it is a violation of today's US Supreme court ruling to move material submitted to Rootsweb boards to another venue with specific authorization of the copyright owner. The court said today that one who creates it owns it ! http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.htmlhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.html SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW YORK TIMES CO., INC., ET AL. v. TASINI ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 00-201. Argued March 28, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 We conclude that the Electronic Publishers infringed the Authors' copyrights by reproducing and distributing the Articles in a manner not authorized by the Authors and not privileged by §201(c). We further conclude that the Print Publishers infringed the Authors' copyrights by authorizing the Electronic Publishers to place the Articles in the Databases and by aiding the Electronic Publishers in that endeavor. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. -- Jim Rader, 2633 Gilbert Way - Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-3513 (916) 366-6833 visit my web at http://www.rader.org

not when it is within one company such as it is in this company. and you need to read further not explained in the summary. Detailed decison is quite clear - The publishers can NOT sell without permission and without compensation. David Jim Rader wrote: > > it is a violation of today's US Supreme court ruling to move material > submitted to Rootsweb boards to another venue with specific > authorization of the copyright owner. The court said today that one who > creates it owns it ! > http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.htmlhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.html > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES > Syllabus > NEW YORK TIMES CO., INC., ET AL. v. TASINI ET AL. > CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR > THE SECOND CIRCUIT > No. 00-201. Argued March 28, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 > > We conclude that the Electronic Publishers infringed > the Authors' copyrights by reproducing and distributing > the Articles in a manner not authorized by the Authors > and not privileged by §201(c). We further conclude that > the Print Publishers infringed the Authors' copyrights by > authorizing the Electronic Publishers to place the Articles > in the Databases and by aiding the Electronic Publishers > in that endeavor. We therefore affirm the judgment of the > Court of Appeals. > It is so ordered. > > -- > Jim Rader, 2633 Gilbert Way - Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-3513 > (916) 366-6833 visit my web at http://www.rader.org > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

Jim - I don't see Rootsweb mentioned at all in this article. I admit I didn't read the whole thing - but this is something different. Sandy Jim Rader wrote: > it is a violation of today's US Supreme court ruling to move material > submitted to Rootsweb boards to another venue with specific > authorization of the copyright owner. The court said today that one who > creates it owns it ! > http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.htmlhttp: