Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (74437)	4/7/2001 11:04:59 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 99985

AND just when you thought IT COUDN'T get any more twisted. Gotta' Love the JADED (mainstream) Financial Press: biz.yahoo.com

To: HairBall who wrote (74437)	4/7/2001 11:35:08 AM
From: que seria	Respond to of 99985

LG is right even though most of us non-subscribers do like reading the copyrighted material. When the Chinese and others pirate Microsoft's and others' software, we call it piracy--commercial theft. Same when commercial pirates do print runs of authors' books without authority or royalties. People who live off the sale of their ideas have and deserve as much protection of their product as those who sell tangible goods. There is a fair comment doctrine that permits limited excerpting of copyrighted material, with acknowledgement, for the purpose of commenting upon it. If SI weren't ailing I suppose persons going repeatedly and grossly beyond fair use would have heard about it. It is personal morality that is supposed to make the sanction of authority the exception, not the routine means, of respecting property rights. Most people aren't lawyers, and I can understand confusion about copyright and fair use leading to posting licensed material with attribution. The point of this message is to dispel that confusion, and with it the notion that it is legally or morally acceptable to repost copyrighted material other than as needed for comment upon it. Even then, newsletter writers are not newspapers, and perhaps they do forbid and are legally entitled to forbid posting their content even for fair use. I'm not a copyright lawyer and I haven't looked that up. I'd respect the wishes of the provider. Remember how you felt the last time someone stole from you?

To: HairBall who wrote (74437)	4/7/2001 11:14:24 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

I doubt you would feel that way if the analysis being provided for free on MDD (on a regular basis) was the basis for a business that supported your family and the employees associated with your business.. The truth is that we don't all think alike. I am in a business where I am asked by my company to help train my "friendly competitors" and I sometimes lose business to them. What I have found in my personal circumstances is that there is enough to go around and helping others proffers personal rewards that extend beyond the material. I doubt you have as much moral suasion as you think you do. I personally asked gfs_1999 some time ago for the source of this analysis so that I might subscribe. My guess is that others have done so as well and it has served to increase his business through free advertisement. Mr Favors has the right to protect his copyright if he so chooses and probably doesn't need you to champion him. In any event, stay on your high horse if it makes you feel better. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Regards

To: HairBall who wrote (74437)	4/8/2001 5:42:59 PM
From: jvbig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

LG, so far I like the JF posts. I have been following them daily for about 1 1/2 weeks now. He seems to be right on target. Since I would never have known about him if I had not read it here, I think he has gained, not lost. I went to his website and found several services offered. If I was able to daytrade, I would not hesitate to subscribe to his service. Since I do not daytrade, I am still considering subscribing to his daily update.