DC breaker panels

Tony Wesley wrote:

Dale Eastman wrote:
I apologize for getting this started.
I found it interesting.

As do I now that it is being "discussed".

I wasn't trying to flame you.

Didn't take it is such. My skin's pretty thick from arguing with cretins in another group. You'd have to REALLY be insulting to even be perceived as a negative comment.

I do disagree with the statements in your sig. Once Derek broached the subject, I was willing to toss in my 2 cents worth.

And you stated your difference politely. For that you get my respect and thanks.

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.

Let me clarify... That little insult is a fart in a hurricane type of thing. It's just barely perceptible in the noise below the main signal.

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.

In my research for what I posted on that page, I did scan past something about registering the copyright. It wasn't important to my purpose so I moved on without absorbing that info.

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 suppose it could be construed that way, However that is not truly the point. My point was that EVEN IF he could prove copyright, it couldn't be made to stick.

I believe I correctly quoted US copyright law, where it states to transfer copyright, an explicit writing is required.

IIRC what I read, I confirm this stated fact of yours.
The reality of my web page, if we are to assume copyright is solid, is that libel and insult are being copyrighted. "You are a poopy pants" is the effective intellectual property being copyrighted.

I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.

Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract. By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.
The contract does not change ownership of the copyrighted text, It only allows that such text will reside on my website. And at no time do I call the words my own... In fact, the whole purpose is to properly accredit the words TO the poster who "uttered" them.
The quoted word above is an inside joke; a humorous play on words; since my American Heritage Electronic dictionary contains this definition:
ut�ter tr.v. ut�tered, ut�ter�ing, ut�ters. 3. Law. To put (counterfeit money, for example) into circulation.

For what it's worth, you have permission to repost my words.

LOL. Except, Mr. Wesly, I have no reason to repost your words unless it is a favor to you for me to do so...
Unless you start telling lies about tax laws.
-- www.synapticsparks.info

Dale Eastman wrote:

Tony Wesley wrote: Dale Eastman wrote:
I apologize for getting this started.
I found it interesting.
As do I now that it is being "discussed".

I wanted to respond to one point in this.

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.
Let me clarify... That little insult is a fart in a hurricane type of thing. It's just barely perceptible in the noise below the main signal.

[That's not the point, but it is worth keeping in there.]

I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract. By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.

I respectfully disagree. Replying to posts is something I do on a routine basis, without entering in a contractual relationship. It's an activity that is not just between you and me, we're having a round-table discussion in front of some group of people, who may participate any time they chose. Posting a reply to your post is not a reply to you, it's a comment for the world to read and does not imply any acceptance of terms.
Just my opinion, mind you.

For what it's worth, you have permission to repost my words.
LOL. Except, Mr. Wesly, I have no reason to repost your words unless it is a favor to you for me to do so...

No reason to. I just wanted to make clear that it was an intellectual discussion, not any attempt to prohibit you from reposting my feeble words.

Tony Wesley wrote:

I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract. By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.
I respectfully disagree. Replying to posts is something I do on a routine basis, without entering in a contractual relationship. It's an activity that is not just between you and me, we're having a round-table discussion in front of some group of people, who may participate any time they chose. Posting a reply to your post is not a reply to you, it's a comment for the world to read and does not imply any acceptance of terms.
Just my opinion, mind you.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this?
8?)

"Dale Eastman" wrote in message

Tony Wesley wrote:
Dale Eastman wrote:
I apologize for getting this started.
I found it interesting.
As do I now that it is being "discussed".

A couple of points I'd like to make....
<snip>

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.

'Fair use' as allowed under copyright law is a bit hard to 'nail down'. One 'fair use' is to quote excerpts from anothers work to use in the context of a critical review. But this meaning has a vague limit on just how much of the original authors work can be quoted. Generally, courts have allowed a section or paragraph, but have stopped at complete chapters and denied the re-quoting of an entire 'work' as 'fair use' under the critic provision.
Another 'fair use' is comedic parody. The old 'MAD Magazine' was famous for this. By reusing a story line in some form of parody of the original's work, the 'fair use' clause protects them from copyright suits.
I haven't gone to look at the web site in question, but wonder if either of these truly would apply?
<snip>

I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract. By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.
The contract does not change ownership of the copyrighted text, It only allows that such text will reside on my website. And at no time do I call the words my own... In fact, the whole purpose is to properly accredit the words TO the poster who "uttered" them.

All well and good, but you have to show that the 'contract' contains an approximately 'equal' exchange. A valid 'contract' must be an agreed upon *exchange* between two parties. For example, you ask for scrambled eggs in a restaurant, you agree to pay for them. You sign a contract with a builder, he provides services to build a house, you agree to pay him money. You pay a fee to a software seller, they agree to allow you to use their product (under some conditions).
Your 'contract' is one-sided. The replier receives nothing for 'giving you the rights' to use their statements. The argument that you 'let' them reply to your post as the 'exchange' is not valid because it implies they otherwise would not have the right/authority to reply to your post without it.
In other words, your 'tag-line contract' denies people the right to reply to your opinions/statements without giving up something. That treads on first amendment issues. Since the replier is not using your personnel equipment/services to post a reply, you have no right to deny them the opportunity to make a public statement in rebuttal to your statements. By 'requiring' them to give up something of potential value (copyright use of their works) just to post an opinion in an appropriate public place, you are trying to deny free speech.
daestrom

The quoted word above is an inside joke; a humorous play on words; since my American Heritage Electronic dictionary contains this definition:
ut�ter tr.v. ut�tered, ut�ter�ing, ut�ters. 3. Law. To put (counterfeit money, for example) into circulation.
For what it's worth, you have permission to repost my words.
LOL. Except, Mr. Wesly, I have no reason to repost your words unless it is a favor to you for me to do so...
Unless you start telling lies about tax laws.
-- www.synapticsparks.info

"Tony Wesley" wrote in message

snip
I respectfully disagree. Replying to posts is something I do on a routine basis, without entering in a contractual relationship. It's an activity that is not just between you and me, we're having a round-table discussion in front of some group of people, who may participate any time they chose. Posting a reply to your post is not a reply to you, it's a comment for the world to read and does not imply any acceptance of terms.

If you enter into a contractual relationship, it has to be shown that *both* parties receive something out of the relationship. Otherwise, it is not a valid contract. In this case, you don't receive anything, while 'Dale Eastman' receives the authority to reuse your 'works'. So it isn't a valid contract and can't really be enforced.
Dale may argue that you *did* receive something, the authority to reply to his post. But that is an invalid claim as you had that 'right' to reply to his statements to begin with. Since you don't use his news-server or other service to post a reply, Dale has no authority to deny you a first amendment right to free speech.
The open discussion of issues with equally open rebuttals in a public venue is what the first amendment is all about. Trying to tack on 'conditions' that require dissenters to give up something for the 'right' to dissent is unconstitutional.
However... It may be argued that reporters and members of the press can reprint the words spoken in a public forum, and Dale may wish to argue that his re-posting of some threads/discussions on his web site is the same thing. And under *that* argument, the first amendment actually *supports* his re-use of statements made by others (even without his invalid 'tag-line contract'). But to gain that support it may be necessary for Dale to show that his reposting is a form of 'news reporting to the public'. Not a terribly hard burden to meet.
daestrom

daestrom wrote:
<snip>

A couple of points I'd like to make....
snip
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.

'Fair use' as allowed under copyright law is a bit hard to 'nail down'. One 'fair use' is to quote excerpts from anothers work to use in the context of a critical review. But this meaning has a vague limit on just how much of the original authors work can be quoted. Generally, courts have allowed a section or paragraph, but have stopped at complete chapters and denied the re-quoting of an entire 'work' as 'fair use' under the critic provision.
Another 'fair use' is comedic parody. The old 'MAD Magazine' was famous for this. By reusing a story line in some form of parody of the original's work, the 'fair use' clause protects them from copyright suits.
I haven't gone to look at the web site in question, but wonder if either of these truly would apply?
snip

The key point I saw in my review of the copyright law is financial damages to the originator of the work. In order to have financial damages, the work must have commercial value. What commercial value is there in effectively calling somebody a "poopy-pants" or worse?
Please don't take this following flame as a personal flame. I post the following crap for example:
Daestrom, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown... What, do you think you're a super computer geek like the daestrom that imprinted his engrams on that computer that took over cap'n Kirk's starship enterprise? You're stupid. You don't know what you are talking about.
Again, I mean none of the above, but only post it for example. Now, do you see ANY commercial value in the above paragraph?
Now consider if I really meant what was posted. If you wanted to impeach my character, or the errors in my words, and you collected pages of posts of the same nature, do you honestly think you would be causing me financial harm?
The written works being discussed here is a written dialog... And such dialog IS a written conversation, NOT a composition for purposes of financial gain.

I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract. By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.
The contract does not change ownership of the copyrighted text, It only allows that such text will reside on my website. And at no time do I call the words my own... In fact, the whole purpose is to properly accredit the words TO the poster who "uttered" them.
All well and good, but you have to show that the 'contract' contains an approximately 'equal' exchange. A valid 'contract' must be an agreed upon *exchange* between two parties. For example, you ask for scrambled eggs in a restaurant, you agree to pay for them. You sign a contract with a builder, he provides services to build a house, you agree to pay him money. You pay a fee to a software seller, they agree to allow you to use their product (under some conditions).
Your 'contract' is one-sided. The replier receives nothing for 'giving you the rights' to use their statements. The argument that you 'let' them reply to your post as the 'exchange' is not valid because it implies they otherwise would not have the right/authority to reply to your post without it.

Good points.
But consider, We are discussing a written dialog, NOT a composition for purposes of financial gain.
Consider a phone conversation: "Before you start, I am recording this conversation." That's a one way contract.
Consider the contract implied in a property boundary sign: "TRESPASSER WILL BE SHOT". That's a one way contract.
Compare to: "Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website." - Which is akin to "Speak into the microphone, I'm recording this conversation.

In other words, your 'tag-line contract' denies people the right to reply to your opinions/statements without giving up something.

Assuming arguendo, that you are correct, What do you think the responding person is giving up?
Posts to usenet ARE in the public domain in much the same way as the words of Mel Gibson are now in the public domain. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5234142.stm
Posts to the usenet are written dialogs, just as this one is. Did you post the words you did in the post I am replying to for the purpose of financial gain?

That treads on first amendment issues. Since the replier is not using your personnel equipment/services to post a reply, you have no right to deny them the opportunity to make a public statement in rebuttal to your statements.

They can make their statements. And since it is, as you point out, a "public statement", then it is NOT a commercial work for financial gain. Again, ref: Mel Gibson's "public statement".
The tagline is simply fair warning the same as if I were on the phone with them, (with the whole world listening), when I say: "I'm recording this conversation."

By 'requiring' them to give up something of potential value (copyright use of their works) just to post an opinion in an appropriate public place, you are trying to deny free speech.

In essence, when your position is thought about, you are saying, "Well I know the whole world's listening - this discussion is happening in a public place, but because you are going to record my speech, I'm not going to say it and therefore you are denying my freedom of speech.
Thanks for your comments. I will be mulling them over even though I don't agree for the aforementioned reasons.

daestrom wrote:

"Tony Wesley" wrote in message
snip
I respectfully disagree. Replying to posts is something I do on a routine basis, without entering in a contractual relationship. It's an activity that is not just between you and me, we're having a round-table discussion in front of some group of people, who may participate any time they chose. Posting a reply to your post is not a reply to you, it's a comment for the world to read and does not imply any acceptance of terms.
If you enter into a contractual relationship, it has to be shown that *both* parties receive something out of the relationship. Otherwise, it is not a valid contract. In this case, you don't receive anything, while 'Dale Eastman' receives the authority to reuse your 'works'. So it isn't a valid contract and can't really be enforced.
Dale may argue that you *did* receive something, the authority to reply to his post. But that is an invalid claim as you had that 'right' to reply to his statements to begin with. Since you don't use his news-server or other service to post a reply, Dale has no authority to deny you a first amendment right to free speech.
The open discussion of issues with equally open rebuttals in a public venue is what the first amendment is all about. Trying to tack on 'conditions' that require dissenters to give up something for the 'right' to dissent is unconstitutional.
However... It may be argued that reporters and members of the press can reprint the words spoken in a public forum, and Dale may wish to argue that his re-posting of some threads/discussions on his web site is the same thing. And under *that* argument, the first amendment actually *supports* his re-use of statements made by others (even without his invalid 'tag-line contract'). But to gain that support it may be necessary for Dale to show that his reposting is a form of 'news reporting to the public'. Not a terribly hard burden to meet.
daestrom

Having just pressed the send button in reply to your other post, I read this one and see that you did a wonderful summary of what I did end up arguing.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb (Pacleds) from StarTrek tng. "He is smart. He makes things go."

Tony Wesley wrote:

Dale Eastman wrote: Tony Wesley wrote:
I don't believe your consent clause has any validity.
Now that is where I respectfully disagree.
The consent clause is a contract.

No, it's not. Or more correctly, it isn't a _valid_ contract. A contract requires both parties to get "consideration" (some benefit). That is why there is sometimes a payment of a nominal $1 sum. In your "contract", you get the benefit of posting my copyrighted material. I get nothing. Therefore, there is no contract.
The reason that point-and-click EULAs may actually be enforceable contracts is precisely because there _might be_ consideration on both sides. The party supplying the software gets you to agree to do something, and you get the use of the software. Even that is considered a pretty grey area, and will likely be enforced differently in different jurisdictions.

By replying to the post, one has entered into contract with me. By not replying to the post, one has declined to enter into contract with me.

Contracts don't work that way.

For what it's worth, you have permission to repost my words.
LOL. Except, Mr. Wesly, I have no reason to repost your words unless it is a favor to you for me to do so...

Unfortunately for you, that would be the only way there would be consideration on both parts, so again, no enforceable contract. -- derek

daestrom wrote:

It may be argued that reporters and members of the press can reprint the words spoken in a public forum, and Dale may wish to argue that his re-posting of some threads/discussions on his web site is the same thing. And under *that* argument, the first amendment actually *supports* his re-use of statements made by others (even without his invalid 'tag-line contract'). But to gain that support it may be necessary for Dale to show that his reposting is a form of 'news reporting to the public'. Not a terribly hard burden to meet.

Probably true - but I suspect that in that case his use of a supposed "contract" might work against a claim that it was "news reporting". :-) -- derek