Used your "forum names and e-mail addresses" in the Y2K book I am having published? I have followed this forum for about a year and have cut and pasted various opinions and statements. I plan to go to press before 1 January 2000.

Are there any SYSOPS, and forum regulars or trolls for that matter, that strongly object to my printing your fake names and e-mail addresses in with the quotes from this forum? If so, please let me know on this discussion forum, otherwise you may just see it in print.

-- Author (paperback@writer.publish), October 08, 1999

Answers

I STRONGLY object to you using anything I have written, my name, which is not fake, and most CERTAINLY my e-mail address in your book. And, mainly because I think it rude for you to come here anonomously announcing your plans like this. Are you a regular? What's the book? A hundred question like that would need to be answered before you get much support around here, I would imagine...

-- (pshannon@inch.com), October 08, 1999.

I'd have to know who you are before I gave my permission.** ('course, I don't suppose my permission is necessary) Background please? What are your published works? And have you been lurking for all that time without participating in our community? Who is you? :-)

**Reminds me of a personal story. A psych professor I respected and had a horrible crush on had a great lithograph in his office; It depicted a shaded line drawing of what appeared to be a simple vending machine, coin slot on the top, and the sign read: "Permission - 25 cents"

--She in the sheet, upon her hilltop,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Well Mr. Friendly "Professor" who trolls-a-lot,

I'd object. Strongly! To your book... and intentions.

Diane
A Sysop
Real name & real e-mail

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Succintly, there is a *tremendous* danger in being recognized/known as being Y2K aware and prepared! "They won't prepare but they will remember."

Some people have gotten into the Y2K arena for fame, opportunity, profit. We just want to live, period. Fame is a total illusion and dangerous. We believe in educational outreach and helping others increase their chances of life continuation. But we are not foolish and have no desire to put ourselves in any jeopardy.

Many of us use real names & addys here. Don't be a jerk and publicize these.

Y2K is now an extremely sensitive topic for true GIs. It is no normal "news" event; it is deadly serious and tragic, and self-protection is imperative. Forum names & addys, quotes, opinions, and disclosures at this point, printed in a public book, is tantamount to a violent death sentence. No thank you!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

I am a published author. If I find ANYONE has used anything I have written without obtaining permission from me, I will pursue them to the fullest extent of the law. Why don't you go look that up, "author", and see exactly what that means -- before someone tries to rip off your writing.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 08, 1999.

If you email me your title and email address, you can get permission from my attorney, provided you sign a written statement. Otherwise, you do not have my permission at present.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), October 08, 1999.

"If so, please let me know on this discussion forum, otherwise you may just see it in print."

That sounds like a threat. Very bad vibe. What you put out will come back to you in spades. Drop it.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

I also strongly object to the use of my writings and name/e-mail address.

I'm quite curious as to why *YOU* use a pseudonym and fake e-mail address.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

The book will cover Y2K junkies, their stated preps, and lingo, i.e. pollies, GI, DGI, DWGI, etc. The incoming year will tell whether they were sold the "goods" and prepared for the biggest non-event since the last millenium, or if they had the inside track.

Not to worry Diane, I wouldn't use any real names. Maybe you'll be referred to as "Diana at Holy Places." At any rate, your 15 seconds are up.

-- ? (not@here.anymore), October 08, 1999.

Deja vu,...Marianne revisited!

Some people's kids,...sheesh!

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

This forum is not an email funnel, where the sent mail becomes in effect the property of the recipient or reader who might do with it as he/she wishes. This is a place to make individual statements, without relinquishing ANY rights or privileges of copyright in the process.

Further, this forum allows the use of pseudonyms, which implies that it recognizes the desire for privacy and in fact IS private whenever a user wishes it to be so. By using an assumed name, I am stating that this forum is PRIVATE FOR ME and that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in using it. To intentionally violate that privacy is probably actionable. Guess we'll find out in court, if we have to.

Finally, as an author myself, I EXPLICITLY deny you any permission to use anything I have said here. Several comments I have made are restatements of a work-in-progress (nothing to do with Y2k).

Do I strongly object? Yes, indeed.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), October 08, 1999.

Not only do I deny you any use of my name/adress/or anything else I damned well feel like. And as a slight warning, I'm a pervasive book-a-holic and read voraciously...esp. any Y2K books. If'n I find out you did use any of the threads, well hey we'l ALL see you in court...

provided that this 'non-event' lets you live long enuff to publish....

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Don't even think about it, son.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 08, 1999.

ISZAT YOU DRISCOL?

-- Watch (what@u.say), October 08, 1999.

Oh, my -- what a can of worms. I do believe that a sufficient evidence of strong objection from various forum posters has already been created, and all within less than an hour of this thread's appearance. "Author", I'm afraid that you don't even have the legal "out" of pleading ignorance of poster's desires anymore.

Go ahead....take a copy of this page to your (self?) publisher...see how happy this material makes them....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 08, 1999.

Unfortunately, I believe the information posted on this forum is public domain. The author could, if he chooses, list our names and email addresses. After all, how do you think autospammers work?

Another good reason for anonymity IMHO.

-- a (a@a.a), October 08, 1999.

Author,

I'm gonna git you sucka! If I was you, I'd reconsider.

-- (sickofthis@crap.com), October 08, 1999.

Author, put your name and address here. I need some target practice still with my new machine gun.

-- blaster (nail@authors.a__), October 08, 1999.

a:

Don't think so. "Intellectual property" has pretty varied definitions -- and "author" expects to profit from this announced theft....we're talking "book", here, right? A case can clearly be made that there was widespread objection to the use of individual names and other written materials. No reputable publisher would take the stuff after what I've already seen here....and, more is yet to come.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), October 08, 1999.

1) based on current copyright law, which, you as a "writer.publisher" really OUGHT to be familiar with, my words, written here, are MINE. I have NOT relinquished ANY of the publishing rights by posting them.

2) NEITHER YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE has permission to use my writing without compensating me for said.

3) Neither you nor anyone else may attribute ANYTHING to my name, which happens to be mine, or my e-mail address, which happens to be real.

4) Having served you with this notice, i REALLY don't want to see my words in print somewhere, with my or anyone elses name attached. i gots a GOOD intelectual property lawyer in the family who, while he and I don't agree on Y2K, would be given feindish delight by being permitted to take you and your book and your publishing operation apart, and divying up the remains to me and the rest of the forum.

5) What I write HERE I write for free, for people to come HERE and read, in context, for free. All OTHER venues and media pay cash.

Chuck Rienzo

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 08, 1999.

Listen bucky, the only way you could use my information is if you help me find Trampus. Otherwise, back off. My attorney will cut your testicles off with a butter knife.

-- the Virginian (and yes, I am still trying to find Trampus) (CallMyAttorney@1900LAW.YER), October 08, 1999.

I guess you should know in addition to toilet paper and tuna I've been stocking up on Whoop Ass too!

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), October 08, 1999.

Whut da night driver jes said. Ev'r' word.

Night Train

-- jes an ol footballer whose been enscrewed by better experts than y'all (nighttr@in.lane), October 08, 1999.

No.

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVER!!!!!!

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.c0m), October 08, 1999.

"Writer"

You may NOT use my name, my comments, my opinions, my email address, nor any other writing or publishing of mine, whether on this forum or from any other source, in any form, for any reason, at any time.

Permission denied.

Scum.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), October 08, 1999.

I hope this thread sufficiently answers the question raised so many times as to why some of us choose to post incognito!

-- (cujo@baddog.byte), October 08, 1999.

I personally think that the title of this thread - which separates out regular trolls from all other regulars who inhabit this web site- is prejudicial.

-- Psychotic (y2k@doom&gloom.com), October 08, 1999.

Author,

I object to you using anything that I have written. Even though my e-mail address is false, if someone were determined to find out who I was, then I wouldn't be anonymous anymore. I object to being contacted other than through my e-mail address here on this forum.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 08, 1999.

If you publish your real name I'll let you know where to send my share of the royality checks. Otherwise, no.

-- Then Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), October 08, 1999.

my name and e-mail are "real." You do not have my permission to use either or to quote any statement I have made on this forum.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), October 08, 1999.

It is written and stated here that under no certain terms do I give anyone permission to print or publish my name or my e-mail name and address, or any other assumed name that I may have used on this forum.

bardou@baloney.com

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 08, 1999.

Why the 00 buck onto this author, and the 'kid gloves' towards Marianne ? They are ALL bad news: Marianne, Andy Ray, and this current one. They are motivated by either (a) ego/vanity and/or (b) money. Not that there's much of either to be milked from this particular topic (y2k), but hey you've all seen weeds trying to live on a barren hillside right ? Wherever there's a potential niche, especially when you haven't the talent to come up with anything else, just string together random posts from a public bulletin board.

-- count vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 08, 1999.

You do not have my permission. Bug off.

-- Margaret J (janssm@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

All work by Puddintame is copyrighted. All rights reserved.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Hey,

Arn't you the guy with those 900 FBI files??

No- My Name, Email, and Text may not be used in any context other than here on this forum.

Helium

-- Helium (Heliumavid@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

P.S. Any I do not give anyone permission to print or publish anything that I have written on this forum or any other forum. And that's no baloney!

bardou@baloney.com

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 08, 1999.

You do not have permission to print anything I wrote or anything I write.

Thank you for asking.

Sally Stracbein

-- Sally Strackbein (sally@y2kkitchen.com), October 08, 1999.

I believe anything on Usenet or any other free, open access internet forum is considered to be in the public domain, unless copyrighted.

If you use your real name, e-mail, physical address on the free internet, you expose yourself to the whole world. Something to think about.

-- . (.@...), October 08, 1999.

WOW !

Somebody FINALLY got most of the folks on the board to agree about something.

Congratulations.

I knew we could probably all agree on something, I just wasn't sure what it was.

-Greybear

-- Got concensus?

ps, It's a fake name and fake address, and you can quote me on that.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), October 08, 1999.

You may not publish anything that I have written on this or any other forum without my express written permission, and without notifying me in writing of your name, address, and credentials.

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

As another published author, I'll simply say that I am explicitly denying you the right to use my words, my name, or my address, and if you do, we'll meet in court.

Inasmuch as I'm currently suing my previous publisher (a subsidiary of Viacom) for not paying me the last farthing in my due royalties, you can rest assured that I will not hesitate to point my attorneys at you, too.

Your move, toots. Be smart, and don't take it.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), October 08, 1999.

I formally request no one use my name or email address in a published work......Negligence may be proven later...Thank you!

-- Tim Johnson (timca@webtv.net), October 08, 1999.

Sure use mine if you want. My contributions to this post have been small and I would like to see how they are worthy of being in a book.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Real name here, real e-mail address.

Let's discuss fees. Sign over to me 20% of your advance from the publisher and 15% of your royalties and you've got a deal for anything I've written here. Failing that, you have no permission to use any part of it whatsoever, under my name or under a pseudonym.

This is not a popular idea, buddy. ESPECIALLY since you're hiding in the weeds. Makes a person wonder.

If you really want to do something like this, come out in the open. Initiate a forum of your own here, requesting posts on Y2K from all and sundry. Don't forget to specify up front the use you intend to make of those posts.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 08, 1999.

This is an interesting thread. I'm not an expert in copywrite law, but I can assure you that you guys can be quoted at length by anyone who wishes to do so - posting to a public forum, your material is NOT copywrited unless you so provide notice with your post. Instead, its in the public domain. And even if you DO post it as "copywrite xxxxx", anyone can STILL quote YOU according fair usage, as long as the author hasn't copied you extensively.

Its a public forum, and anything we write is subject to being quoted, including any names we use. Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 08, 1999.

Fake name, real email address. There's a reason. You have no permission to publish anything under this name.

But the book sounds interesting. The only problem is that you should not profit. And if that means it doesn't get published, that's okay too.

-- kermit (colourmegreen@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

No, you may not use anything I've written on this forum in any publication.

This decision may, of course, be rescinded providing there are a sufficient number of zeros ahead of the decimal point in my royalty check.

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), October 08, 1999.

Al-d strikes again! Ya gotta love it.

-- Watch (what@u.say), October 08, 1999.

Author,

I suggest that you have chosen a rather bad logic to the posed question. Rather than assume permission is given unless specified otherwise in this thread, you ought to assume that you do not have permission unless specifically contacted with said permission in writing.

Not everyone has time to read every post here. So just because someone does not respond does not mean they acquiesce. I realize this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

For the record, I strongly object to your publishing anything I have posted here, there or anywhere.

-- winter wondering (winterwondring@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

I won't make this long,NO!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

I suppose this is a case of closing the barn door, after the cow's long gone, but - sniff, sniff - smells like troll to me.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 08, 1999.

Factfinder,...citation please.

For all else interested in copyright (intellectual property particulars might be found as well) try here:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

US Copyright Office

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

An interesting approach to inhibiting free expression.

btw: if my writing here or email address are published, the law should be of secondary concern for you. And that is not a joke, brother.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), October 08, 1999.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't post my thoughts here to keep them a secret.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 08, 1999.

Some basics clipped from the US Copyright Office (used for educational purposes only) WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED? Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
(7) sound recordings
(8) architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression, (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Flint,...not the point at all. It is not at all about secrets. It is about who has 'legal' right to publish/earn sheckles, etc., with the intellectual property of someone else.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

NO. I second Anita Evangelista's post, above.

-- PH (ag3@interlog.com), October 08, 1999.

And here is the crux of the intellectual property issue vis a vis copyright,...and although I can't say of a certainty, I would wager it is why all that we post is that mysterious legal animal called intellectual property.

more from the US Copyright Office:

"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Donna, your discourse on copyrights is most educational but what has that got to do with this forum? Are you suggesting that U.S. copyright laws cover the postings on this forum? Who would have filed for such a copyright, and when? Seems to me that the laws of public domain would apply here but Im not an expert in this field.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 08, 1999.

Letters are owned by the originator. I also consider my writing as literary work since I earn my living as a writer. I refuse permission for the copying of my literary works in this fashion. Any use of my email address that leads to any spam or harassment will subject you, Author, to liability.

I am also a reviewer and suggest that if I see your book in print I will give it a negative review based on your lack of respect for the rights of those frequenting this forum for the free exchange of ideas.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

Well, I guess I'm in the minority, but I really don't care. This forum is already "published" just not on paper.

Looks like 2 yes, but a whole bunch of no.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Donna, your discourse on copyrights is most educational but what has that got to do with this forum? Are you suggesting that U.S. copyright laws cover the postings on this forum? Who would have filed for such a copyright, and when? Seems to me that the laws of public domain would apply here but Im not an expert in this field.

That would be exactly my point, truth@the ready, and the method to my madness. I find nothing in what I have read so far that contradicts the idea that what is here is intellectual property of each poster, and therefore may come under US Copyright Law. Like you, I am not an attorney,...(Is there a copyright attorney in the house?), but I can read.

Let's see, is that three august de-bunkers visiting this thread now? Inquiring minds yearn to know.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Because I use a netname here, I don't care if you use the name. But I do use my real email address in case there are worthwhile replies.

However, I do not like the idea of my email address being published in the open press. The idea of someone pulling my address out of a book for whatever their purpose does not set very well with me.

I ask that you reconsider any plan to use anyone's email adresses in your book.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), October 08, 1999.

Donna...

It comes under copyright law only if there was a formal filing. That much I am sure of.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 08, 1999.

No, Truth@the ready, that is not what it says:

(from my second clipped exerpt): "Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. (bold emphasis and italics mine)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Formal filing for copyright is no longer necessary.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 08, 1999.

OK, in exchange for a copy of the book, I hereby give permission to use anything I post, along with my name and address (which are real).

Should be entertaining.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 08, 1999.

Per the writer who does a fairly continuous workshop in E. Cleveland (you'd recognize his works but not his name), as the work is writen, the WRITER OWNS the RIGHTS. Posting or self publishing, or submission to a publisher, DOES NOT CHANGE THIS!!

And, in terms of quoting us extensively for Fair Use, that is for uses that are NOT PAID FOR! The WHOLE nail on which Cory et al hang the "Fair Use" of other documents. Quoting in a book is VERY DIFFERENT!

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 08, 1999.

Sysman makes sense: 'This forum is already "published" just not on paper.'

And we have all said whatever we said in public...whether we used our real email addresses speaks to the issue of how ready we are to be responsible for our words.

That said...I personally do not give permission for anything I have said to be published in this anonymous person's book. Without knowledge of the purpose of said book, knowledge of the author's person -- beyond the fact that he/she is not exactly sensitive to the context in which this discussion in ongoing -- without knowing HOW our words are to be used and in what context, or out of context, why would anyone give permission?

No, No, and again, no you do not have my permission to use any words I have written, my name or my email address.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 08, 1999.

Donna

To copyright is to file. To file is to secure an entity. You can not infringe upon that which does not exist. Our company has secured copyrights to custom software programs and I can assure you that there was no automatic assignment of a copyright. The process is time consuming and expensive, just like a patent application.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 08, 1999.

Although the name and address are not real, and I've posted little to this forum, the answer is no. No, I do not give anyone my permission to use anything I've written on this forum orany other in any published work. I now feel my cynicism and suspicions behind my remaining anonymous are justified.

-- dakota (none@thistime.com), October 08, 1999.

"No. nada. nunca. ninguno.")

Super

-- Super. (Slfsl@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

I don't get it. Are you assuming that it will even be possible to purchase a book after the date roll-over? I suppose people will have other things on their minds shortly--- like eating and staying warm!

-- Robert (worldpage@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

Old Git says that copyright filing is no longer required. As my posted experience is somewhat dated, this may be the case. Once again, any 'real' experts out there?

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 08, 1999.

You are still missing the point. The law says...as soon as created and recorded on any device copyright laws apply. Dang there's never a lawyer around when you need one, and always one around when you don't. If I'm not correct about this there are an awful lot of people suing and winning with no legal leg to stand on. However, I will be pleased to be shown the error of my ways at any time.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 08, 1999.

Author might just wish to consider that Phil G. and possibally MIT have the ownership of some of this material. After all, He/They are the ones that are providing the computer and disk storage. I would think that if someone tried to write a book with the contents of their equipment, that they might (should) have a problem with this. I know if it were my disks that the information was coming from to be published, I would go after the Author.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 08, 1999.

nope- don't do it.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), October 08, 1999.

To whom it may concern:

You have asked if you can use my name, email addresses, works, etc.

I regard my writing here and elsewhere as copyrighted and I reserve all rights to my works here and elsewhere. Some of my works may also be or "be considered to be" the property of the Greenwood Publishing Company. At this time, I also do not give permission to use my name, email addresses, or any psuedonyms that I may use or may have used. If you would like to contact me in regard to the use of my writing here or elsewhere, you may contact me at the given email address before December 1, 1999. I am printing hardcopies of this statement and they will be kept on file. If I am not reassured (in writing) that you clearly understand this statement by November 1, 1999, I may initiate any available legal action.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), October 08, 1999.

If I have posted anything that could be considered useful for your book then you have my persmission to use it. What good are my past post to me? If they can help you, then by all means put them to use.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), October 08, 1999.

From the 10 Big Myths of Copyright Explained

http://www.templetons.com/brad//copymyths.html

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to an original article posted to USENET.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

-- a (a@a.a), October 08, 1999.

For educational purposes only, of course, Ill quote the (probably copyrighted) words of my respected forum friend, de:

No, you may not use anything I've written on this forum in any publication. This decision may, of course, be rescinded providing there are a sufficient number of zeros ahead of the decimal point in my royalty check.

Those are my instructions as well, and my proviso.

In addition, in the event you have misunderstood, my instructions are exactly those stated by another respected forum colleague, bw, in the following quote, made for educational purposes only:

, I EXPLICITLY deny you any permission to use anything I have said here. Several comments I have made are restatements of a work-in- progress (nothing to do with Y2k). Do I strongly object? Yes, indeed.

I also EXPLICITYLY deny you permission to publish my name or email address.

My top-notch lawyer-friend is sitting around with some leisure time to fill, and hes itching for a good recreational lawsuit. Believe me, this would fit the bill. I figure if theres publishing happening after the dust settles, theres courts. And, Author, hed have you for lunch.

PS to Donna: You're right, in my somewhat informed opinion.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Dear Author:

Please feel free to publish this:

God Almighty will judge America very soon.

America will fall suddenly to the astonishment of the world.

The stock market will crash, Just In Time distribution will cause severe shortages, there will be a run on the banks until they are shut down, there will be famine in the land, and an uncontrollable panic will sweep our nation.

Martial law will be declared, and the precious Constitutional rights of American citizens will be forfeited by the Betrayer In Chief.

You will suffer hardships along with everyone else.

Millions will die, and many will weep deeply.

Your book will never get published; you are wasting your time.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), October 08, 1999.

That addresses the copyright, now what about email addresses? Are considered public domain once published? Aren't telephone numbers?

-- a (a@a.a), October 08, 1999.

I strongly object to your taking and publishing anything I have written on this forum. I did not offer it for that purpose. It was written in a specific context on a particular thread, to the participants of this forum. It was not intended for publication. Please respect the wishes of the participants.

regards,

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), October 08, 1999.

Hey , You can use this and only this, Phuck Yew

Aren't we witty?

-- doomer (dommer@the.end), October 08, 1999.

a:

Don't get paranoid. Remember, you're anonymous.

I'm just a common factory worker who knows Clinton is an antichrist.

Author:

Will you publish any cool graphics?

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), October 08, 1999.

LOL! Run away! Run away!!!

ROTFLMAO

Author, feel free to publish my fake name on anything I wrote.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 08, 1999.

"Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 08, 1999.

Hey "Author"! I am a writer and television producer for a major international television network. If you were a real writer you would know that to use peoples' words without their permission is ILLEGAL. As a matter of fact without written permission from each and everyone of us I would be incredibly surprised that you could find a publisher willing to take the risk. So in my humble opinion...you are a fake! A sham! And most of all -full of sh**!!! AND ONE MORE THING. THE V.P. OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HERE AT OUR HUMBLE LITTLE NETWORK IN ATLANTA IS MY BEST FREIND AND WOULD ENJOY NOTHING MORE THAN TAKING ALL OF YOUR ILL-GOTTEN GAINS AWAY FROM YOU AND YOUR FOOLISH PUBLISHER. "NO, YOU MAY NOT USE ANYTHING I, STEVERINO, HAVE EVER WRITTEN ANYWHERE, AT ANYTIME UNDER ANY NAME."

Now, go away you stupid ass. (okay, you can print t

-- steverino (steve.kuhn@turner.com), October 08, 1999.

I hereby deny permission for anyone to make use of my posts on this forum in any other place unless they ask for and receive such permission from me. I will not grant such permission without knowing the true identity of the person asking for it and exactly how he or she intends to use it.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), October 08, 1999.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the ever varrying ways of saying "NO!!"

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 08, 1999.

You are hereby denied the permission to use anything I said and will say on this forum for the purpose to make money on it.

Like you care, right troll? Go leech off someplace else. Like at the DeBunkers for instance, they're a lot funnier and you'd stand to sell more books (if you had the guts to publish anything that is.)

-- (screwed@on.tight), October 08, 1999.

So you have to ask yourself, if this guy isn't who he says he is, doing what he says he's doing, why the hell would he ask this question? Well, for a start, his rhetoric is so couched in stereotypical Debunking terms, I could just about write it myself. I say he's a debunker who's testing to see how many people are still lurking around here, and this question was a great way to get them to come out of the lurking woodwork. I wonder which one. Wolfie? Phoole? Loyal little Patricia? Who could it be?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 08, 1999.

"Author", could you tell us a little more about yourself? Like whether you are female and like to mudwrestle?? Then I can make and informed decision.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 08, 1999.

Are you people serious???? I bet more people read this forum than would ever read that book. Who gives a shit?

-- (DowGuy@wallstreet.com), October 08, 1999.

The copyright issue is extremely interesting. I have benefitted from some viewpoints that were new to me.

But let's not overlook the fact that there are a number of other legal issues as well.

Privacy has become more and more important in the eyes of the law. People participating in a forum like this one, or a chat room, are clearly not intending to broadcast to the public.

Free expression: Might not your plan if implemented have a "chilling effect" on our right to express ourselves in a forum or chat room?

Actual harm to some people seems like a live possibility. Take me, for example. I have indicated in some of my posts that a) I'm a retired Federal employee, and b) I don't like Clinton one damn bit. Now because I'm retired, I don't care who knows about my opinion of Clinton, but what if I still had a career to worry about?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 08, 1999.

I've only posted a couple times, but I do not want to find anything I write anywhere except where I have written it (that includes handle and address.) My posts may not be much, but, oh well........they are my thoughts or questions.

-- me (me@me.com), October 08, 1999.

WOW. Publishers. Attorneys. What a circus. You can print anything I've said, including my name and e-mail address (whooptie-do). There are only about 6 people who know me by my real name and they've all denied you your request. (hehehe). You gotta promise you'll use this quote I throw around occasionally. It was made by the president of the United States of America (worm):

"cowering in churches waiting for the world to end...determined to buy desert land and hoard gold, bullets and Skoal in thier pickup trucks."

William Jefferson Clinton speaking at The Fifth Millennium Evening at the Whitehouse. (what an ass-hole....that's right. I'm talkin' about YOU file-boy, and you can quote me on that)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 08, 1999.

I just found this. I am sputtering. You creep.

NO, permission expressly denied. I too am a published writer. Whether or not copyright law has anything to do with this forum is beside the point. I reserve all rights to every word of mine on it, and vehemently object to your publishing my handle or my email address.

Who are you that you propose so casually to put the people on this forum at serious risk? (Assuming you can find a publisher with no brains) Doesn't that constitute legal liablity for anything that happens to one of us as a result? Chuck, can I tell him to go to hell?

Go to hell.

-- Scat (sgcatique@webtv.net), October 08, 1999.

Question: How do you all feel about the common use of posts being forwarded to other venues, like mailing lists, witht he purpose of using them for basis for discussion and/or educating the recipients to something? This is a completely non-commercial use I am speaking of. While I dont recall doing this with posts from this forum, I have done it with posts from others to a Y2k prep list I am on. I was under the impression that fit fair use for educational purposes, or was I mistaken? It would be a real shame if this was forbidden, as it truly would limit the exchange of important ideas and info that needs to be shared especially with so little time remaining. Thanks for your input,

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

If you can give me an accurate assessment of how the price of gold will move in the next month you can quote me till the cows come home...or at least my cow does ..

-- nothing (better@to.do), October 08, 1999.

In the past, I did a fair bit of contract negotiations for copyright issues. A "work" does not have to be filed to be assumed as copyrighted.

Go study your copyright law, as Donna suggested at the Copyright office. And study "Fair Use." Apples to Oranges, IMHO.

Diane

QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED
IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE PUBLIC INFORMATION SECTION

http://www.loc.gov/ copyright/faq.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

[snip]

47.How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

http:// lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q47

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 http://lcweb.loc.gov/ copyright/circs/circ21.pdf and http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl102.pdf FL 102 (Fair Use).

60.Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?

If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

###

(P.S. Posting newsmedia references, on a Forum at an educational institution, such as MIT, which we do here, for research purposes only, falls under Fair Use--there are whole areas of copyright law covering educational institutions).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

No.

You don't have time to get the final draft typed, accepted, read, rewritten, typeset, printed, bound, shipped and stuck on a shelf.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 08, 1999.

I do not give you permission to publish anything written by me.

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), October 08, 1999.

All my articles and opinions are ALREADY published and copyrighted. No you do not have my permission or my publishers permission to include ANYTHING I have posted on this or any other forum. Nor do you have permission to use anything published on my website.

You should have asked a long time ago whether or not you had "permission". This is a Johny Come Lately request and I suspect you would have had better success if you had approached some of the regulars earlier.

It also has occurred to me that there might be something very fishy about this request. Might it not be a real request, but rather a side handed way of finding out how secretive and suspicious we are? If so, I'll give you a little credit here. If you're a FED and you want to get yet another gauge on our reaction to how we feel about our opinions being broadcasted to the world, well, you got your answer.

Let me make it very plain - we don't trust our government. and we sure as hell don't like the idea of our government looking over our shoulders every time we take a piss or sneeze. Our opinions, ideas, beliefs, values and comments are OURS and they belong to nobody else. They are NOT for sale to you or anyone else. Unlike some of the present scum in the current administration, we developed our viewpoints through examination of the facts. If anybody should profit from our experience, it should be us and not you.

Lastly, I wish you well. You have a uphill battle in front of you, in more ways then one.

-- Ray (shusters@montanasky.net), October 08, 1999.

(1) The short answer: NO.

(2) There are a number of reasons why I am reluctant to allow you to publish my ramblingds and e-mail address, not the least of which is that I could easily be quoted out of context. Entire threads would need to be reproduced...not individual postings. Additionally, since I use a real address, I am concerned that it might be used for SPAM by some unscruplious reader...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), October 08, 1999.

well, now i can finally understand why the news media does not want to get involved in covering the more urgent side of y2k. with obstructionists like you guys, how could any of the real truth get out? some of the stuff on these threads is real important. somebody might really GI if they could read what you had to say... (and dont forget not everyone can access this forum online) if it is all copyrighted and your classified, personal opinions, including the news reports you all freely quote from here, are your personal private property to boot , then you all are the biggest bunch of stonewallers i have seen in a long time. excuuuuuuuuuse me!

-- (lets not tell em anything@zip.com), October 08, 1999.

As a journalist, I can assure you there are ways of presenting the facts and points of view on this forum without compromising people's privacy. We are communicating among ourselves here and if people want to participate, fine, but otherwise, don't come in and exploit our research and intelligence...do your own work.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

Nope, sorry Author.

I don't think that you would use anything I write but as a professional graphic designer I have an intimate, first hand understanding of copyright issues. Besides, who's to say you will stop at only "fake names and e-mail addresses"?

Mike

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

I just talked to a lawyer (near-by neighbor ) who has handled copyright infringement cases for many years. The lawyer laughed when I showed him this thread. Said it shows the good old American way--Let's sue the b-----d! He said if a book was indeed published and if a person could prove without a doubt that a quote was in fact his/her quote ( did he/she document that quote) and have proof that he/she did not give permission for that quote to the author in writing using his/her legal name, well I won't go on because I have forgotten most of what he said except that anyone could use anything off a public forum/board especially if noone has to register and accept or decline the rules before registering---I don't remember doing that for this board, but I have on other boards. Just one lawyer's opinon-- free of charge.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

Forgot to add the lawyer pointed out the original post said 'fake name and email addresses in with the quotes' and did not include using quotes when using 'forum names and email addresses' He said the person abviously knew how to word it. Enough law for me tonight.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), October 09, 1999.

Amen to the next door neighbor lawyer! i can understand everyone's sensitivity to their personal email address being published in a book, but as far as comments go in a public forum (and this is a public forum, right?)they are hardly priviledged...anyone can read them, copy them, etc. no big secret, no big deal. why get so upset if someone prints them out and lets a next door neighbor read them too? or someone down the block? or someone in a library (reading that book that started this whole train of thought) ... or is it just the money that's got you upset... go champion the cause of every single person who has been quoted in a newspaper if that has you upset! make the dailies pay for every quote they get from people, just like the tabloids pay! and dont be posting excerpts here from other (really copyrighted) news stories if you believe your own bits of brilliant wisdom are off limits. p.s. do you think spammers are prevented from reading your emails right here? better get a doorman.

-- (don't tell em anything@zip.com), October 09, 1999.

I strongly think this MIGHT be a college prank. Hows the weather in Missoula lately?? Hmmmm....?

-- jes an ol interested footballer (nighttr@in.lane), October 09, 1999.

I hope all you anonymity critics can finally understand why I am using an anonymous name!

He's probably some sick Polly who wants to make money by selling our comments as humor.

For the record Mr. "Author", I am an artist, and every word I type onto this forum is a work of art, protected by copyright laws. I would advise against using any of my art without my written permission as I will be able to be granted compensation by a court. If you are seriously interested in negotiating a contract for the rights to publish my work, respond here and I will consider discussing the terms with you.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.

Ego causes suffering.If my nutbag ramblings interest or amuse you,knock yourself out.with 83 days left in western civilization,good luck.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

Author,

You can use my name etc. However since I only know Bible Stuff it wouldn't help your book at all.

(James 5:1 KJV) "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you."

(James 5:2 KJV) "Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten."

(James 5:3 KJV) "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days."

(James 5:4 KJV) "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth."

(James 5:5 KJV) "Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter."

(James 5:6 KJV) "Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you."

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), October 09, 1999.

The Author is none other than Al-d. He has been playing this forum like a Stradivarius. I would love to read his book and will pay money to do so. Much too funny for words!!

-- Watch (what@u.say), October 09, 1999.

Watch,

I doubt it. If he were capable of playing a Stradivarius he wouldn't have been deleted every time he spoke. Diane can probably confirm, but I don't think so. If true, it just goes to show the lengths that trolls will go to to entertain themselves.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.

Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World
Publisher: Osborne
Author: Lance Rose
ISBN: 0-07-882077-4
Chapter 3, Owning and Using Online Property
page 98

"So when we look at a message thread, who is the owner? Each user owns the text of each message he or she posts on the online system. At the same time, the system manager might own the collection of messages on the online system (to the extent he or she can claim such ownership at all). Hi or her property is the message threads as a whole, not the individual messages.

What if someone copies a message thread (or substantial part of one) from one system to the other without permission, or reproduces it in a print publication? The copyright in the thread as a collection would be infringed, because the way messages were selected and arranged by the system operator was copied. In addition, all users with essages in that thread would have copyrights in the individual messages, and those copyrights would be infringed. So the unauthorized copier would answerable both to the system operator for infringing a collective work, and to the individual users for infringing their messages a text or literary works.

Copying only a couple of messages from a thread may not violate system operator's collect work copyright. In this case, so little of the selection and arrangement of user messages has been taken that the copying could e legally deemed to minimal to be infringing. It i probably necessary at least to copy either several messages in a row, or samll groups of messages frm scattered points in the thread, to infrnge the collective work copyright. At the same time, copying even a single message would infringe the copyright of the user who poste tha message, even if it does not violate the operator's copyright in the thread as a whole.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), October 09, 1999.

NO... the poster is NOT al-d. He's departed.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

Tim,

Absolutely right, good work! There is no copyright on the individual words of a message, but each particular writer of a message arranges them in a different fashion, or "style". THAT is the part that would be infringed by copying.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.

It's not the first time I've had to pull that book my shelf. Comes in handy sometimes...

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), October 09, 1999.

Not that I've ever posted anything that's worth a damn, but just in case----NO you do not have my permission.

-- (rcarver@inacom.com), October 09, 1999.

No permission given! Don't you dare!

-- (BookWormNM@uswest.net), October 09, 1999.

A few thoughts:

If you use a fake handle *and* a fake e-mail address how would you sue this author without revealing your identity?

I don't have much sympathy for a truly anonymous poster who brays about their copyright being infringed. How can John or Jane Doe have their writings stolen?

For those who do post with a real name and/or e-mail address then courtesy, if nothing else, dictates that permission be asked.

Johnny (funny name, serious address)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Contrary to popular misconception, it is no longer necessary for one to file documents with any governmental body to establish a copyright on text that one has authored. Also, it is not necessary to specifically state that one claims a copyright to prevent a creative work from falling into the public domain.

Unless the authors have stated otherwise, all writings contributed to this forum were automatically copyrighted by their authors, from the moment of creation. This means that you cannot quote from them extensively without express permission. The threads themselves might be considered group efforts. Thus, although you may be quoting only a few paragraphs from each co-author, if you copy an entire thread, then you have quoted extensively from the combined work of these co-authors, which is not allowed under current copyright law.

Passive assent cannot be said to be granted merely because someone posts a message stating that anyone who does not object will have thereby lost their copyright. I, for one missed reading this thread, as I do nine-tenths of the threads on this forum, and only had my attention drawn to it by a reference from another thread.

In my case, I have been careful to indicate that most of the material that I have posted on this forum has been copied from my own web site. There is a copyright claim on the top and bottom lines of every page at my site. Each of these claims is linked to my copyright page, at which I spell out what copying I allow.

I currently grant broad permission to copy my work. This is not the same as allowing my work to fall into the public domain. I can retract my permission at any time. For example, I hereby disallow the person who has posted as Author AKA paperback@writer.publish to copy my work. Consider yourself alerted, since this is your thread.

You may be legally entitled to copy limited amounts of our work for the purpose of critique. There is a vague requirement that the amount of material quoted should be small in comparison to the remainder of the work in which it appears. This requirement is not found in the copyright regulations themselves, but in case law. Thus, one could not simply reproduce a thread of this forum, and append a comment such as: "Aren't these morons a hoot?"

The negative reactions to your request are not coming from folks who are ashamed of what they have said, here. They come from folks who genuinely hope that this forum can serve to enlighten people about the grave dangers that the world is facing. The idea that our work may be used for entertainment purposes is very demoralizing. I believe this is the true purpose behind your question to discourage folks from posting here.

No, Dancr is not my real name, but I claim the identity of Dancr. The "address" of addy.available@my.webpage is not my true e-mail address. The fact that I do not provide the name on my driver's license or a working address when I write does not strip me of my copyrights. I can prove these words are mine easily enough.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 10, 1999.

Date February 2000 Subject Book Proposal

Dear Sirs:

No other year since the Civil War has been as devastating to our country as this year. Hundreds of thousands of people froze to death or died of chemical poisoning. Millions more died of slow starvation or disease caused by sewer system failures. Why? Why did they have to die? They could have saved themselves if only they had prepared in time. And they were warned. Lord knows, they were warned.

But they didn't listen. They just stuck their heads in the sand and ignored computer experts who had over twenty years of experience. They laughed at the Yourdon's and the Hamasaki's. They ignored the sometimes frantic cries of those who had warned them. They thought that the many good people who had posted regularly to forums like Timebomb 2000 were flakes. If only they had paid attention to Diane Squire, or Chuck the Night Driver or Sysman or any of the other intelligent writers who had sense enough to put two and two together and figure out the puzzle.

Why were all these experts and intelligent people ignored? How were the "sheeple" fooled into believing it would be just a three day storm? I hope you will publish my book which examines this matter closely. How can we avoid similar failures in the future when whistleblowers warn us of disaster if we don't learn from past mistakes?

And there are important lessens to learn. My book closely examines the spin behind Koskinen's official pronunciations. I closely examine the lies and half-truths that programmers told their CEO's to convince them that they would be ready for y2k. I examine the complacency of the media in investigating what was the biggest story since World War II and show how they were used as tools of the government to prevent preparation (panic).

Finally, I examine in depth the role the internet played--or could have played--in this situation. Until recently, it was nearly impossible for those who disagreed with the Establishment's view of the world or distrusted their motives to be heard. True patriots who questioned what they were told could not air their views over TV or the radio. They usually did not have the money to publish and widely distribute their views through the newspapers either. Most corporations were part of the problem and they would never help subsidize a whistleblower's newspaper through advertisers.

But the late 1990s saw the coming of the internet--and with it came the ability of the average Joe to be heard. It no longer cost thousands of dollars to disseminate your ideas and information to millions of people. Everyone had equal access to the marketplace of ideas through the internet.

With the internet came the ability of whistleblowers to have their stories heard. The internet gave those who did not believe the official spin the chance to analyze government statements and show that they were not to be trusted. The internet gave those who saw disaster coming a voice with which to warn others. And warn they did.

But their warnings fell on deaf ears. Why? I closely examine the works of Polly interlopers who constantly barged their way into the Timebomb 2000 forum in a concerted effort to distract those who might otherwise have prepared. I extensively document the writings of Stephen Poole, whose deft use of humor hides his nefarious agenda. I show how Mr. Decker has used verbal trickery to defend the fiat banking system and lull his audience into a false sense of complacency. And I quote extensively the rantings of CPR who used intimidation tactics to try to silence the Get Its from posting on the so called Debunky site. I also quote a supporting cast including Buddy, Maria, Paul Davis, Patricia, and even (gasp) Robin Messing, who have all further muddied the water and prevented others from preparing.

Now, I realize there may be a tricky question ofcopyright infringement. I did not explicitly get copyright permission from CPR et al. But what they wrote is part of the historical record. What they wrote influenced their readers and was at least partly the cause for our nation's insufficient preparedness. They may have meant well. They may have just been trying to prevent a panic. But even people who mean well can have a negative influence on events. They intentionally tried to persuade the public to take certain actions (i.e. leaving their money in the banks.) Because their writing was broadcast to the public with the intent to influence public behavior it should be considered part of the public domain.

One can not study the history of the internet and its role in the y2k disaster without quoting extensively from their work. One must be able to understand their propaganda techniques in order to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. They may raise objections based on copyright law, but if their objections are honored then we will have lost an important part of history. They would prefer we forget, but we must not, lest lives be lost in the future. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We must not allow copyright law to be used as an Orwellian Memory Hole to make unpleasant facts disappear.

******************* End Book Proposal***********************

Allright. I don't really expect y2k will be a 9. I suspect it will probably be a 2 and the book above will never be written. But I wrote the proposal to point out that what is written here should not be lost to the historical record. It is part of history whether you like it or not. It is possible that your words may have influenced some people's behaviors, though probably not as many as you would like to have influenced.

If y2k turns out to be a 2 then these writings will be useful to scholars examining the psychology and sociology of needless panic (or at least worry). Gary North and others have predicted bankruns would occur due to panic. Some scholars may someday want to use the writings of those who post here and those who post at Debunky to help explain how the internet was used by some as an attempt to foster bank runs and by others who tried to fight the panic. It may be used by psychologists who want to study how even smart people can make mistakes in logic and arrive at faulty conclusions.

Of course, I could be wrong and y2k could be a 9 (I doubt it). In that case, someone may want to write the book I outlined and CPR, Stephen Poole and other pollies who have tried to influence public opinion should not be able to use copyright law to hide their actions from scrutiny.

Or maybe y2k will end up as a 4 and some chronicler will want to write a book explaining how the Doomers postings alerted just enough people so that we just barely avoided a major disaster.

In any case, these writings are part of the historical record and should not be lost. How can anyone study this history of y2k and leave out this seminal work by Michael Hyatt.

Of course, on this thread I can link to Hyatt's failed predictions. And if I were writing a book I could always publish the URL in my book and let my readers find his column for themselves. But URLs have a habit of disappearing. Who knows if the link will be good two years from now? Shouldn't I have the right to publish his column in a book critiquing important y2k writings, or should Hyatt have the power to use copyright law to make his column disappear from history just because he finds it embarrassing? How about CPR or Stephen Poole?

We run into danger whenever we allow others to rewrite history. That is what the communists did for many years in Russia. Joseph Stalin went so far to airbrush the image of his opponents out of old photographs to shape the historical record to suit his needs. Should we allow copyright law to be abused to do the same?

Robin Messing

P.S. Gary North quotes extensively from other sources on his site. Should those who are quoted be able to use copyright law to try to silence him?

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 10, 1999.

Oops I accidentally used an old URL for Michael Hyatt's seminal work. Try This link instead. It just proves my point that I could publish a URL in a book refering to an important column, but the URL could change.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 10, 1999.

Diane, Its completely legal for someone to quote ANYTHING you've posted on this forum for a news article or a factual book on Y2K....that's fair usage, like it or not. And if you post something withOUT giving copywrite notice that you want to protect, good luck on recovering....

I love this thread! I may QUOTE some of you, lol. Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 10, 1999.

Use away.

Phil is using all of this for his benefit, why shouldn't you?

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

If you're going to write such a book, you need to get permission from the authors to quote them extensively, no matter what their "take" is on Y2K. If someone wishes to create a forum which is public domain, then they need to get prospective participants to waive their copyright up front.

Since I don't believe that was done, in this case, we're left with having to link to the things which we wish to critique, when extensive quotes are needed. This would be much easier if the software had automatically inserted adequate targets to which the links could be hooked. This could be done after the fact, but it might be a large project.

Perhaps Phillip Greenspun could rig up a program to buzz through the entire database and add targets. For example, in this thread, this sentence could be referred to as http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl#dancr.2 .3.5 i.e. dancr's second post, third "paragraph," fifth sentence.

I've been automatically inserting a target at the beginning of my own posts, so that I can link directly to them. If I can anticipate that there is something in the middle of a long post that I will wish to link, then I may also toss in a target at that point. I would like to have the ability to link directly to what others say, too.

As Robin Messing has demonstrated, it is often not practical to refer to the original web page in a book, or even in an online document, since the contents of the original may change over time, or disappear. For this reason, large scale web archiving services could be used.

In the case of government documents which disappear, one might suspect that they could disappear from the archives, too. Archiving government documents locally seems reasonable to me, since as citizens we are their rightful owners.

I have been uncomfortable with the practice some of us have of reproducing newspaper articles in their entirity, on this forum. The online newspapers depend on hits for their income. The problem is, though, that these also often disappear, due most often, I believe, to the newspapers' websites being overseen by inexperienced webmasters.

Books cannot adequately convey the hypertext quality of html. A critique of what appears on these threads cannot happen practically in a book without reproducing the material to be discussed in the book itself, questions of copyright aside. The reader of a book cannot be expected to park in front of a computer to see what it is that the book is talking about.

The flavor of the posts themselves can also sometimes not be adequately captured in a more linear format. Newsgroup authors such as myself, who make heavy use of links within our text will be necessaarily inadequately represented by collapsing our work down to just the exact words. It may not be enough to merely provide the cryptic URL for the sites one could have visited while reading my post, if only one were using a computer instead of trying to read it in an inferior medium (a book or newspaper). Besides the fact that the URLs would tend to bury the content, the reader can't "go there."

For these reasons, I believe that it is already not practical to critique most hypertext in a non-hypertext medium. The hypertext quality of online communications will probably become a more and more prevalent characteistic, as authors become increasingly comfortable with the use of hypertext links. Thus, hard copy books and newspapers will become less and less capable of presenting the material which originates electronically.

As for the type of book that Robin proposes, personally, I would not have a problem with being studied in this context, no matter what the outcome of Y2K. I say this knowing that it is possible to have a bad outcome, and yet have that not be recognized by the authors of some of the books of this type which undoubtedly will appear in the early months of the year 2000.

I also recognize that in the case of a mild Y2K, there will be books that will try to peer into the diseased minds of doomers, when this may be wholely inappropriate. Most who are preparing do so because of there being a chance of disruptions, not a certainty. Those who have prepared will probably still be happy that they have done so, and that they are now more able to stand up to the possibility of war, civil unrest, disease, EMP, or other possible disruptions. Thus, even a proverbial "bump in the road" may not provide the laboratory needed by "psychologists who want to study how even smart people can make mistakes in logic and arrive at faulty conclusions."

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 11, 1999.

oops, I reorganized the paragraphs after counting the sentences in that target example, so it would be ...dancr.2.4.2

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 11, 1999.

Works are protected by copyright law when they are created, but it filing indicates your intention to protect your work, and makes it easier to recover damages if someone uses your work.

-- Walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), October 11, 1999.

This is the first time I've agreed with a. This is a public domain. Anybody can write anything. WIth so much misinformation on the web, you guys are upset by this "author". What a treat to see this reaction!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 11, 1999.

WOW!

The windbags came up with 100+ different ways to say 'no'.

Fascinating!

Sure looks like a public domain to me.......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 11, 1999.

No. And just for good measure:

This article does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; you may distribute this article freely but you may not make a profit from it; terms are subject to change without notice; illustrations are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; this article is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; caveat emptor; article is provided "as is" without any warranties; reader assumes full responsibility; an equal opportunity article; no shoes, no shirt, no service; quantities are limited while supplies last; if any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; read at your own risk; parental discression advised, text may contain explicit materials some readers may find objectionable; keep away from sunlight; keep away from OJ; keep away from pets and small children; limit one-per- family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; instructions are included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; slippery when wet; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not read if safety seal is broken; call before you dig; not liable for damages arising from use or misuse; for external use only; if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; read only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; avoid contact with eyes and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; do not place near a flammable or magnetic source; smoking this article could be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a condom; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavoring added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a physician; articles are ribbed for your pleasure; possible penalties for early withdrawal; offer valid only at participating sites; allow four to six weeks for delivery; must be 18 to read; disclaimer does not cover misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricanes, and other Acts of God, neglect, damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets, shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); other restrictions may apply. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substantial amount of non- tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Not affiliated with the American Red Cross. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly. Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file, unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles. Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your cancelled check is your receipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin. Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible. Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions before the show. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull down. Call toll free before digging. Driver does not carry cash. Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification purposes only. Record additional transactions on back of previous stub. Decision of judges is final.

-- yerfdog (not@real.com), October 11, 1999.

Dancr, you raise some good points. I agree that it would be impossible to capture the full flavor and important nuances of this forum (or any web-site) in a book. But just because some important points would be lost in translation, that in itself does not mean it shouldn't be done. Ideally, any analysis would be done on-line with links to relevant posts. But as mentioned earlier, links can change and the posts which one links to can be lost.

Yes, archives can be used to store what has been written to this forum and others. But will they be used? Who is going to archive this forum? Will it be available for scholars to study ten or twenty years from now? And even if it is archived and is available, there is still the problem that many of the links used in this forum to outside sources will be broken. I know you feel uncomfortable with people posting entire stories to this forum instead of just including a link. But the advantage of including the story is that it will be available in the future should the link break.

Cyberspace formats have many advantages over book or newspaper format. But the biggest drawback is lack of permanancy. History is too easily lost. Anyone who wants to study the psychology or sociology of the reactions to y2k MUST study columns and posts that were put on the net since very little of it has been published through newpapers and magazines.

I hope Westergaard archives their site, but if they don't how will future scholars read their columns? It is for this reason that books must be able to cite key columns and posts. I can understand the authors wanting to be paid, but they should not be allowed to use copyright law to withhold permission and change the historical record.

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 12, 1999.

No you may not use my name/e-mail address or writings. Darlene

-- Darlene (boomer@tdstelme.net), October 12, 1999.

Robin, NO serious author would refuse permission "to change the historical record" (aprox quote). Almost all of the authors you refer to are WHOLLY within their rights to receive compensation for their words as that is their stock in trade. Would you expect me to give away rides to the Airport from Downtown, or a shop keeper NOT to defend against shoplifting??

In terms of this forum, many posts only make sense (we'll use the concept loosely) in context. Pulling someone's rant out of context (sometimes consisting of thousands of words previous to the post) will NOT give an apropriate meaning to the words.

I quite literally WANT my words read, BUT (and this is the crux) I want them read IN CONTEXT. Simply extracting one of my posts, for instance my response to a request to debunk Infomagic, would NOT give the eventual reader an understanding unless they had waded through both of Infomagic's "Set Recovery On #1 and 2" as posted by Cory H. this would have also required that the reader have read Tom's Take, because both were contemporaneous to my response. Simply reading my response will NOT give a proper understanding of the piece.

Chuck Rienzo, a Night Driver

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 12, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Does "author" equal Marianne Michaels? I vaguely recall some laughter on another forum about this, but I don't recall where that was. I also don't know how to access the archives of some of them to check that out.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 18, 1999.

To answer the question above by DONNA...here you go.

Here's the Marianne Michaels Thread

AND...Robin you can use my username and words, but NOT my real email address. This permission is based on your stated query to the editor. I too however share the belief that it would be inaccurate to simply take statements out of context which were built upon countless previous posts. I've had this real email address for the last 5 years and have no intention of changing it anytime soon. Therefore, you do not have my permission to put it in a book. I make the same request of any others although I too don't believe I've posted anything of significance. 'Nuff said.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), October 19, 1999.

I've already got my land shark (lawyer) working on one copyright case, why not two?

No, you may not use my copyrighted words in your book, supposing you are anything more than a moronic troll.

-- Art (artw@lancnews.infi.net), October 19, 1999.