DC breaker panels

Dale Eastman wrote:

Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)

Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it. -- derek

Derek Broughton wrote:

Dale Eastman wrote:
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it.

Derek is correct. Simply publishing these words in usenet does not make them public domain.

Derek is incorrect. He gave him permission to post his words on his site. The terms were stated and Derek complied.
"Tony Wesley" wrote in message

Derek Broughton wrote: Dale Eastman wrote:
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it.
Derek is correct. Simply publishing these words in usenet does not make them public domain.

Solar Flare wrote:

Derek is incorrect. He gave him permission to post his words on his site. The terms were stated and Derek complied.

I know you're just trolling but Derek owns the copyright.

From the U.S. Copyright Office: "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."
Replying to this post with a dissenting opinion indicates consent to pay me $1,000 (US Dollars) per month for the next seven years.
You might want to puruse Brad Templeton's copyright page:
'Nothing modern and creative 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." '

"Tony Wesley" wrote in message
Derek Broughton wrote: Dale Eastman wrote:
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it.
Derek is correct. Simply publishing these words in usenet does not make them public domain.

I know you are full of shit and a troublemaker but you are contradicting yourself.
"Tony Wesley" wrote in message

Solar Flare wrote: Derek is incorrect. He gave him permission to post his words on his site. The terms were stated and Derek complied.
I know you're just trolling but Derek owns the copyright.
From the U.S. Copyright Office: "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."
Replying to this post with a dissenting opinion indicates consent to pay me $1,000 (US Dollars) per month for the next seven years.
You might want to puruse Brad Templeton's copyright page:
'Nothing modern and creative 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." '
"Tony Wesley" wrote in message
Derek Broughton wrote: Dale Eastman wrote:
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it.
Derek is correct. Simply publishing these words in usenet does not make them public domain.

On 23 Aug 2006 17:03:32 -0700, "Tony Wesley" wrote:

Solar Flare wrote: Derek is incorrect. He gave him permission to post his words on his site. The terms were stated and Derek complied.
Replying to this post with a dissenting opinion indicates consent to pay me $1,000 (US Dollars) per month for the next seven years.

Good luck with collecting from Gymmy the legal eagl...er, leghorn. Perhaps if you changed it to $1000 over seven years... in Canadian Tire Money. :-)
Wayne

Harry wrote:

I don't believe you'll get a panel with DC circuit breakers. (Except maybe from a submarine:-) Be aware that AC "cartridge" fuses are also unsuitable for DC

Actually, both Xantrex and OutBack offer them (and I buy them) by the dozen.
DJ

Solar Flare wrote:

I know you are full of shit and a troublemaker but you are contradicting yourself.

Ah, the personal insults come out. A nice tactic for you to adopt, to shift away from your erronous point of view and to try and make it a personal war of words.
I'm glad you've accepted my terms and have agreed to pay me $1,000 (USD) per month for the next seven years. :)
On a serious note, in the unlikely event that some might actually take you seriously, let me point out U.S. copyright law.
Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act provides that "[a] transfer of ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed." 17 U.S.C. � 204(a).
So, without a written and signed transfer of copyright, it remains with the author.

Derek Broughton wrote:

Dale Eastman wrote:
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Of course you need permission. I own the copyright of everything I write, and unless I explicitly put it in the public domain _or_ give you the right to post it, you do not have the right to publish it.

But... By answering this post, you have just consented.
Gotcha 8?)
I need to set up a different sigfile. That one's for posts in another group where I do put post's on my website.
Somebody tried to make me pull his post down.. Ain't gonna happen.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/courageous.html
I ain't arguing with anybody here, and have no reason to archive their posts.
I do appreciate your concern though.
-- How does electricity work? Smoke. Smoke? Yeah. You ever see anything electric work after the smoke escapes?

I apologize for getting this started. I failed to change the sigfile for this group. Now the flames below are just the type of thing I would put on my site if it suited my purpose.
Intellectual property is one thing. Flames, and flat out provable lies are another.
As to making copyright infringement stick, there are a few hurdles the copyright owner would have to clear.
I had somebody, (posting anonymously no less) take issue to my archiving his B.S. He tried to threaten me to pulling down his post. http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/courageous.html
When I put somebody's post(s) on my site,... Well, have you ever had to deal with a chronic liar, or somebody who is verbally abusive? I have. And the best cure is to pull a tape recorder out of my pocket, turn it on, and ask, "What were you saying?"
They usually clam up, which is what you want if you don't want to put up with lies... And that is what courageous did when I showed him the appropriate copyright law.
Again, Sorry for disrupting by forgetting to change the sigfile.

Tony Wesley wrote:

Solar Flare wrote:
I know you are full of shit and a troublemaker but you are contradicting yourself.

-- How does electricity work? Smoke. Smoke? Yeah. You ever see anything electric work after the smoke escapes?

Dale Eastman wrote:

As to making copyright infringement stick, there are a few hurdles the copyright owner would have to clear.

Absolutely. And, in fact, I _don't_ have a problem with you, or anyone, taking anything I've written on Usenet and putting it on a webpage. My words, such as they are, are out there and I can't get them back :-) I just like to point out to people who make statements that anything on Usenet is "public domain" that they _are_ opening themselves to legal liability - small as it may be.

When I put somebody's post(s) on my site,... Well, have you ever had to deal with a chronic liar, or somebody who is verbally abusive? I have. And the best cure is to pull a tape recorder out of my pocket, turn it on, and ask, "What were you saying?"

Yeah, but there's google for that - unless they've used "X-NoArchive", but in that case you're on clear legal ground: publishing a copy is NOT legal. otoh, you also don't need a post on a public site to be able to show someone what they said. -- derek

Derek Broughton wrote:

Dale Eastman wrote:
As to making copyright infringement stick, there are a few hurdles the copyright owner would have to clear.
Absolutely. And, in fact, I _don't_ have a problem with you, or anyone, taking anything I've written on Usenet and putting it on a webpage. My words, such as they are, are out there and I can't get them back :-) I just like to point out to people who make statements that anything on Usenet is "public domain" that they _are_ opening themselves to legal liability - small as it may be.

Nor do I have a problem with your challenge of the tagline.
I've labeled the thread OT, It's an interesting thing to discuss, and my personal opinion is that the self educated that inhabit this forum are MUCH smarter than the credentialled, spoon fed, educated that infest the other forum I frequent.
If you checked the page I linked, where I did post somebody's stuff, you would have also read the pertinent parts of the copyright law. It really does hinge on commercial loss, or, in other words, financial damage to the author of the material.
On that note, this being a 'technical' group, there is the chance that proprietary information could be disclosed. What comes to my mind is the stuff from Redrock. (Forgive me, I can't remember the fellow's name, or the rest of his site address). He is doing business as well as volunteering his knowledge and designs to this group. To plagiarize his work *could* cause him to suffer financial harm. His stuff is his stuff. Along the same lines is the fellow with the waste vegetable oil powered diesel motored school bus.

When I put somebody's post(s) on my site,... Well, have you ever had to deal with a chronic liar, or somebody who is verbally abusive? I have. And the best cure is to pull a tape recorder out of my pocket, turn it on, and ask, "What were you saying?"
Yeah, but there's google for that - unless they've used "X-NoArchive", but in that case you're on clear legal ground: publishing a copy is NOT legal.

Even the X-NoArchive is an unsettled question. Some of the newsgroup server administrators where questioning what and whether to do anything about such things. Keep in mind, the "X" is for eXperimental. It's not a law that NoArchive commands need to be honored... And if anybody thinks otherwise, I'll happily accept your correcting my "opinion" by showing me the chapter, verse, and number of the law.

otoh, you also don't need a post on a public site to be able to show someone what they said.

I don't post a person's crap to show them what they know they said. I post a person's crap impeach that person's credibility and show others that the person whose posts I have archived have NO credibility.
The subject matter in all those posts, is what does the law REALLY says, verses what "they" want you to "believe" the laws in question really say.
Anyway, in summary... My opinion is that you are partly correct and partly incorrect.
-- This space for rent.

If you are so aware of this why did you start the insults then?
"Tony Wesley" wrote in message Solar Flare wrote:

I know you are full of shit and a troublemaker but you are contradicting yourself.

Ah, the personal insults come out. A nice tactic for you to adopt, to shift away from your erronous point of view and to try and make it a personal war of words.
I'm glad you've accepted my terms and have agreed to pay me $1,000 (USD) per month for the next seven years. :)
On a serious note, in the unlikely event that some might actually take you seriously, let me point out U.S. copyright law.
Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act provides that "[a] transfer of ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed." 17 U.S.C. � 204(a).
So, without a written and signed transfer of copyright, it remains with the author.

The "words" posted here are only yours until you post them publicly to Usenet and then they are the property of Usenet.
"Dale Eastman" wrote in message

Derek Broughton wrote: Dale Eastman wrote:
As to making copyright infringement stick, there are a few hurdles the copyright owner would have to clear.
Absolutely. And, in fact, I _don't_ have a problem with you, or anyone, taking anything I've written on Usenet and putting it on a webpage. My words, such as they are, are out there and I can't get them back :-) I just like to point out to people who make statements that anything on Usenet is "public domain" that they _are_ opening themselves to legal liability - small as it may be.
Nor do I have a problem with your challenge of the tagline.
I've labeled the thread OT, It's an interesting thing to discuss, and my personal opinion is that the self educated that inhabit this forum are MUCH smarter than the credentialled, spoon fed, educated that infest the other forum I frequent.
If you checked the page I linked, where I did post somebody's stuff, you would have also read the pertinent parts of the copyright law. It really does hinge on commercial loss, or, in other words, financial damage to the author of the material.
On that note, this being a 'technical' group, there is the chance that proprietary information could be disclosed. What comes to my mind is the stuff from Redrock. (Forgive me, I can't remember the fellow's name, or the rest of his site address). He is doing business as well as volunteering his knowledge and designs to this group. To plagiarize his work *could* cause him to suffer financial harm. His stuff is his stuff. Along the same lines is the fellow with the waste vegetable oil powered diesel motored school bus.
When I put somebody's post(s) on my site,... Well, have you ever had to deal with a chronic liar, or somebody who is verbally abusive? I have. And the best cure is to pull a tape recorder out of my pocket, turn it on, and ask, "What were you saying?"
Yeah, but there's google for that - unless they've used "X-NoArchive", but in that case you're on clear legal ground: publishing a copy is NOT legal.
Even the X-NoArchive is an unsettled question. Some of the newsgroup server administrators where questioning what and whether to do anything about such things. Keep in mind, the "X" is for eXperimental. It's not a law that NoArchive commands need to be honored... And if anybody thinks otherwise, I'll happily accept your correcting my "opinion" by showing me the chapter, verse, and number of the law.
otoh, you also don't need a post on a public site to be able to show someone what they said.
I don't post a person's crap to show them what they know they said. I post a person's crap impeach that person's credibility and show others that the person whose posts I have archived have NO credibility.
The subject matter in all those posts, is what does the law REALLY says, verses what "they" want you to "believe" the laws in question really say.
Anyway, in summary... My opinion is that you are partly correct and partly incorrect.
-- This space for rent.

Dale Eastman wrote:

I apologize for getting this started.

I found it interesting. I wasn't trying to flame you. I do disagree with the statements in your sig. Once Derek broached the subject, I was willing to toss in my 2 cents worth.

I failed to change the sigfile for this group. Now the flames below are just the type of thing I would put on my site if it suited my purpose.

Don't mind Solar Flare. When he talks about power factors and VA, he seems to know what he's talking about. But that's about it.

Intellectual property is one thing. Flames, and flat out provable lies are another.
As to making copyright infringement stick, there are a few hurdles the copyright owner would have to clear.

For one thing, to get damages in the US, the copyright has to be registered.

I had somebody, (posting anonymously no less) take issue to my archiving his B.S. He tried to threaten me to pulling down his post. http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/courageous.html

I glanced at it. Fair Use is a reasonable claim. But by claiming Fair Use, you are admitting that the words are not public domain.
I believe I correctly quoted US copyright law, where it states to transfer copyright, an explicit writing is required.
I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
For what it's worth, you have permission to repost my words.