RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 3/3
    1. Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: Fwd: Fw: Archives attacheddocumentarchive evidence
    2. Tim Stowell
    3. At 12:25 AM 3/25/03 -0500, you wrote: > > >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> At 02:42 PM 3/24/03 -0500, Linda Lewis wrote: >> > >> >> Then pray tell why are these notices on Archives files? Have you changed >> >> the original agreement? >> > >> >Tim, where have you been?? You were subscribed to the archives list >> >until last month and must have seen discussions (actually from the >> >beginning) about what needs to be included on the "notice." >> >> I was subscribed until you or someone unsubbed me for daring to question. >> > >Questioned what?? The last thing I saw you question was about what would >cc's do when we deleted a folder (which was temporary holding directory >and should not have been used for links). Ok, then why was I unsubbed? >> Being subbed and reading lists are two vastly different items. >> >> >The file you referenced was uploaded in 1998 and YES.. we have changed >> >the wording of the Notice.. a few times... depending on the problems we >> >encounter with copyright infringement, etc. >> >> Then they should all be changed. > >There is NO way we are going to go in and edit 6 gigs of text data to >change a notice. Read the U.S. copyright laws again. Even if the courts say so? >> >Regardless of what we say in the Notice, the U.S. copyright laws still >> >apply. No one can copy the work of someone else without their >> >permission. >> >> Doesn't seem to stop Archives folks from snatching items from the county >> pages. > >You've never given us a sample of "Archives folks" "snatching" items >from county pages. There are cases the other way around. Give us the url >of a "snatched" file and we'll check it out and remove it if it's not in >the Archives by permission. If you would advise your volunteers to be as >deligent, instead of encouraging them to copy at will, we wouldn't be >having this conversation. Every time you've been sent such, it is either ignored or explained away. The only way that seems to get any action - is to post it to a public list. I've got at least two examples - one I believe you temporarily took care of a day or so ago, after it was either sent to you by a Board member or listed here. There are cases that go back 2 years - that still haven't been fixed. I've asked the person's involved for permission to send their complaint once again. >> >On the main page of the Archives is this statement: >> > >> >" NOTICE: Printing the files within by >> >non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as >> > all notices and submitter information is >> >included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites >> > requires permission from the submitters PRIOR >> >to uploading to any other sites. We encourage links to >> > the state and county tables of content." >> > >> >That has been there since the first year, 1996. >> >> Perhaps you need better quality control? > >That statement is clear enough. No, I'm saying - perhaps ALL your current pages the ones you are loading now should ALL have the same notice. Tim

    03/24/2003 07:48:21
    1. Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: Fwd: Fw: Archivesattacheddocumentarchive evidence
    2. Linda Lewis
    3. > >Questioned what?? The last thing I saw you question was about what would > >cc's do when we deleted a folder (which was temporary holding directory > >and should not have been used for links). > > Ok, then why was I unsubbed? For one thing, you are not a state file manager. That is enough reason. I'm not going into other reasons For the other "sample" you refer to, you still haven't identified the file or files you claim were lifted from county pages. Linda

    03/25/2003 12:25:10
    1. Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: Fwd: Fw: Archivesattacheddocumentarchive
    2. Tim Stowell
    3. >> >Questioned what?? The last thing I saw you question was about what >> >would cc's do when we deleted a folder (which was temporary holding >> >directory and should not have been used for links). >> >> Ok, then why was I unsubbed? > > For one thing, you are not a state file manager. That is enough reason. No matter, I believe there are other there, that aren't either. > I'm not going into other reasons No matter, that alone says there are other reasons - but now I won't have to have the self glorification messages in my inbox and it will lessen my email load - so thanks for that. > For the other "sample" you refer to, you still haven't identified the > file or files you claim were lifted from county pages. All in good time. ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net

    03/25/2003 03:33:35