mailed an unsealed envelope in 1984 and then sealed
>> something in it later? Or steamed one open, etc. How do you prove
>> that the envelope and contents were intact as a package? CSI?
>> Yeah, right.
>>

>
> Agreed. See the 7th paragraph on the above linked page.


--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how to Specializations of function Templates or Overloading Function templates with Templates ? recover C++ 2 07-25-2006 02:55 AM
Monster Templates - Question about Submitting Templates Fred HTML 1 09-26-2005 01:09 AM
Templates within templates Tom McCallum C++ 2 08-04-2004 04:44 PM
Templates templates templates JKop C++ 3 07-21-2004 11:44 AM
using templates in templates John Harrison C++ 8 07-31-2003 12:00 PM



Advertisments