*** Play it again Sam?***
This is my last copyright post here for now (yeah, yeah some thought I would never shut up on the issue... and now I am coming to a similar conclusion) unless someone wants to create a "Stump the Stiff on Copyright" thread <g>? That was a joke so don't bother anyone.
Sam, you put in alot of time and effort in to your post and that is the only reason why I am responding. Your post deserves more than I am willing to give it. If the truth be known, I actually prepared a long and detailed response to you but I lost it on the computer before I could post it. Now that I think about it, my loss could be your gain as well of the gain of alot of people that are bored to tears on the subject. You missed the original post by Paul and so you cannot view the context of my remarks which may have lead you to miss and misunderstand some of my points, namely in the second and third paragraphs of your post. Then again, perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. Anyway, I think I have said enough on those issues. A few observations on your post:
"If I were Brinker--which I'm obviously not--I wouldn't mind the free publicity that I get when people summarize my views occasionally over the net. This creates an air of legitimacy and "sageness" for him; if his calls turn out to be right, he probably will get more subscribers."
Free publicity? I am getting paid for all this work, aren't you <g>? During the time I am not posting here, I stand by my mailbox waiting for the check from Brinker to arrive. Do you think I am wasting my time waiting <g>?
"But as a previous poster said, he is a big boy, he knows about SI, and could find out easily enough if people were quoting him without his permission, and would do what Johnson did on another thread (I
forget which one) if he didn't want it to happen--he would publicly protest on thread, and get the Webmistress to remove the offending post."
Brinker stands about 5' 10" (guess) and is of medium build so I don't know if this qualifies as "big." I don't think Brinker has forked over the $75 (soon to be $125) to post on SI unless you know something I do not. I haven't seen any "Brinker" posts and I do not know for certain if he even knows about the incident unless you know something I don't. I don't know if he knows and mailed the webmistress or not. As matter of fact, we can't tell much from what Bob has not done and this is the problem you are stuck with in this particular argument.
Beyond this particular incident, what you are implying is that if one does not show up to protect one's copyright, he must not care and must then be willing to waive all his rights under the copyright law. Well, if this is the case then Brinker better get to work because that conclusion renders him obligated to read every piece of published work in the world on a daily basis to search out violators in order not to be viewed as waiving his rights. Now that is what I consider "big" and I am sure Brinker would think it mighty "big" of you to give him such a chore <g>. I don't think so. That is an argument of tacit consent that fails almost every time. You cannot conclude anything from one's inaction in this context. Besides, the copyright law was designed to deter unauthorized use and not to create additional burdens for the copyright owner in order for him to protect his rights. |
