-----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm <hollyft@bright.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, April 30, 2000 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Copyright Violation >At 07:21 AM 4/30/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: >>Everyone seemed to be willing to address the issue >>of the violation of Holly's copyright by the Census >>Project, to the point that a whole project was delinked. >>I have never had a problem with addressing that issue >>if Holly felt her copyright had been violated. NOBODY'S >>copyright should be violated. > >The issue of my copyright has existed since Kay moved the project. There is >no *if* to my feelings on the matter and no one from the Census Project >has ever made any attempt to discuss the issue or any resolution of the >same with me. Instead the subject has been bandied about including >misleading and even blatant untruths primarily on lists to which I do not >even have access to defend myself. I fully agree with you there Holly. Issues being addressed in forums other than where they should be addressed has caused a lot of havoc. > >>Now we appear to have a double standard. It seems to >>be ok if some violate that copyright because we "like" >>them and we "didn't like" the other folks. Oh, I can hear >>the screams of outrage at that statement now. But when >>you peel back all the BS that's exactly what it boils down >>to. > >No, it is not the same, the transcribers (and proofreaders for that matter) >have not had their names erased from their transcriptions. I am certainly >open to a discussion of better, more accurate, less misleading phrasing of >the Archives statement added to the files but it is not at all the same >thing as erasure of a person. Copyright violation is copyright violation. For that matter, the instance demonstrated this morning of a change to the West Virginia state page has nothing to do with an archives statement. > >>Well folks, what's it going to be? Do we only hand out >>justice to those we "like", or are all the members of this >>Project going to be treated equally? > >How about we ignore *their* issue for well over a year as that seems to be >the way of things. The issue of your copyright violation complaint should have been addressed at the time it happened. I have great respect for you Holly, but I find your use of *their* to be an excellent example of the crux of the whole matter. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com > >Holly Timm > > >