Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

If you think I'm stupid and lowly educated, why SIEMENS hired me then Punks? - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Ulysses on July 29, 2009, 2:02 pm



How did  you do that?

Posted by Richardson on July 29, 2009, 3:26 pm

He copied the encyclopedia and called it secret.  The alternator's lesson
has been published long time ago, it's also in your auto-mechanic manual.

Posted by Jim Wilkins on July 29, 2009, 4:24 pm


Posted by Ulysses on July 30, 2009, 12:47 am



I tried several searches and WayBack and didn't find it....  I must be

Posted by Steve Ackman on July 29, 2009, 8:45 pm
 -0700, Ulysses, therealulysses@yahoo.com wrote:

  Maybe a better way to have said it was that Lindsay
REpublished it.

  The hard copy was purchased from Lindsay, and right
on the booklet, it says, "Lindsay Publications" and
the copyright notice.  This is from memory, since it
went into storage three months ago, so I don't recall
the copyright year on it.

  Authorship has nothing to do with publication.  In
many cases the author isn't even the copyright holder.

  The Lindsay derived work is somewhere in that
neighborhood.  The original is obviously MUCH older
since it was in the public domain when Lindsay picked
it up.

  If it says "Copyright 19XX, Lindsay Publications"
then it isn't the original.  It's a republication of
something in the public domain.
  If it's online, and someone left off the copyright
notice and publication info, Lindsay can still tell
it belongs to them by the telltales they inserted
(or removed).

  That's info about that computer file.  In all
likelihood, a scan of the Lindsay republication.

... by Anozira.

  Anozira claims copyright to their web page design,
but not the contents.  

  Go to this thread on Google Groups.  Look at the
bottom of the page.  It says, 2009 Google

  Now... do you think they're claiming copyright on
what you and I have written?  Do you think they're
claiming copyright on all of Usenet?  Essentially,
they're claiming copyright on their original logos,
icons, and "page layout."  That's all they have any
right to.  The copyright to the content is retained
by each author... even without any copyright notice.

  Technically (and by that I mean according to the
letter of the law), Google Groups is infringing on our
copyrights.  Google is a publisher who is illegally
publishing what we write, while Usenet is a
distributor.  Publication and Distribution are two
different things.  Of course Google argues that they're
just another Usenet node, distributing Usenet like any
other Usenet server.  That particlar issue hasn't gone
to court yet... after all, who can afford to go up
against Google's deep pockets?  

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread