Sew - Is it a Crime?
Kim
lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people in here
because, well, let's face it, you all are smarter than my embroidery group.
BACKGROUND:
I do sewing machine embroidery, as do hundreds of others. Machine digitizing
is complicated, involves expensive machines and expensive software, lots of
time and lots of skill. Digitizing a really good image can be profitable -
I've paid up to $100 for one image. Although I have the equipment and the
software, I've never even tried digitizing an image on my own. Too much
work, I think.
eBay is full of sellers who will take that $100 image they legally purchased
and sell copies for $10. Some sellers will put 100 images on a CD and sell
it for $50. Clear and blatant violation of copyright laws. No doubt. No
argument.
CURRENTLY:
There is a group of digitizers who have gotten together and formed a group
called "Embroidery Software Protection Coalition" ESPC -
http://www.embroideryprotection.org/
This group has been trolling eBay to find *BUYERS* of illegal and
copyrighted embroidery designs and has been then sending these *BUYERS* a
very fancy and legal looking letter saying "Pay us $300 or we are going to
prosecute you for piracy".
Recently they have targeted a Yahoo group that is made up of members who are
voicing outrage at the ESPC's tactics, calling their letters everything from
"as illegal as the copyright violators" to "extortion". The ESPC has a
motion in court right now to obtain the names and addresses of every member
of the Yahoo group, even those who have never posted a message.
http://www.eff.org/news/ (second story on the page)
Here is a news story of one woman who received one the ESPC's letters:
http://www.wndu.com/news/contact16/092005/contact16_44586.php
THE DEBATE:
Do copyright infringement laws allow for the prosecution of those who *buy*
pirated materials? Doesn't copyright law only address people who copy and
distribute copyrighted materials? Are the ESPC's efforts misguided? Are
their letters simply extortion?
What if I bought a CD of designs not knowing they were pirated? Some of the
sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers, with
exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user manuals,
the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still subject to
paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in good faith?
Personally, I have never bought any of the materials in question - my
machine came preloaded with more stuff than I'll ever use - but some of the
members in my group have bought legal (and illegal) designs on line. Several
have received the letters, and it is a raging debate right now whether or
not to pay the $300 the ESPC is demanding. There is also an "amnesty
program" on their site that states if you go ahead and pay the $300 up
front, you won't be prosecuted, "once we find out about you, which we will".
This all stinks to high heaven, to me, and I would *never* pay the $300 -
I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to know what everyone in here
thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or rightful compensation from buyers who only
*thought* they were getting a deal on eBay?
--
Kim
www.attictamers.com
*Somehow "our song" just isn't as romantic now that they're using it
in an erectile dysfunction ad.* (Jerry L. Embry)
huey.c...@gmail.com
> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the embroidery
> mailing lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people
> in here because, well, let's face it, you all are smarter than my
I could only give my opinions as a layperson, but it just so happens
that I have a good friend who 1) studies IP and IT law, and 2) owns a
machine embroidery website. I've asked him to comment; perhaps he'll
post here, or I'll relay whatever he has to say on the subject.
--
Huey
Mary
Isn't this pretty much comparable to the file-sharing brouhaha of a few
years ago? The music companies couldn't go after Kazaa because they
weren't in US jurisdictions, so they went after the consumers.
And it worked.
Mary
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
If someone represents something as something it isn't on ebay, are you
liable for damages for just buying it? I think you should be able to sue
to seller, I bet you could. Of course the seller is probably already
being sued by bigger fish.
--
"Trusting is all right, but don't go to sleep without a gun." Leo
Tolstoy, "The Cossacks"
Dover Beach
Yeah, that seems directly parallel. I don't think they could get much
in damages from the consumer in Kim's case, because the real harm to the
developer comes from the resellers. Any one individual consumer didn't
do any particular amount of harm to the developer. And this business
about just saying "pay us $300 or we're gonna gitcha" is b.s., in my
opinion.
--
Dover
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
They don't even need evidence to sue her and then she'll have to get a
lawyer. They figure she'll look at those thousands of dollars and an
indeterminate result and fold.
Mary
eBay isn't as straightforward as KaZaa was, that's true. You can buy
something in good faith on eBay and not know that it was pirated.
Mary
Mary
Yes, particularly since these people didn't go to KaZaa, which was known
to be illegal. They went to eBay and bought what they probably thought
was legal to buy. I don't know if you can prosecute based on what
someone knew -- how do you prove it?
But the extortion of $300 does seem like just that. Extortion.
Mary
Kim
I thought of that - but in the case of Kazaa, the music companies could
successfully argue that the distributers and the consumers were one and the
same - peer to peer sharing and all that. The people within the network were
uploading as well as downloading, in most cases, or could be arguably
downloading by virtue of the "peer to peer" characteristic of the setup.
Therefore, copyright infringement could very well apply because the members
were "distributing". But could those same music companies successfully have
sued people who bought pirated recordings on eBay, if the people buying
weren't the actual distributors, just purchasers, and had no intention of
copying the copies and sharing those?
Mary
Possibly not, as discussed in the other subthread. The people who
bought the designs on eBay wouldn't necessarily know that they were
pirated. The "pay us $300 or we'll come after you" is probably just a
way for them to intimidate some people into sending money.
I'll bet it worked on some people, too.
Mary
HVS
> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the
> embroidery mailing lists I belong to. I would love to hear
> opinions from people in here because, well, let's face it, you
> all are smarter than my embroidery group.
-snip-
> This all stinks to high heaven, to me, and I would *never* pay
> the $300 - I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to
> know what everyone in here thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or
> rightful compensation from buyers who only *thought* they were
> getting a deal on eBay?
It doesn't sound like extortion, more like mugging....so, yeah:
they seem to be trying it on by hitting the easier-to-find target
(the buyers) rather than the right target (the sellers).
But...and the usual IANAL, IA, in particular, NA US L.
It seems to me that if I buy something that, to anyone with half
a brain, seems a really, really low price -- like a $20 DVD for
$2 in a market, or a $1000 flat-screen TV for $100, or a $100
pattern for ten bucks -- it's a bit rich to play the innocent
victim and say "Well, gosh, judge: I thought it was straight up,
and that they were selling entirely legit goods; how could I
possibly know they were bent?"
I'm not sure of the legalities, but I think in most jurisdictions
it's not just illegal to sell stolen/pirated property, but also
illegal to buy stuff knowing that there's a near-on certainty
that it's stolen/pirated.
So, no: the $300 isn't rightful compensation; and yes, they're
only hitting on the sellers because they're easier to trace than
the buyers.
But surely someone who buys something at one-tenth of a known
full price isn't an innocent victim of fraud; they're colluding
in the fraud, and I think there are, in fact, laws against that.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
tooloud
I've done that on eBay before...I purchased a new navigation disc for one of
the cars and it was clearly a copy when I got it in my hands. I knew that
there was about a 99% chance that it *would* be a copy when I purchased it,
but I also knew that PayPal would fall over itself to give me my money back
if it *was* a pirated version. It was, they did, and I was told to keep the
disc.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply
Bob Ward
wrote:
How nice - the thief tells you to keep the stolen property when you
discover the theft.
How do you see this as being different from having the balls to steal
it in the first place?
Bob Ward
Is eBay cooperating with this den of thieves? Are they providing the
buyer's names and addresses without any sort of court order? I think
that's another can of worms that needs to be exposed.
If they are just sending their demands to an otherwise anonymous
screen name, I don't think their threat has teeth, but it's uncool to
be knowingly buying stolen material in the first place.
Lisa Ann
news:12ds9rp...@corp.supernews.com...
In the WNDU article, it states that a Notre Dame law professor says
copyright law says the distribution is illegal, not the posession - not that
this has really stopped the RIAA from going after people.
The ESPC's link to the government copyright page seems to focus on the
illegal copying and distribution of protected material, not the posession of
it.
With that in mind, then yes, I think the ESPC's efforts are "misguided" at
best, "extortion" at worst.
> What if I bought a CD of designs not knowing they were pirated? Some of
> the sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers,
> with exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user
> manuals, the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still
> subject to paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in
> good faith?
I don't see how, to be honest. I know there are laws against knowingly
buying stolen property, but the key word is "knowingly".
>
> Personally, I have never bought any of the materials in question - my
> machine came preloaded with more stuff than I'll ever use - but some of
> the members in my group have bought legal (and illegal) designs on line.
> Several have received the letters, and it is a raging debate right now
> whether or not to pay the $300 the ESPC is demanding. There is also an
> "amnesty program" on their site that states if you go ahead and pay the
> $300 up front, you won't be prosecuted, "once we find out about you, which
> we will".
>
> This all stinks to high heaven, to me, and I would *never* pay the $300 -
> I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to know what everyone in
> here thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or rightful compensation from buyers
> who only *thought* they were getting a deal on eBay?
I'm sticking with extortion. I'm sympathetic to the designers who are
losing both control of their designs and their rightful compensation for
their designs - but I'd rather go after the scum who are reproducing and
selling the designs than the poor schmucks who bought them thinking it was
an okay deal.
Perhaps if the ESPC were openly working with a law enforcement agency in an
effort to put a stop to this I'd be more sympathetic to them - but they seem
to be doing this on their own.
Lisa Ann
Kim
>
> Is eBay cooperating with this den of thieves?
They have been for quite a while. I see 1,000's of listings every single day
for "compilation CD's" full of pirated images. The leader of our embroidery
group is a lady very well respected in the field who is getting ripped off
quite regularly. Her designs are favorites of the pirates, which is really
quite a shame because if you belong to the group she quite freely passes
them around for "testing" and "comments" and "bugs" before she offers them
on her website store. I mean, it's not like she's charging an arm and a leg
for them, they are 10 times less in her store than what Singer or Bernina
charges for their designs, and just as nice. She puts a lot of time and work
into her designs and they are very beautiful and very high quality. But I
suspect she doesn't make a quarter of the income she could be making if
pirates weren't offering her designs on eBay every single day of the week
for 1/10th of her already low price.
She complains to eBay's VERO program to get ten pirates shut down, only to
see 20 new ones crop up. She said policing eBay is a full time job.
> Are they providing the
> buyer's names and addresses without any sort of court order? I think
> that's another can of worms that needs to be exposed.
That I could not tell you - I don't know. I know that I read somewhere -
maybe on the ESPC site, maybe in the news article cited before - that the
ESPC has successfully sued eBay themselves for copyright infringement. I
think *that* probably made eBay a little more cooperative, or maybe it was
one of the settlements of the lawsuit that forced eBay to divulge names of
people buying and selling the materials in question. Although, as you said,
that's a whole nother can of worms, and actually makes me think twice about
buying *anything* on eBay, if it were proven to be the case that eBay had to
turn over names as part of a settlement. I'm not quite sure how I feel about
my personal information (including the required Visa and bank account
numbers) being used as a pawn in a lawsuit.
>
> If they are just sending their demands to an otherwise anonymous
> screen name, I don't think their threat has teeth, but it's uncool to
> be knowingly buying stolen material in the first place.
I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen materials, hey,
you spend your money's and you take your chances. BUT, some of the sellers
are extremely slick. There are several people on the embroidery group I am
on who had no idea what they were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you
can usually tell if they are pirated, even by the listing, but these
embroidery designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I
digitzed a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person and I
just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for $10 on some
obscure website? Or, for that matter, what if I digitized a picture of a
cat, gave it to my next door neighbor and *she* sold it on eBay? Do I have a
case of copyright infringement? Sure. Do I have the right to sue the
purchaser? Well, that's not so clear. How was the purchaser to know who
actually digitized the picture? Especially if it's on a disk with 1,000
other pictures? What kind of due diligence should be required?
Kim
>
> Perhaps if the ESPC were openly working with a law enforcement agency
> in an effort to put a stop to this I'd be more sympathetic to them -
> but they seem to be doing this on their own.
Well, you know, GMTA and all that.
I haven't really participated in the group discussion, it's been long and
drawn out and full of very strong opinions on both sides, but I did
contribute that one thought: That this "company" is NOT a non profit
organization, dutifully working with the FBI or something - they seem to me
to be more like a collection agency, where they "buy" the original
complainants complaints, send out some really scary looking letters
threatening all kinds of repurcussions, with a set amount of "compensation"
to avoid said repurcussions, give the original complainants a small kickback
for every successful resolution and keep a large chunk of the "compensation"
for themselves.
For that reason, and that reason alone, I have very little sympathy for
them, or their tactics, and it would be a cold day in hell before I sent
them anything.
Bob Ward
<72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen materials, hey,
>you spend your money's and you take your chances. BUT, some of the sellers
>are extremely slick. There are several people on the embroidery group I am
>on who had no idea what they were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you
>can usually tell if they are pirated, even by the listing, but these
>embroidery designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I
>digitzed a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
>the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person and I
>just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for $10 on some
>obscure website? Or, for that matter, what if I digitized a picture of a
>cat, gave it to my next door neighbor and *she* sold it on eBay? Do I have a
>case of copyright infringement? Sure. Do I have the right to sue the
>purchaser? Well, that's not so clear. How was the purchaser to know who
>actually digitized the picture? Especially if it's on a disk with 1,000
>other pictures? What kind of due diligence should be required?
It would be the responsibility of the neighbor who is selling the
images to secure the right to profit from each of the images she is
selling.
Veronique
HVS wrote:
> But...and the usual IANAL, IA, in particular, NA US L.
>
> It seems to me that if I buy something that, to anyone with half
> a brain, seems a really, really low price -- like a $20 DVD for
> $2 in a market, or a $1000 flat-screen TV for $100,
I've got this flat screen I can let you have for $100, that doesn't
look at all like an oven door unless you unwrap it and take it out of
the box...
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Opus the Penguin
Is your name Schroedinger by any chance?
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen
> materials, hey, you spend your money's and you take your chances.
> BUT, some of the sellers are extremely slick. There are several
> people on the embroidery group I am on who had no idea what they
> were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you can usually tell if
> they are pirated, even by the listing, but these embroidery
> designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I digitzed
> a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
> the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other*
> person and I just copied the digitized image from a design I
> bought for $10 on some obscure website?
On Usenet, nobody knows whether you've digitized your own dog.
Veronique
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Veronique (veroniq...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > HVS wrote:
> >
> >> But...and the usual IANAL, IA, in particular, NA US L.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that if I buy something that, to anyone with half
> >> a brain, seems a really, really low price -- like a $20 DVD for
> >> $2 in a market, or a $1000 flat-screen TV for $100,
> >
> >
> > I've got this flat screen I can let you have for $100, that doesn't
> > look at all like an oven door unless you unwrap it and take it out of
> > the box...
> >
>
> Is your name Schroedinger by any chance?
If I had two umlauts, I'd give you one.
Nostradamus
wrote:
Sigh. <oe> is the older form and is perfectly acceptable, particularly
where the umlaut mark is unavailable (e.g., on Usenet).
Veronique
You, on the other hand, can worry about your own damn umlauts.
Ulo Melton
But that mark *is* available. Here are a bunch for your future use.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just grab one and rotate it 90 degrees clockwise (or counterclockwise if
you wish to use it as a diaeresis).
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Since he spelt his name with an umlaut, variant spellings aren't really
correct and probably should be limited to situations where the letter
really isn't available. Of course for most people, the umlauts used in
German are available on usenet: Schrödinger.
Kim
That will cost you $300. Send it to me - or else.
HVS
Ah; that clears up a mystery.
It must be digitised dogs that keep leaving electronic crap on my
machine...
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Stan
I love umlauts. Plain cheese is good, but throw some ham in and I'm in
heaven. Or mushrooms. Or peppers. But no onions, please. A German
umlaut? What's that have in it? Sauerkraut?
--
# You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in
torment if you don't trust enough. (Chinese)
Mr C
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:45:17 -0400, "Kim"
> <72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen materials, hey,
> >you spend your money's and you take your chances. BUT, some of the sellers
> >are extremely slick. There are several people on the embroidery group I am
> >on who had no idea what they were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you
> >can usually tell if they are pirated, even by the listing, but these
> >embroidery designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I
> >digitzed a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
> >the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person and I
> >just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for $10 on some
> >obscure website?
The image will be copyrighted, and the copyright statement will
identify the copyright owner.
> >Or, for that matter, what if I digitized a picture of a
> >cat, gave it to my next door neighbor and *she* sold it on eBay? Do I have a
> >case of copyright infringement? Sure.
Why? You gave it to her. She can sell it if she likes. If she's
making copies and selling them, your only means of protection is to
have registered your copyright.
> >Do I have the right to sue the
> >purchaser? Well, that's not so clear. How was the purchaser to know who
> >actually digitized the picture? Especially if it's on a disk with 1,000
> >other pictures? What kind of due diligence should be required?
>
>
> It would be the responsibility of the neighbor who is selling the
> images to secure the right to profit from each of the images she is
> selling.
Even though your work is "copyrighted" from the moment of it's creation
in tangible form, you cannot pursue infringement unless you have
officially registered your copyright.
Mr C
Blinky the Shark
If nobody else has called Band Name on that (Digitized Dogs), I am.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Jeff Wisnia
> What if I bought a CD of designs not knowing they were pirated? Some of the
> sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers, with
> exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user manuals,
> the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still subject to
> paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in good faith?
>
> Personally, I have never bought any of the materials in question - my
> machine came preloaded with more stuff than I'll ever use - but some of the
> members in my group have bought legal (and illegal) designs on line. Several
> have received the letters, and it is a raging debate right now whether or
> not to pay the $300 the ESPC is demanding. There is also an "amnesty
> program" on their site that states if you go ahead and pay the $300 up
> front, you won't be prosecuted, "once we find out about you, which we will".
>
> This all stinks to high heaven, to me, and I would *never* pay the $300 -
> I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to know what everyone in here
> thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or rightful compensation from buyers who only
> *thought* they were getting a deal on eBay?
>
You might get some more authorotative answers and cites by posting to
the newsgroup:
misc.legal.moderated
*******************
A couple of years ago I purchased a CD edition of the ICD-9 medical
diagnosis coding book on ebay. The auction listing displayed a photo of
the "real" CD box label, and I was too naive to ping the seller about
whether the item was an original or a copy. It was one edition "back"
from the current one so I bid and won it for about 1/3 of the $120 or so
current edition's list price.
What I got was an unlabled and obvious copy which was missing one key
file needed to make it work.
I emailed the seller and told him I wanted to return the CD for a refund
and he had the chutzpah to answer me by writing, How do I know YOU
didn't already make a copy of it?".
Writing a strong letter to him telling him that I had the time and
inclination to make a PIA out of myself informing the CD's publisher,
his local police department, PayPal and maybe even the UN, got me an
immediate refund.
I waz lucky that time...
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
"What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?"
tooloud
PayPal leaves it up to the seller's discretion.
> How do you see this as being different from having the balls to steal
> it in the first place?
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think *I* did anything wrong.
Kim
> Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:45:17 -0400, "Kim"
>> <72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen
>>> materials, hey, you spend your money's and you take your chances.
>>> BUT, some of the sellers are extremely slick. There are several
>>> people on the embroidery group I am on who had no idea what they
>>> were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you can usually tell if
>>> they are pirated, even by the listing, but these embroidery designs
>>> are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I digitzed a
>>> picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was* the
>>> digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person
>>> and I just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for
>>> $10 on some obscure website?
>
> The image will be copyrighted, and the copyright statement will
> identify the copyright owner.
Sure it will.
Here's an image of a finished embroidered design - assume it's the same one
some person wants to sell on eBay, although he isn't the digitizer. This
design has been copyrighted by the person who owns it. Now, when this is
offered on eBay, tell me how you are going to know wether or not the person
offering the image is the one who digitized it.
http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/0/7/7/7/5/webimg/17766727_o.gif
And now tell me, as the buyer, whether or not you should be sued for buying
it.
>
> Why? You gave it to her. She can sell it if she likes. If she's
> making copies and selling them, your only means of protection is to
> have registered your copyright.
What if I did? What if I have a website that even says "These designs are
for your personal use only - when you buy them you agree not to copy,
reproduce, distribute or otherwise copy them or offer them for sale."
Now, I give it to my neighbor and she copies it and sells it on eBay. Do I
have a case against her? Sure. But do I have a case against the person who
bought it?
Greg Goss
>
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:45:17 -0400, "Kim"
>> <72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen materials, hey,
>> >you spend your money's and you take your chances. BUT, some of the sellers
>> >are extremely slick. There are several people on the embroidery group I am
>> >on who had no idea what they were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies you
>> >can usually tell if they are pirated, even by the listing, but these
>> >embroidery designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I
>> >digitzed a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
>> >the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person and I
>> >just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for $10 on some
>> >obscure website?
>
>The image will be copyrighted, and the copyright statement will
>identify the copyright owner.
Copyright statements are no longer required. Something is inherently
copyright unless explicitly released. I asked for permission to post
the waterfall pic used on Wendy's live journal, despite no copyright
notices in the email where it was sent to me.
>> >Or, for that matter, what if I digitized a picture of a
>> >cat, gave it to my next door neighbor and *she* sold it on eBay? Do I have a
>> >case of copyright infringement? Sure.
>
>Why? You gave it to her. She can sell it if she likes. If she's
>making copies and selling them, your only means of protection is to
>have registered your copyright.
I would like that. I think that copyright should be much looser than
it currently is. But the world is not always what I want. You gave a
single copy of a photograph. I don't think that includes publication
rights.
>Even though your work is "copyrighted" from the moment of it's creation
>in tangible form, you cannot pursue infringement unless you have
>officially registered your copyright.
Can someone else verify this statement?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Bob Ward
wrote:
You "bought" a product when you "knew that there was about a 99%
chance that it *would* be a copy when I purchased it, but I also knew
that PayPal would fall over itself to give me my money back if it
*was* a pirated version."
Why didn't you have the balls to go out and steal it yourself?
It's STILL stolen property, even though PayPal helped you get it for
free from the other thief.
Bob Ward
You know why French umlauts are so much smaller? Because in French,
one egg is en oeuf
Bob Ward
<melt...@sewergator.com> wrote:
>Nostradamus <n...@example.com (actually at nostradamus.net)> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2006 20:37:02 -0700, "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is your name Schroedinger by any chance?
>>>
>>>
>>>If I had two umlauts, I'd give you one.
>>>
>>
>>Sigh. <oe> is the older form and is perfectly acceptable, particularly
>>where the umlaut mark is unavailable (e.g., on Usenet).
>
>But that mark *is* available. Here are a bunch for your future use.
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>Just grab one and rotate it 90 degrees clockwise (or counterclockwise if
>you wish to use it as a diaeresis).
And here I thought diaeresis was a fancy-schmancy word for people
(like me) who don't trim their quotes so that people can figure out
what we are talking about without pulling up the previous message.
Bob Ward
Ewww, I leave that to the veterinarian - even WITH rubber gloves,
it's a smelly, filthy process.
Mary
No, no, it's got something to do with kidney disease.
Mary
Bill Turlock
That's a long way to tip a rarey.
Bill Turlock
AIUI, you certainly may persue an infringement case. It's just
that you have more muscle if your copyright is _registered_ with
the gov't. You can get damages, + statutory double or treble the
damages (I forget which) in addition, if you've registered. I had
a photographer acquaintance who made as much money suing
infringers as he did selling his work (he registered *every*
image he produced).
Bill
Bill Turlock
Good For You!!!
Bill
Bob Ward
If the rarey doesn't give good service, he gets no tip.
Blinky the Shark
> AIUI, you certainly may persue an infringement case. It's just
> that you have more muscle if your copyright is _registered_ with
> the gov't. You can get damages, + statutory double or treble the
> damages (I forget which) in addition, if you've registered. I had
> a photographer acquaintance who made as much money suing
> infringers as he did selling his work (he registered *every*
> image he produced).
Over in alt.webmasters, there's a thread in progress with some guy who
swears uphill and down that because it was able to buy ebaynational.com
for his classified ads site eBay won't be able to do anything about it.
He can't seem to differentiate a domain registrar and a court.
Blinky the Shark
> Bill Turlock wrote:
>
>> AIUI, you certainly may persue an infringement case. It's just
>> that you have more muscle if your copyright is _registered_ with
>> the gov't. You can get damages, + statutory double or treble the
>> damages (I forget which) in addition, if you've registered. I had
>> a photographer acquaintance who made as much money suing
>> infringers as he did selling his work (he registered *every*
>> image he produced).
>
> Over in alt.webmasters, there's a thread in progress with some guy who
alt.webmaster
mic...@gmail.com
> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the embroidery mailing
> lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people in here
> because, well, let's face it, you all are smarter than my embroidery group.
>
BACKGROUND:
I don't follow AFC-A (or any Usenet group anymore for that matter), but
I'm a friend of a regular (who may or may not wish to 'fess up to
knowing me) who punched me in the kidneys until I agreed to follow-up.
So let me preface things by saying "Ow! That hurt."
I also am the President/CEO of a small Texas corporation whose main
profit center is an embroidery mall (http://www.stitcherymall.com/), a
former legal assistant, an erstwhile follower of spam and intellectual
property law, consultant, and I'm also as loveable as a ... something
loveable.
> eBay is full of sellers who will take that $100 image they legally purchased
> and sell copies for $10. Some sellers will put 100 images on a CD and sell
> it for $50. Clear and blatant violation of copyright laws. No doubt. No
> argument.
Since that hurts the sales of our vendors (some of whom are doing this
to supplement their Social Security, and some of whom are actually good
enough that they do this for an actual living), it hurts my ability to
make profit. So I gotta say that I really hate the eBayers who sell my
vendors' designs without permission.
> CURRENTLY:
> There is a group of digitizers who have gotten together and formed a group
> called "Embroidery Software Protection Coalition" ESPC -
> http://www.embroideryprotection.org/
Let's be a bit more clear here: the ESPC is a trade group founded by
the REALLY BIG NAMES. Think of it kind of like if Microsoft, Apple,
and SCO got together and decided to gang up on OS pirates. Nah, that'd
never happen. But, if it did, then you'd get the idea of what the
companies making millions of dollars selling these design files are
doing.
[Full disclosure: My company is NOT a member of the ESPC.]
> Do copyright infringement laws allow for the prosecution of those who *buy*
> pirated materials? Doesn't copyright law only address people who copy and
> distribute copyrighted materials? Are the ESPC's efforts misguided? Are
> their letters simply extortion?
I don't know that I would go so far as "extortion" but in my opinion
(and again, I'm not an attorney), they're misguided. Their FAQ lists
17 USC 501 as their authority for the ability to go after the
purchaser, but I just don't read that there. And while I'm One of
Those People who actually use the DMCA to shut down infringers, I've
never gone after the people who purchased.
If nothing else, making your customers mad at you is Bad For Business,
which ultimately becomes Bad For Breakfast (which I'd prefer to
continue to be able to eat). I don't mind the bastages selling the
stuff illegally becoming former customers (which we have ways of
accomplishing), but I'd prefer that our legitimate clients who make a
single bad purchase not get so mad that they also become former
customers.
> What if I bought a CD of designs not knowing they were pirated? Some of the
> sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers, with
> exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user manuals,
> the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still subject to
> paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in good faith?
Sure you are... unless you want to fight them in court. But I could
send you a demand letter saying that unless you pay me $300 then I'll
be forced to sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress
for that thing you did to me yesterday.
No, the other thing.
No, the OTHER thing.
Yeah. That's the one.
> Personally, I have never bought any of the materials in question - my
> machine came preloaded with more stuff than I'll ever use - but some of the
> members in my group have bought legal (and illegal) designs on line. Several
> have received the letters, and it is a raging debate right now whether or
> not to pay the $300 the ESPC is demanding. There is also an "amnesty
> program" on their site that states if you go ahead and pay the $300 up
> front, you won't be prosecuted, "once we find out about you, which we will".
And that won't, of course, protect them from possible nasty letters if
a non-ESPC member decides to follow this Case Study in Stellar Customer
Relations and send out their own letters. And given what I've seen of
the ESPC's technical prowess, I wouldn't take even money on their
ability to eventually find you as a given.
> This all stinks to high heaven, to me, and I would *never* pay the $300 -
> I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to know what everyone in here
> thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or rightful compensation from buyers who only
> *thought* they were getting a deal on eBay?
I think it's an attempt to create FUD in the minds of consumers with
regard to the wisdom of buying from an eBay auction. I don't think
it's extortion, unless they decide to start publishing lists of people
who refuse to settle up with them.
As for "rightful compensation", that's also a stretch. I think what
they're trying to do is make this a self-funding crusade, er, um,
information campaign.
tooloud
I wasn't past the threshold of thinking that it was stolen enough to not buy
it. PayPal claims to refund your money if the item you're sent is
counterfeit. I took them up on that offer and asked where to send the
counterfeit product. They told me the seller didn't want to pay the shipping
for it back. Well, I didn't either.
> Why didn't you have the balls to go out and steal it yourself?
I wouldn't say I stole something. I thought there was a good enough chance
that it was real that I took the effort to find out. If you find a jury that
would convict me of something, just let me know.
> It's STILL stolen property, even though PayPal helped you get it for
> free from the other thief.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I did exactly as I was asked after a
dumb seller tried sold me a copy of a disc, for which I reported him to
PayPal. They understood the problem and refunded my money and promised to
take care of everything.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>I wasn't past the threshold of thinking that it was stolen enough to not buy
>it. PayPal claims to refund your money if the item you're sent is
>counterfeit. I took them up on that offer and asked where to send the
>counterfeit product. They told me the seller didn't want to pay the shipping
>for it back. Well, I didn't either.
>
>> Why didn't you have the balls to go out and steal it yourself?
>
>I wouldn't say I stole something. I thought there was a good enough chance
>that it was real that I took the effort to find out. If you find a jury that
>would convict me of something, just let me know.
>
>> It's STILL stolen property, even though PayPal helped you get it for
>> free from the other thief.
>
>I'm not sure what you're talking about. I did exactly as I was asked after a
>dumb seller tried sold me a copy of a disc, for which I reported him to
>PayPal. They understood the problem and refunded my money and promised to
>take care of everything.
Yeah, and I'm sure that you went out and paid full price for the real
thing the very next day.
tooloud
If it had meant enough to me to pay full price for it, I would have just
ordered it direct and not on eBay, so I haven't purchased anything.
Bob Ward
wrote:
Which way would your complaint have gone if the counterfeit had been
unreadable?
huey.c...@gmail.com
> I don't follow AFC-A (or any Usenet group anymore for that matter), but
> I'm a friend of a regular (who may or may not wish to 'fess up to
> knowing me) who punched me in the kidneys until I agreed to follow-up.
> So let me preface things by saying "Ow! That hurt."
See Message-ID: <_POdnQFq98kXtkPZ...@speakeasy.net> upthread.
--
Huey
Nostradamus
Might I suggest Emmental or Tilsit?
Opus the Penguin
I think Bob's assuming you went ahead and used the counterfeit copy.
Is that the case?
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> I don't follow AFC-A (or any Usenet group anymore for that
> matter), but I'm a friend of a regular (who may or may not wish to
> 'fess up to knowing me) who punched me in the kidneys until I
> agreed to follow-up. So let me preface things by saying "Ow! That
> hurt."
You're lucky. I would have given you a lollipop and then taken it away.
Nostradamus
(actually at nostradamus.net)> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2006 20:37:02 -0700, "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> Veronique (veroniq...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>> > HVS wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> But...and the usual IANAL, IA, in particular, NA US L.
>>> >>
>>> >> It seems to me that if I buy something that, to anyone with half
>>> >> a brain, seems a really, really low price -- like a $20 DVD for
>>> >> $2 in a market, or a $1000 flat-screen TV for $100,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I've got this flat screen I can let you have for $100, that doesn't
>>> > look at all like an oven door unless you unwrap it and take it out of
>>> > the box...
>>> >
>>>
>>> Is your name Schroedinger by any chance?
>>
>>
>>If I had two umlauts, I'd give you one.
>>
>
>Sigh. <oe> is the older form and is perfectly acceptable, particularly
>where the umlaut mark is unavailable (e.g., on Usenet).
Although Erwin S. did use the unlaut mark in later life, this early
notebook shows an unlaut AND what appears to be a vestigial <e>.
N Jill Marsh
>I don't follow AFC-A (or any Usenet group anymore for that matter), but
>I'm a friend of a regular (who may or may not wish to 'fess up to
>knowing me) who punched me in the kidneys until I agreed to follow-up.
>So let me preface things by saying "Ow! That hurt."
I'll hit him back for you, if you want.
>I also am the President/CEO of a small Texas corporation whose main
>profit center is an embroidery mall (http://www.stitcherymall.com/), a
>former legal assistant, an erstwhile follower of spam and intellectual
>property law, consultant, and I'm also as loveable as a ... something
>loveable.
You seem nearly as loveable as Huey, and that's quite an
accomplishment given the subject matter. Thank you for your
interesting post. Do you sell embroidery designs of guns shooting
angry bees that are on fire?
nj"just askin"m
--
"See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining with the light of
pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's brain power. He virtually lives on fish."
mdginzo
Kim wrote:
> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the embroidery mailing
> lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people in here
>
> BACKGROUND:
>
> I do sewing machine embroidery, as do hundreds of others. Machine digitizing
> is complicated, involves expensive machines and expensive software, lots of
> time and lots of skill. Digitizing a really good image can be profitable -
> I've paid up to $100 for one image. Although I have the equipment and the
> software, I've never even tried digitizing an image on my own. Too much
> work, I think.
>
> and sell copies for $10. Some sellers will put 100 images on a CD and sell
> it for $50. Clear and blatant violation of copyright laws. No doubt. No
> argument.
>
>
> There is a group of digitizers who have gotten together and formed a group
> called "Embroidery Software Protection Coalition" ESPC -
> http://www.embroideryprotection.org/
>
> copyrighted embroidery designs and has been then sending these *BUYERS* a
> very fancy and legal looking letter saying "Pay us $300 or we are going to
> prosecute you for piracy".
>
> Recently they have targeted a Yahoo group that is made up of members who are
> voicing outrage at the ESPC's tactics, calling their letters everything from
> "as illegal as the copyright violators" to "extortion". The ESPC has a
> motion in court right now to obtain the names and addresses of every member
> of the Yahoo group, even those who have never posted a message.
>
> http://www.eff.org/news/ (second story on the page)
>
> Here is a news story of one woman who received one the ESPC's letters:
>
> http://www.wndu.com/news/contact16/092005/contact16_44586.php
>
> THE DEBATE:
>
> pirated materials? Doesn't copyright law only address people who copy and
> distribute copyrighted materials? Are the ESPC's efforts misguided? Are
> their letters simply extortion?
>
> sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers, with
> exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user manuals,
> the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still subject to
> paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in good faith?
>
> machine came preloaded with more stuff than I'll ever use - but some of the
> members in my group have bought legal (and illegal) designs on line. Several
> have received the letters, and it is a raging debate right now whether or
> not to pay the $300 the ESPC is demanding. There is also an "amnesty
> program" on their site that states if you go ahead and pay the $300 up
> front, you won't be prosecuted, "once we find out about you, which we will".
>
> I'd fight them in court, myself, but I'd like to know what everyone in here
> thinks. Is the $300 extortion, or rightful compensation from buyers who only
> *thought* they were getting a deal on eBay?
>
> Kim
> www.attictamers.com
> *Somehow "our song" just isn't as romantic now that they're using it
> in an erectile dysfunction ad.* (Jerry L. Embry)
These "copyright infringement" lawsuits are the scam of the decade. I
suspect that eventually some judge is going to throw the whole thing
out. $300 is too small of an amount to take someone to court over in
these kinds of cases.
Greg Goss
>Kim wrote:
>> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the embroidery mailing
>> lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people in here
>> because, well, let's face it, you all are smarter than my embroidery group.
>>
>BACKGROUND:
>
>I don't follow AFC-A (or any Usenet group anymore for that matter), but
>I'm a friend of a regular (who may or may not wish to 'fess up to
>knowing me) who punched me in the kidneys until I agreed to follow-up.
>So let me preface things by saying "Ow! That hurt."
Pain is a normal part of AFCA recruitment. You get used to it.
>I also am the President/CEO of a small Texas corporation whose main
>profit center is an embroidery mall (http://www.stitcherymall.com/), a
>former legal assistant, an erstwhile follower of spam and intellectual
>property law, consultant, and I'm also as loveable as a ... something
>loveable.
[...]
>> What if I bought a CD of designs not knowing they were pirated? Some of the
>> sellers are quite cagey - printing the CD's on thermal CD printers, with
>> exact duplication of the CD art itself, flawlessly copying the user manuals,
>> the cover art, shrink-wrapping the final product. Am I still subject to
>> paying the $300 the ESPC demands in their letter if I buy in good faith?
>
>Sure you are... unless you want to fight them in court. But I could
>send you a demand letter saying that unless you pay me $300 then I'll
>be forced to sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress
>for that thing you did to me yesterday.
>
>No, the other thing.
>
>No, the OTHER thing.
>
>Yeah. That's the one.
You belong here.
--
Anny Middon
news:12dsq0g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I agree on both counts. And if you *knowingly* buy stolen materials, hey,
> you spend your money's and you take your chances. BUT, some of the sellers
> are extremely slick. There are several people on the embroidery group I am
> on who had no idea what they were buying. See, that's the thing. Movies
> you can usually tell if they are pirated, even by the listing, but these
> embroidery designs are almost indistinguishable - for instance: if I
> digitzed a picture of a dog - how could you know, really, whether I *was*
> the digitizer as opposed to some talented yet unknown *other* person and I
> just copied the digitized image from a design I bought for $10 on some
> purchaser? Well, that's not so clear. How was the purchaser to know who
> actually digitized the picture? Especially if it's on a disk with 1,000
> other pictures? What kind of due diligence should be required?
>
Adding to this--
1) The buyer may not be aware of the typical cost of the designs. I've
bought things on Ebay as presents for other people. If I knew someone who
did machine embroidery and I wanted to spend $50 on a present for that
person and I saw a lot of similar products for sale on Ebay for that same
$50 or so, I'd think that was the going price. In such a case I'd have no
idea that what I was buying was so cheap as to be indicative that it was
stolen.
2) Even in copyrighted works, used copies often sell for much less than new
ones. I just bought 2 bags of books at an AAUW sale. I've seen used CDs
and DVDs for sale in locales other than Ebay. My local Blockbuster store
used to sell used movies, for example, and perhaps still do. I know
software is a bit dicier, but I've seen used software for sale, too.
3) Many years ago I bought several CDs full of clip art for the computer.
There was a large range of prices of such disks, and I usually bought the
really cheap ones. In most cases I just wanted some official copy of a
variety of pictures for the greeting cards I used to make for family and
friends. The price was cheap and the quality was low and that was what I
expected. If I was buying digitized embroidery designs I would probably
assume the same thing -- I would be getting a disk of a lot of low-quality
designs with maybe a few that I'd really like to have.
Anny
Andrew Gore
<72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>I do sewing machine embroidery, as do hundreds of others. Machine digitizing
>is complicated, involves expensive machines and expensive software, lots of
>time and lots of skill. Digitizing a really good image can be profitable -
>I've paid up to $100 for one image. Although I have the equipment and the
>software, I've never even tried digitizing an image on my own. Too much
>work, I think.
How interesting. Can I ask you about that? I've always admired
fine, lage-scale 'arty' embroidery; I envy guys with cool embroideed
shirts from anything from rock groups to mtorcycle clubs. Recently I
was admiring an oriental dress with a gorgeous embroiderd dragon when
it occured to me that, like everything else, that may be somewhat
'computeized' these days. Sure enuf, I went home and poked around the
Net and found this:
http://snipurl.com/uym6
It is a fancy sewing machine that runs Windows. Is this what
you mean? You can apparently load images into the machine, edit them
on Windows, and have the sewing machine run them. Is it that simple?
Just load in a image, push a button, and stand back and let it do it's
thing? I assume there's more to it than that. Your group is angry
about such images being sold or traded out of copyright. What is so
special about these images? I assume they've been adapted so the
machine will 'know' how to 'sew' the image? Can I, theoretically, send
you a drawing I like and you can make an embroidery from it? Is this
what you mean by you "get upwards of $1000" for one of these embriods?
Can you link to an example on Ebay of these discs you're
talking about?
Blinky the Shark
> It is a fancy sewing machine that runs Windows. Is this what
> you mean? You can apparently load images into the machine, edit them
> on Windows, and have the sewing machine run them. Is it that simple?
> Just load in a image, push a button, and stand back and let it do it's
> thing? I assume there's more to it than that. Your group is angry
Beware, running through the middle of your image, the BSOD. Blue Seam
Of Death.
Neal Eckhardt
>Kim wrote:
>> There's a long involved discussion going on in one of the embroidery mailing
>> lists I belong to. I would love to hear opinions from people in here
>> because, well, let's face it, you all are smarter than my embroidery group.
>>
>Snip good material<
>
>As for "rightful compensation", that's also a stretch. I think what
>they're trying to do is make this a self-funding crusade, er, um,
>information campaign.
>
You should post here more.
Neal
Neal Eckhardt
>
>These "copyright infringement" lawsuits are the scam of the decade. I
>suspect that eventually some judge is going to throw the whole thing
>out. $300 is too small of an amount to take someone to court over in
>these kinds of cases.
>
Kind of like the DirectTV scam a few years ago. They gor the customer
list of a company that sold smart card programmers and sent them all a
letter demanding $1200 compensation or they would take them to court
for theft of services. They had no clue what the intended use for the
device was, and not everybody was a signal pirate, but they didn't
care. Most people paid up to avoid the cost of going to court. Even
people who did not steal satellite signals (as proven by the fact that
they never owned any satellite equipment). One customer purchased only
a leather case from the company and still got the letter and demand
for money.
This was a strong-arm tactic knowing that some people would pay rather
than take the chance of going to court.
Neal
Mr C
>
> >Even though your work is "copyrighted" from the moment of it's creation
> >in tangible form, you cannot pursue infringement unless you have
> >officially registered your copyright.
>
> Can someone else verify this statement?
I'm not someone else, but I can, of course, verify it, if you're
willing to read the following snippet from US Code Title 17, sec 411,
para a:
"a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of
subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any
United States work shall be instituted until registration of the
copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any
case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for
registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form
and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to
institute an action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of
the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register
may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to
the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an
appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register's
failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction
to determine that issue. "
Sec 106A is about attibution rights of an artist who no longer owns a
copyright, but has integrity interest in it. A couple of other
sections describe how you can pursue infringement of a live broadcast,
for instance, without yet registering it in fixed or tangible form.
Etc.
This stuff is fairly easy to read, here's a site:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
Mr C
Mr C
You can't get anything without a registered copyright. The case will
not proceed. Title 17, 508:
"(a) Within one month after the filing of any action under this title,
the clerks of the courts of the United States shall send written
notification to the Register of Copyrights setting forth, as far as is
shown by the papers filed in the court, the names and addresses of the
parties and the title, author, and registration number of each work
involved in the action. If any other copyrighted work is later included
in the action by amendment, answer, or other pleading, the clerk shall
also send a notification concerning it to the Register within one month
after the pleading is filed."
>From the US Copyright Office FAQ:
"Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In
general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment
the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to
bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1,
Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration." "
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
I read the whole section on damages (here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17_10_5.html
) and couldn't find anything that differentiates between damages for
registered vs unregistered works. I'm fairly sure this is because
works must be registered for infringement suits to occur.
> a photographer acquaintance who made as much money suing
> infringers as he did selling his work (he registered *every*
> image he produced).
>
Surely you mean published. Otherwise, that would be quite expensive
(the fee just went up BTW), and until you publish it, there's no need
for registration.
Mr C
Bill Turlock
===ISC
> > a photographer acquaintance who made as much money suing
> > infringers as he did selling his work (he registered *every*
> > image he produced).
> >
> Surely you mean published. Otherwise, that would be quite expensive
> (the fee just went up BTW), and until you publish it, there's no need
> for registration.
==IDNR
> Mr C
Charles Bishop
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>Andrew Gore wrote:
>
>> It is a fancy sewing machine that runs Windows. Is this what
>> you mean? You can apparently load images into the machine, edit them
>> on Windows, and have the sewing machine run them. Is it that simple?
>> Just load in a image, push a button, and stand back and let it do it's
>> thing? I assume there's more to it than that. Your group is angry
>
>Beware, running through the middle of your image, the BSOD. Blue Seam
>Of Death.
This was funny, subtle funny. I'm tempted to send royalties to pay for my
enjoyment.
charles, not that most of your stuff isn't, this just spectacularly so, bishop
Blinky the Shark
charles, why thank you. I actually thought it kind of mediocre,
probably because it was so easy. :) But it's good to see it work for
someone, especially in a not-tech-oriented group.
Andrew Gore
<72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>This group has been trolling eBay to find *BUYERS* of illegal and
>copyrighted embroidery designs and has been then sending these *BUYERS* a
>very fancy and legal looking letter saying "Pay us $300 or we are going to
>prosecute you for piracy".
We'd really like to lmpw how they tracked down the buyers. I
thoight it was a protected thing.
groo
>
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> Is your name Schroedinger by any chance?
>
>
> If I had two umlauts, I'd give you one.
>
I don't think an umlaut will perform a kidney's function very well.
But it was still a nice offer.
--
"Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back." - Ajax
Bob Ward
wrote:
Obviously, they cross-referenced it with people who paid $250 to
Nieman Marcus for the Mrs. Fields recipe.
tooloud
Again, I'm not sure what you're implying. If I pay for something and get
counterfeit goods, the disc being unreadable has no bearing on whether it's
a counterfeit product or not.
tooloud
The counterfeit copy has been sitting on the junk table behind me since the
day the FedEx driver delivered it.
Bob Ward
wrote:
I'm saying that youi bought and have not denied installing and using a
stolen/counterfiet CD for a fractiopn of its rightful price.
Now go and fuck Blinky in the mouth.
Bob Ward
wrote:
Still carefully not denying using the stolen data.
Opus the Penguin
How do you figure?
Let's ask. Hey, tooloud, did you install the software or copy the
contents of the CD to your hard drive or do anything other than inspect
it and toss it on the junk table?
Kim
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:09:42 -0400, "Kim"
> <72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I do sewing machine embroidery, as do hundreds of others. Machine
>> digitizing is complicated, involves expensive machines and expensive
>> software, lots of time and lots of skill. Digitizing a really good
>> image can be profitable - I've paid up to $100 for one image.
>> Although I have the equipment and the software, I've never even
>> tried digitizing an image on my own. Too much work, I think.
>
> How interesting. Can I ask you about that? I've always admired
> fine, lage-scale 'arty' embroidery; I envy guys with cool embroideed
> shirts from anything from rock groups to mtorcycle clubs. Recently I
> was admiring an oriental dress with a gorgeous embroiderd dragon when
> it occured to me that, like everything else, that may be somewhat
> 'computeized' these days. Sure enuf, I went home and poked around the
> Net and found this:
>
> http://snipurl.com/uym6
>
> It is a fancy sewing machine that runs Windows. Is this what
> you mean?
Actually, this is a Bernina Arista, and mine is a Husqvarna Designer 2 -
about 3 times the Bernina machine - both in quality, speed, price and
features.
>You can apparently load images into the machine, edit them
> on Windows, and have the sewing machine run them. Is it that simple?
Yup.
> Just load in a image, push a button, and stand back and let it do it's
> thing?
Yup.
>I assume there's more to it than that.
Not if you are using "stock" designs that come with the machine or discs of
images created by the manufacturer for that particular machine.
Now, if you have a picture of your car or your dog or your grandkid and you
want to turn that picture into an embroidered image for the back of your
jacket or your pillowcase, that's where the "digitizing" comes in, and while
the machine comes loaded with software (usually, depending on the price you
paid for the machine - you may have to buy it seperately), you have to be
pretty savvy to actually run the software successfully and digitize the
image so that there aren't hundreds of color changes, jump stitches and the
outlining is done so that the picture looks "right".
Fonts are built into the machine - so logo's and phrases are easy to
digitize, but I haven't done a lot with actually digitizing anything more
than very very basic clip art quality pictures.
>
Your group is angry
> about such images being sold or traded out of copyright. What is so
> special about these images?
Some people make their living digitizing images that people will want to
buy. It's a skill and an art. And the market is enormous, if you can do it
well.
>I assume they've been adapted so the
> machine will 'know' how to 'sew' the image? Can I, theoretically, send
> you a drawing I like and you can make an embroidery from it?
Sure - if I knew how to run the software I have. Like I said, I haven't
worked with it a lot and I'm not very good at it. I did do a picture of
Milo, my dog, it came out "ok". I also did a picture of Hubby's Harley -
that was less ok than Milo, but only because it had more color changes and
lots of tiny areas of color, and you really have to plan those out, since
the machine stops for you to change colors every time it encounters a new
one, and the trick is to do all the same colors at once. I'm not real good
at that yet.
> Is this
> what you mean by you "get upwards of $1000" for one of these embriods?
Well, $100 maybe - not $1,000 for an image.
>
> Can you link to an example on Ebay of these discs you're
> talking about?
Here's a legitimate one - looks legitimate, anyway.
Here's the digitizing software
This seller looks shady to me - looks like stolen designs. But they are
registered in Australia, so international copyright stuff may apply and
sometimes it's different, I know.
Blinky the Shark
> Andrew Gore wrote:
>> It is a fancy sewing machine that runs Windows. Is this what you
>> mean?
>
> Actually, this is a Bernina Arista, and mine is a Husqvarna Designer 2
> -
Husqvarna? The people that make motorcycles and chain saws? Is your
sewing machine a 2- or 4-stroke?
(Whoever's about to hit "Followup" and say, "2-stroke -- down and up"
just stifle yerself. <g>)
Come to think of it, I think Singer licence-built machine guns or
perhaps machine-gun turrets for bombers during WWII. Something armament
related, anyway.
Okay, I gotta look. <clickety>
Hah!
<q>
Limitation order #L-98 from the War Production Board stopped sewing
machine production completely by June of 1942. At this time, the board
also froze the majority of Singer's production stock at the
Elizabethport, New Jersey plant for use by government agencies.
Singer's American factories were responsible for the development and
production of anti-aircraft fire director equipment; airplane navigation
equipment and gyro compasses; hydraulic and electric motor control units
for airplane control; gun turret castings; aircraft engine piston rings
and other internal engine parts such as rocker arms for the Merlin
engines; surgical instruments; bomber gun sights; pistol, carbine, and
machine gun parts; ammunition boxes; fuse assemblies; propellers, and
other items....
</q>
http://home.cfl.rr.com/featherweight/board.htm
groo
> This seller looks shady to me - looks like stolen designs. But they are
> registered in Australia, so international copyright stuff may apply and
> sometimes it's different, I know.
>
Kim's back!
Care to tell us the tale of Malone cable installation?
--
And did the SWAT team like the basement?
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Limitation order #L-98 from the War Production Board stopped sewing
> machine production completely by June of 1942. At this time, the board
> also froze the majority of Singer's production stock at the
> Elizabethport, New Jersey plant for use by government agencies.
>
> Singer's American factories were responsible for the development and
> production of anti-aircraft fire director equipment; airplane navigation
> equipment and gyro compasses; hydraulic and electric motor control units
> for airplane control; gun turret castings; aircraft engine piston rings
> and other internal engine parts such as rocker arms for the Merlin
> engines; surgical instruments; bomber gun sights; pistol, carbine, and
> machine gun parts; ammunition boxes; fuse assemblies; propellers, and
> other items....
My mother worked at that Elizabethport, NJ plant during the War,
first as a riveter, and then as a rivet inspector. Seems to me
she was assigned to aircraft wings for the Grumman Hellcat.
Charles
Blinky the Shark
A real live Rosie. Cool beans and good for her, Charles.
Here's an interesting list for the "N" states. Your mom's Hellcat wings
aren't shown, but the list does state it comprises "selected"
industries.
http://www.heritageresearch.com/N.htm
Kim
> "Kim" <72flhtak...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> This seller looks shady to me - looks like stolen designs. But they
>> are registered in Australia, so international copyright stuff may
>> apply and sometimes it's different, I know.
>>
>
> Kim's back!
For now, anyway.
>
> Care to tell us the tale of Malone cable installation?
Malone doesn't *have* "cable installation" - you have to go through the
Plattsburgh office for anything more complicated than someone coming around
with a clipboard asking "Would you like to switch to our phone service?" And
just for future information - the Malone office is closed between 2 and 3
for lunch.
It generally takes a week to get an appointment from the Plattsburgh office,
unless there's like a run of problems and issues, and they happen to stack
the appointments up and come more than once a month out to the "back
country". I got extremely lucky, and my scheduled appointment for next
Wednesday got bumped up to today - a full three business days earlier than
expected. I'm not going to say my climbing up a few choice telephone poles
with a weedwacker had *anything* to do with that.
It was also extremely fortuitious that I was home when they got here - I was
headed out to do grocery shopping. I told the cable guy the same "Wow -
you're lucky I was home". He actually said to me "Well, we *tried* to
call....." So, I guess the IQ level in Plattsburgh only barely tops that of
Maloniacs.
One of the guys looked at the wires in the house, ran the same multimeter
tests the local guys run once a month or so when I can get a service call
from them, and he was ready to convince me there was nothing wrong until the
guy who was outside checking the wires to the house came in and pronounced
my transformer "shit" - and said that he thought I was lucky to get any
service at all with the current condition of it.
So, he installed a new transformer while I complained loudly to the other
guy that I have been having problems for almost a year, that I have called
repeatedly and been told repeatedly that it was all in my head, that there
are times when I have no service at all, that I switched from Vonage to
their service because Vonage *never* worked, and that I actually knew both
of the local repairmen by name and that I *shouldn't* know their names -
that it's not a good sign to be on a first name basis with any utilities
service people, and that if you are, it's definitely a sign of a problem.
He gave me 3 months free service to shut me up. But even that didn't really
shut me up, because it still pisses me off that this problem could have been
solved months ago, if they just read this group and followed up on the
troubleshooting everyone in here posted.
But, that's what you get for living in a stupid town with stupid people.
On Another Tangent (Speaking of stupid people, stupid town):
My head almost exploded when one of hubby's friends came over the other day.
Now, this is a 21 year old kid who has a 16 year old girlfriend who already
has a 2 year old child from some other guy. I told Kid - "Don't mess with
her - she's looking for a baby daddy, and she *will* get pregnant and trap
you into being with her. Mark my words".
"Oh, no!" he said - "She's on birth control".
Yeah, sure, and her birth control is exactly that - she'll control when she
gets pregnant. Which will be right about the time the Kid wants to move on.
Sure as shit, she's pregnant. Due in November.
So, Kid comes over and he's commiserating with hubby about how he doesn't
like this girl, she's controlling, she's demanding, she's jealous, she's
lazy, she only wants a baby daddy......well, you know, who'd a thunk it?
So, I ask "where *is* Pregnant GF?"
Oh, she's out to the Indian Reservation - stealing cigarettes.
Um, HUH?? Ex fucking Scuse me? She's where?
Stealing cigarettes. She has no money, and she *ACTUALLY* announced "Well,
I'm not going to do without, I'll just have to go and steal some."
Now my head is going to explode. Just fucking explode all over the fucking
living room, because I can't wrap my fucking brain around how many fucking
levels this is just wrong on. I simply can't.
Um - "not going to do without cigarettes?" YOU ARE PREGNANT. That comes with
the territory, doesn't it? Well, *Doesn't it*?
You have a 2 year old! What the fuck is she going to do without while you
are in fucking jail for stealing cigarettes?
And where the hell is the self sacrifice? You are a mother! I can hear it
now - "well, I *would* buy you school clothes, but I'm not going *without
cigarettes*! Oh, hell fucking no."
Oh my God in Heaven - take me, take me now. I just can't bear to live in a
world where these fucking stupid, ignorant, pathetic, immature, selfish
people are allowed to breed. I mean, really. Dana can't have a kid, but this
asshole can spit out 2 before she's 17? Where's the justice?
I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I last here
another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking miracle.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Kim wrote:
>
> But, that's what you get for living in a stupid town with stupid people.
>
> On Another Tangent (Speaking of stupid people, stupid town):
>
> My head almost exploded when one of hubby's friends came over the other day.
> Now, this is a 21 year old kid who has a 16 year old girlfriend who already
> has a 2 year old child from some other guy. I told Kid - "Don't mess with
> her - she's looking for a baby daddy, and she *will* get pregnant and trap
> you into being with her. Mark my words".
>
Let's see, he's 21 and she's 16. Isn't she "underage"? I don't know the
answer to this but 16 and 21 seems like a very big age difference, even
if he, the older one, is an idiot. All wiki says, that I could find, is
this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
#begin quote
Close in age exceptions
While some legislation dealing with age of consent sets a hard and fast
age under which sexual relations are prohibited, some jurisdictions have
included exceptions to this. The exception can take the form of a
defence at trial on the grounds of the close age of the participants, or
can be an actual close in age exemption in the law negating any charges.
The latter details acceptable age ranges for consensual sex between
peers that otherwise would not be legal because one or both of the
participants would be below the age of consent. The age differences of
these two types of legislation vary by jurisdiction, from as low as one
year to as high as ten years (eg South Australia and Colorado).
#end quote
> "Oh, no!" he said - "She's on birth control".
>
> Yeah, sure, and her birth control is exactly that - she'll control when she
> gets pregnant. Which will be right about the time the Kid wants to move on.
>
> Sure as shit, she's pregnant. Due in November.
>
Didn't a lot of people get angry when I discussed how this is utterly
unfair? It's obvious, as you say, that she did this on purpose. Yet he's
the one getting screwed.
> So, Kid comes over and he's commiserating with hubby about how he doesn't
> like this girl, she's controlling, she's demanding, she's jealous, she's
> lazy, she only wants a baby daddy......well, you know, who'd a thunk it?
>
You gave him the term "baby daddy". He didn't think it up.
> So, I ask "where *is* Pregnant GF?"
>
> Oh, she's out to the Indian Reservation - stealing cigarettes.
>
> Um, HUH?? Ex fucking Scuse me? She's where?
>
> Stealing cigarettes. She has no money, and she *ACTUALLY* announced "Well,
> I'm not going to do without, I'll just have to go and steal some."
>
The kid is in serious trouble.
> Now my head is going to explode. Just fucking explode all over the fucking
> living room, because I can't wrap my fucking brain around how many fucking
> levels this is just wrong on. I simply can't.
>
> Um - "not going to do without cigarettes?" YOU ARE PREGNANT. That comes with
> the territory, doesn't it? Well, *Doesn't it*?
>
Is she going to stop drinking alcohol for the duration? That would be
the first question.
> You have a 2 year old! What the fuck is she going to do without while you
> are in fucking jail for stealing cigarettes?
>
All this stuff should be used by the guy to get custody, like that will
work, ha. Or to get 'his' child put up for adoption.
> And where the hell is the self sacrifice? You are a mother! I can hear it
> now - "well, I *would* buy you school clothes, but I'm not going *without
> cigarettes*! Oh, hell fucking no."
>
> Oh my God in Heaven - take me, take me now. I just can't bear to live in a
> world where these fucking stupid, ignorant, pathetic, immature, selfish
> people are allowed to breed.
>
Doesn't make much evolutionary sense, does it? The smartest and least
ignorant people tend to have the fewest children. A lot of lines of
notable people just end. The first world, which isn't made up of all
smart people but tends to at least be less ignorant, is often not even
making replacement birth levels.
> I mean, really. Dana can't have a kid, but this
> asshole can spit out 2 before she's 17? Where's the justice?
>
> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I last here
> another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking miracle.
>
Do you think that people in urban areas aren't just as idiotic and at
about the same proportions?
--
"The sky is a good place to sleep under. It is one roof that will never
burn down. And it is a roof that will always be there tomorrow when you
wake up, amigos." Spencer Tracy, "Tortilla Flat"
Blinky the Shark
<snip>
> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I last here
> another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking miracle.
What were you expecting when you moved there?
Kim
> Kim wrote:
>>
> Let's see, he's 21 and she's 16. Isn't she "underage"?
Well, technically, yes. Legally, no. She was an "emancipated minor" when her
mother kicked her out after she got pregnant the first time. She "went to
court and everything" - or so I have been told.
What that means, in MaloneSpeak - is "the welfare check comes in her name".
>> Sure as shit, she's pregnant. Due in November.
>>
> Didn't a lot of people get angry when I discussed how this is utterly
> unfair? It's obvious, as you say, that she did this on purpose. Yet
> he's the one getting screwed.
No, he's the one that *screwed*. And as Mamma used to say "You Play - You
Pay."
Did she do it on purpose? Hey, I called it a long time ago. I'm quite
convinced she did. Did that stop him from fucking around with her? No. Does
it absolve him of responsibility? To her - sure, if he wants it to. To the
kid? Nope. Which is why you don't PLAY unless you are willing to PAY. Which
is what I was trying to beat into his head to begin with - "If you mess with
this girl, you are going to pay for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. DON'T DO IT." Did
he listen? No. So now, who's "fault" is it? Hers for being "unfair" or his
for fucking her without secondary birth control when he was warned she might
be "unfair"?
>>
>> Stealing cigarettes. She has no money, and she *ACTUALLY* announced
>> "Well, I'm not going to do without, I'll just have to go and steal
>> some."
>>
> The kid is in serious trouble.
I wanted to call CPS. I really, truly did. At the very *least* get the 2
year old the fuck out of there. At least the 21 year old has choices.
>
>
>
>> Now my head is going to explode. Just fucking explode all over the
>> fucking living room, because I can't wrap my fucking brain around
>> how many fucking levels this is just wrong on. I simply can't.
>>
>> Um - "not going to do without cigarettes?" YOU ARE PREGNANT. That
>> comes with the territory, doesn't it? Well, *Doesn't it*?
>>
> Is she going to stop drinking alcohol for the duration? That would be
> the first question.
As far as I can tell, she doesn't drink. At least, she never has in front of
me, even before she was pregnant and the guys were here drinking. So, there
is *that*. At least the kid won't be born with fetal alcohol syndrome,
because we already know her views on abstaining from pollutants while she's
pregnant. And, of course, she won't be forced to go rob liquor stores. So
that's a good thing.
>> You have a 2 year old! What the fuck is she going to do without
>> while you are in fucking jail for stealing cigarettes?
>>
> All this stuff should be used by the guy to get custody, like that
> will work, ha. Or to get 'his' child put up for adoption.
I really need to just call CPS. I don't even know why I haven't yet.
>>
> Do you think that people in urban areas aren't just as idiotic and at
> about the same proportions?
God I hope not. All I have left to hang on to is the delusion that all the
ignorant people live here, and I am just in some sort of Twilight Zone
"version of hell" nightmare. Any day now I'm going to wake up next to Bob
Newhart.
Kim
> Kim wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking
>> miracle.
>
> What were you expecting when you moved there?
A town full of people at least as bright as the ones I left in Vermont. I
mean, what's hickier than fucking Vermont? We are only separated by a Lake,
a bridge and 50 miles of Route 11, what the hell accounts for the sudden
drop in IQ? And Vermont even houses my sister - she's *got* to pull the
collective IQ down a couple of points all by herself, but they're still a
good 50 points above this place.
I can't figure it out.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Kim wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking
>>> miracle.
>>
>> What were you expecting when you moved there?
>
> A town full of people at least as bright as the ones I left in Vermont. I
> mean, what's hickier than fucking Vermont? We are only separated by a Lake,
> a bridge and 50 miles of Route 11, what the hell accounts for the sudden
> drop in IQ? And Vermont even houses my sister - she's *got* to pull the
> collective IQ down a couple of points all by herself, but they're still a
> good 50 points above this place.
How big was the town in Vermont?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Kim wrote:
>
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > Kim wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
> >> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking
> >> miracle.
> >
> > What were you expecting when you moved there?
>
> A town full of people at least as bright as the ones I left in Vermont. I
> mean, what's hickier than fucking Vermont? We are only separated by a Lake,
> a bridge and 50 miles of Route 11, what the hell accounts for the sudden
> drop in IQ?
>
Is there a train track anywhere around there you might've missed, not
noticed?
> And Vermont even houses my sister - she's *got* to pull the
> collective IQ down a couple of points all by herself, but they're still a
> good 50 points above this place.
>
> I can't figure it out.
>
Hey, you're starting to fit right in!
Lesmond
>
>
>Kim wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I last here
>> another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking miracle.
>
>What were you expecting when you moved there?
You know, Blinky, I'll bet she was thinking, "Here's a charming looking
little town. And I can buy this house for only $9,000. It needs work, sure,
but it'll be a gem before I know it."
I've been to Malone, twice, for 5 days at a time. It looks very nice. The
Main St. looks like any other middlin' size town main street. There are gas
stations, family run restaurants, dollar stores, Pizza hut, KFC, K-Mart, etc.
Sections of town are perfectly lovely. Did you see the listing for the house
I posted? That whole area is beautiful and historic.
Funny, though, it took me 2 visits to realize the art gallery is never
actually open. That 4 (5?) dollar stores in a town that size might mean
something. That the normal looking mom pushing the stroller is usually
grandma. That folks around there who have jobs actually *quit their jobs* to
go the freakin' fair. That the folks who are employed at the supermarkets
and pharmacies come from over an hour away for the jobs. That the lovely
family restaurant serves you water in glass goblets, the tables are
candlelit, there are aquariums all over the place, but they still only charge
$2.95 for a grilled cheese and fries for the kid. ($4.95 for the grown-up's
burger platters.)
And most of this I wouldn't have put together on my own. What exactly would
have caused a warning bell to go off in your mind, Blinky?
--
This can't be slime -- it's crunchy.
-Mark Dillon
Blinky the Shark
> On 19 Aug 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Kim wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking
>>> miracle.
>>
>>What were you expecting when you moved there?
>
> You know, Blinky, I'll bet she was thinking, "Here's a charming
> looking little town. And I can buy this house for only $9,000. It
> needs work, sure, but it'll be a gem before I know it."
Thanks. I guess I don't have to read her response to my question, now.
*Please* note that my quesiton wasn't a challenge of Kim's intelligence.
I just, seriously, wondered what someone would expect from a town like
that.
> I've been to Malone, twice, for 5 days at a time. It looks very nice.
> The Main St. looks like any other middlin' size town main street.
> There are gas stations, family run restaurants, dollar stores, Pizza
> hut, KFC, K-Mart, etc.
>
> Sections of town are perfectly lovely. Did you see the listing for
> the house I posted? That whole area is beautiful and historic.
No. No need to post it again as I don't see its relevance. Kim's
"*so* over this town full of hicks", not "*so* over this town's
perfectly lovely houses.")
> Funny, though, it took me 2 visits to realize the art gallery is never
> actually open. That 4 (5?) dollar stores in a town that size might
> mean something. That the normal looking mom pushing the stroller is
> usually grandma. That folks around there who have jobs actually *quit
> their jobs* to go the freakin' fair. That the folks who are employed
> at the supermarkets and pharmacies come from over an hour away for the
> jobs. That the lovely family restaurant serves you water in glass
> goblets, the tables are candlelit, there are aquariums all over the
> place, but they still only charge $2.95 for a grilled cheese and fries
> for the kid. ($4.95 for the grown-up's burger platters.)
>
> And most of this I wouldn't have put together on my own. What exactly
> would have caused a warning bell to go off in your mind, Blinky?
Most likely, a tiny town in the sticks. Not that that would necessarily
bother Kim, of course. But those hicks that never got out it are
apparently starting to.
Lesmond
>
>
>Lesmond wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kim wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a fucking
>>>> miracle.
>>>
>>>What were you expecting when you moved there?
>>
>> You know, Blinky, I'll bet she was thinking, "Here's a charming
>> looking little town. And I can buy this house for only $9,000. It
>> needs work, sure, but it'll be a gem before I know it."
>
>Thanks. I guess I don't have to read her response to my question, now.
>
>*Please* note that my quesiton wasn't a challenge of Kim's intelligence.
>I just, seriously, wondered what someone would expect from a town like
>that.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "a town like that".
>
>Most likely, a tiny town in the sticks.
I see, you urban shark, you. You know, I grew up in a tiny town in the
sticks and houses are worth upwards of $500k there now. Lower end.
Besides, Malone isn't tiny. Almost 15,000 residents:
http://www.city-data.com/city/Malone-New-York.html
Not that that would necessarily
>bother Kim, of course. But those hicks that never got out it are
>apparently starting to.
Do you really assume most small towns are like this? I don't. I live in a
small town of 2,500 folks. We happened to be remarkably civilized.
Who here lives in "small town America"? Is this the normal, pervasive
culture? Should Kim have assumed the nature of the town before moving there?
Blinky the Shark
> On 19 Aug 2006 03:43:26 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lesmond wrote:
>>> On 19 Aug 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a
>>>>> fucking miracle.
>>>>
>>>>What were you expecting when you moved there?
>>>
>>> You know, Blinky, I'll bet she was thinking, "Here's a charming
>>> looking little town. And I can buy this house for only $9,000. It
>>> needs work, sure, but it'll be a gem before I know it."
>>
>>Thanks. I guess I don't have to read her response to my question,
>>now.
>>
>>*Please* note that my quesiton wasn't a challenge of Kim's
>>intelligence. I just, seriously, wondered what someone would expect
>>from a town like that.
>
> I'm still not sure what you mean by "a town like that".
That would be Malone. That's the town I believe we are talking about.
>>
>>Most likely, a tiny town in the sticks.
>
> I see, you urban shark, you. You know, I grew up in a tiny town in
> the sticks and houses are worth upwards of $500k there now. Lower
> end.
>
> Besides, Malone isn't tiny. Almost 15,000 residents:
Interesting. I figured it for 3 or 5 thou or so. I must have
misremembered an earlier description.
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Malone-New-York.html
>
> Not that that would necessarily
>>bother Kim, of course. But those hicks that never got out it are
>>apparently starting to.
>
> Do you really assume most small towns are like this? I don't. I
> live in a
At the 2 to 3 thousand level that I misremembered Malone as
representing, yeah.
> small town of 2,500 folks. We happened to be remarkably civilized.
Got a library? Honest question. Junior college? Communitity theatre
group? Any external face-to-face cultural influences. I'm not counting
the county fair, even though I assume it's held in a larger town;
perhaps I should.
Kim
> Kim wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Kim wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a
>>>> fucking miracle.
>>>
>>> What were you expecting when you moved there?
>>
>> A town full of people at least as bright as the ones I left in
>> Vermont. I mean, what's hickier than fucking Vermont? We are only
>> separated by a Lake, a bridge and 50 miles of Route 11, what the
>> hell accounts for the sudden drop in IQ? And Vermont even houses my
>> sister - she's *got* to pull the collective IQ down a couple of
>> points all by herself, but they're still a good 50 points above this
>> place.
>
> How big was the town in Vermont?
Burlington? It's the biggest city in Vermont, but I don't know the
population, off the top of my head. But we actually lived in Jericho, which
I would bet is less than 1/4th the size of Malone (someone can - and
probably will - look that up). But Jericho residents seemed more - I don't
exactly know what - intelligent? cultured? savvy? responsible? Maybe all
those things. They had a certain pride about them, a certain "can do - will
do" attitude. They were more industrious and capable and seemed to have
values that were more attuned to my own. Even in as small a town as Jericho,
there were "concerts in the park", farmer's markets, *businesses*, and a
local theater.
All we have here is the Redneck Games.
Kim
>>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Kim wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a
>>>> fucking miracle.
>>>
>>> What were you expecting when you moved there?
>>
>> A town full of people at least as bright as the ones I left in
>> Vermont. I mean, what's hickier than fucking Vermont? We are only
>> separated by a Lake, a bridge and 50 miles of Route 11, what the
>> hell accounts for the sudden drop in IQ?
>>
> Is there a train track anywhere around there you might've missed, not
> noticed?
The train track is in the other direction. Ask Lesmond - she got a real good
look at them.
Kim
> Lesmond wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kim wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I am just *so* over this town full of hicks. I swear to God, if I
>>>> last here another year without killing someone, it will be a
>>>> fucking miracle.
>>>
>>> What were you expecting when you moved there?
>>
>> You know, Blinky, I'll bet she was thinking, "Here's a charming
>> looking little town. And I can buy this house for only $9,000. It
>> needs work, sure, but it'll be a gem before I know it."
>
> Thanks. I guess I don't have to read her response to my question,
> now.
>
> *Please* note that my quesiton wasn't a challenge of Kim's
> intelligence. I just, seriously, wondered what someone would expect
> from a town like that.
Like what? I'm *from* Vermont. Small town Vermont, no less. I wasn't
expecting anything *more* than I could get there. But I wasn't expecting
this much *less*, either.
Lesmond
>
>
>Lesmond wrote:
>
>> small town of 2,500 folks. We happened to be remarkably civilized.
>
>Got a library? Honest question.
Yes, we have a library. It's about as big as my living room, though. Decent
fiction choices are sorely lacking. But Gladys the librarian is a doll.
> Junior college?
No, but the County Community College isn't far out of town.
Communitity theatre
>group?
Do fifth and sixth graders count?
Honestly, we have plenty, just not right here in town. Because, you
know...it's a *small* town.
>Any external face-to-face cultural influences.
We have a park. And a pool, on the years it decides to open.
Eh...not really, unless you count the jugglers at Community Day as a cultural
influence. And if you must assume that any cultural influences *must* come
from within the town itself.
Our elementary school, K-8 is top notch. We have more on site facilities
than the comparable school in the town in which I grew up. You know, the
wealthy town. It's a shame that the public regional high school in
Phillipsburg is a disaster.
I'm not counting
>the county fair, even though I assume it's held in a larger town;
>perhaps I should.
Our County fair is about 6 miles away, in another town. But Kim's Frankin
County Fair is right there on the main street of Malone.
And Easton, PA is just a couple of miles away over the Delaware. They have
The Crayola Factory *and* the Pez Museum. Beat that.
Kim
> On 19 Aug 2006 04:39:50 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lesmond wrote:
>>
>>> small town of 2,500 folks. We happened to be remarkably civilized.
>>
>> Got a library? Honest question.
>
> Yes, we have a library. It's about as big as my living room, though.
> Decent fiction choices are sorely lacking. But Gladys the librarian
> is a doll.
We have a library, as well. It's in a beautiful old Victorian house. Small,
but adequate, I suppose, considering that there isn't a book store in town.
I only went there once, to look around. I haven't attempted to actually
browse for anything. I can't imagine their "legal history" section is any
bigger than my own "legal history" collection.
I paid the annual dues for "out of state" residents to the library in
Burlington - mostly for their online databases. They have a genealogical
collection and on line database of local newspapers, as well as some
national genealogical record databases, that I would hate to lose access to.
The local library here doesn't even have a real website, let alone online
databases.
>
> Communitity theatre
>> group?
I so wish we had a local theater group. I miss the Flynn in Burlington.
>
> And Easton, PA is just a couple of miles away over the Delaware.
> They have The Crayola Factory *and* the Pez Museum. Beat that.
Two words: Redneck Games.
Lesmond
>
>
>Lesmond wrote:
>
>>
>> And Easton, PA is just a couple of miles away over the Delaware.
>> They have The Crayola Factory *and* the Pez Museum. Beat that.
>
>Two words: Redneck Games.
You're going in the wrong direction!
Lesmond
>Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>>>
>> Is there a train track anywhere around there you might've missed, not
>> noticed?
>
>The train track is in the other direction. Ask Lesmond - she got a real good
>look at them.
136 cars. At around 10 MPH. But that was on Mohawk land, wasn't it?