Article on Katarina
PashaGirl7
I thought you all might enjoy reading this! Good for Katarina!
From the October 5 issue of People:
FREEZE FRAME: Skater Katarina Witt attempts the big leap from ice to celluloid
If the former East German republic ever gets a glossy digest devoted to home
decor-a Haus und Garten, say-then Katarina Witt is all set to show off hers.
In the new three-bedroom, split-level country home north of Berlin that she
recently completed, the two-time Olympic figure skating champion, togged in a
white Adidas tracksuit, strolls among her stone urns, French armoire, and
wrought-iron candelabra, all arranged (like her orthodontically
perfect smile) just so.
This new house is Witt's retreat these days during rare breaks in a breakneck
schedule. Fourteen years after her first Olympic gold medal, skating is still
"where my passion is," says Witt, who continues to perform in 60 U.S. cities
each year with the Stars on Ice revue. But at 32, she occasionally leaves the
ice to test the waters beyond. In August she appeared on HBO's Arli$$,
reprising a part she first created last year as a high
powered sports agent. Now she has a small role in director John Frakenheimer's
new action-thriller Ronin, playing a skating Mafia moll opposite Robert
DeNiro's gun-for-hire. It is her second American movie credit, following a
blink-quick walk-on in 1996's Jerry Maguire. The film provided her "my 15
second of fame," Witt says, laughing. Ronin "will be my two minutes."
This month the camera time will grow when she visits cable's Home Shopping
Network to make two pitches-in almost fluent American-accented English-for her
new line of Katarina Witt jewelry. Fortunately, "I love working," she says.
"I'm a strong woman who knows what I want and what to do."
For most of her life, of course, that meant figure skating. Period. As East
Germany's gold medalist in the 1984 and '88 Olympics and a four-time world
champion, she was the sport's alpha star for most of the past decade. Then, in
1989, came the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of East Germany. To some
critics in her homeland, it suddenly seemed as if socialism had left no Marx on
Witt at all. "It was amazing," acknowledges close friend
and longtime manager Elizabeth Gottmund, "how quickly Katarina learned to work
the market system."
Thanks to her endorsements, acting (she has also appeared in European skating
films like Carmen) and other pursuits, Witt has made herself financially sound.
Her continuing seven-hour-a-day workouts during the skating season (and the
fact that "I never eat three full meals a day) have kept her physically fit.
Observers will be able to judge the naked truth of that statement late this
fall, when Witt is scheduled to appear nude in a
Playboy pictorial. "They've been after me for 10 years," she says. "I
thought, 'Skating is such a fairy-tale sport, why not be a little
controversial?' " Pause. "Besides, maybe my boyfriend wanted to have beautiful
pictures of me for when I'm on the road!"
Witt met her Berlin-based beau, Marcus Herrmann, 32, who manages a hard-rock
band called Knorr Kartorrrr, two years ago on a blind date. The couple, who
share a lot of the same music-industry pals, are not thinking about marriage,
insists Witt ("I love what I'm doing, and I love my independence"). But she
can tell that her parents-Katja, 58, a retired physiotherapist, and Manfred,
60, formerly an official with a farm collective-would "like to have
a toddler on the ground."
For now, Witt is content placing a willkommen mat there for "friends and
family" at her new home. Although she still keeps a two-bedroom flat in Berlin
for visits to the big city, this countrified setting, where her family used to
vacation, is where her journeys always end these days. There may be more
acting roles and bigger projects in the future, Witt says, gazing out her
living-room window. But if there aren't, "You sit here and look at the
flowers, and think, 'Oh, I've got everything I wanted.' "
-David Crobb Craig
-Nina Biddle outside Berlin
Trudi Marrapodi
pasha...@aol.com (PashaGirl7) wrote:
> I thought you all might enjoy reading this! Good for Katarina!
Obviously, there are still folks here who need to have copyright law explained.
Trudi
PashaGirl7
<<Obviously, there are still folks here who need to have copyright law
explained.>>
What is this supposed to mean? I was trying to be friendly and share what I
thought was an interesting article on Katarina....
PosterBoy
PashaGirl7 wrote in message <19980927115639...@ng73.aol.com>...
Friendliness and sharing is appreciated by mostly everyone on rssif.
However....first step is to ask (without sarcasm or criticism intended)
do you know what a copyright is...and how one is breached?
If not, we can provide you with some reference info so you don't do it
again, unintentionally.
Cheers.
Fred Williams
So where's the article on Katarina? I never got it.
--
Peace, Siblings,
Fred Williams,
ha...@citenet.net
>
>
Fred Williams
Kaiju
>
> fuck you, what are you the copyright police. no your just an ass hole. thank
> you for the katarina story. i think we all know you did not right it, and you
> were just relaying it .
Ooops. Someone left their computer unattended so the children could get at it
again. Tsk.
Kaiju
Skatetwo1
PegLewis
In article <19980927222919...@ng111.aol.com>, skat...@aol.com
(Skatetwo1) writes:
> [edited synonym for intercourse] you, what are you the copyright police. no
From USENET Newsgroups acceptable usage policy
aol://4344:31.ngitem3.348755.489013113
exerpt begins:
AOL'S SCOPE OF CONTROL OVER NEWSGROUP MESSAGES
Any article posted with an origination address ending in "aol.com" or "aol.net"
is considered to fall under the purview of AOL and AOL can, at its discretion,
issue cancels or other administrative messages to remove those posts from
newsgroups. Any AOL member found in violation of USENET Etiquette or the Terms
of Service through a posting made from another online service provider is
considered in violation of the Terms of Service and subject to disciplinary
action. This includes posting from other ISPs and forging headers to either
make the message appear to originate from or point replies back to AOL;<snip>
CONSEQUENCES OF TERMS OF SERVICE VIOLATIONS
If, after receiving and reviewing a report of USENET Etiqette or Terms of
Service violation by an AOL member, AOL determines that a violation has
occurred, AOL reserves the right to take (or not take) action. These actions
may include the cancelation of some or all newsgroup postings by the member;
the revocation of the ability to read or post to newsgroups; issuance of a
Terms of Service warning; or the termination of the member's account. AOL can,
at its sole discretion and in accordance with the Terms of Service, terminate a
member's account for any reason at any time. AOL is not obligated to reinstate
any account so terminated.
REPORTING NEWSGROUP ABUSE
To report an instance of an AOL member violating these Terms of Service, send a
complete copy of the message -- including all headers -- to ab...@aol.net. If
you are reporting messages where the association with an AOL member is not
immediately apparent, please include additional documentation showing how the
AOL member is responsible for the message.
exerpt ends.
That address again is
ab...@aol.net
Peg
"This incredibly rapid unintelligible patter isn't generally heard and if is it
doesn't matter."Ruddigore
VisitTheAll-KwanNetwork @ http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
VisitLjudmillia's text archive @ http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
HILL JANET SWAN
>
>fuck you, what are you the copyright police. no your just an ass hole. thank
>you for the katarina story. i think we all know you did not right it, and you
>were just relaying it .
In fact, people who remind others of the copyright law are doing a favor
to those who have violated it. Copyright owners have every right to sue
those who violate their rights, and the results could be quite unhappy for
those who reproduced and distributed copyrighted material without
permission.
It doesn't matter if "we all know you did not right [i.e. write] it". The
point is that the workman is worthy of his hire .... that is, the creator
is making a living off his/her creation and deserves to be PAID for it.
Those who reproduce and distribute copyrighted material are (1) denying
the creator his/her living, and (2) stealing.
I quite understand that many people do not understand this. I assume that
if they DID understand it, most of them would not knowingly violate the
law, and that most people of good will would welcome being better
informed.
Of course, there are always a few who don't care about laws or the rights
of others .......
janet
--
Fred Williams
<snip>
>Those who reproduce and distribute copyrighted material are (1) denying
>the creator his/her living, and (2) stealing.
>
>I quite understand that many people do not understand this. I assume that
>if they DID understand it, most of them would not knowingly violate the
>law, and that most people of good will would welcome being better
>informed.
>
>Of course, there are always a few who don't care about laws or the rights
>of others .......
>
> janet
>--
I care deeply about the rights of others, I don't care a fig for the
"law." We live in a society where the biggest crooks in the land are rich
enough to tell the government what laws it may pass and what laws it may not
pass. Generally the "laws" protect their "right" to screw the rest of
society. The laws are made by the rich to protect their own interests and
so do not protect the poor.
I don't know any poor people with copyrights on anything, nor
patents, nor intellectual property. People should learn to share.
Oh, yes. This message is in the public domain.
PegLewis
In article <6upfka$j4f$1...@cti15.citenet.net>, "Fred Williams"
<ha...@citenet.net> writes:
> I don't know any poor people with copyrights on anything, nor
>patents, nor intellectual property. People should learn to share.
> Oh, yes. This message is in the public domain
Authors and creative artists, regardless of income level, in the US have
copyright of their works from the moment of inception. Even monetarily
challenged me.
That said, I resent places like USA Today that charge money for information
beyond the cost of the newsprint. I have no problem buying a print copy,
assuming I could find one, to read a skating article, but to charge more for
one article than the cost of the paper itself on the day of its publication is
obscene to me. Information is free, or should be. Authors' rights should be
respected, but the public has a right to read what has been written.
Just an extreme dichotomy. <sigh>
Peg, apologizing to adding to the off-topic fiesta ;-)
PegLewis
PashaGirl7
I apologize to everyone here whom I offended by posting that article. That was
NOT my intent at all! On other message boards on AOL we frequently post
articles related to skating to share with the others who visit those boards. I
didn't stop to think about copyright laws being an issue. Please, everyone,
accept my apology!
Jen
Fab4Fan99
Fred Williams wrote:
>Hi Janet,
> I care deeply about the rights of others, I don't care a fig for the
>"law." We live in a society where the biggest crooks in the land are rich
>enough to tell the government what laws it may pass and what laws it may not
>pass. Generally the "laws" protect their "right" to screw the rest of
>society. The laws are made by the rich to protect their own interests and
>so do not protect the poor.
Copyright laws exist to protect the "interests" of people who create
intellectual property.
Just like laws against stealing protect the interests of you keeping your car.
> I don't know any poor people with copyrights on anything, nor
>patents, nor intellectual property. People should learn to share.
I'm certainly not rich, and I have over 200 copyrights on songs. I'm free to
"share", if I want. Just like I'm free to let you borrow my car, if I want. But
the car, and the songs, are MINE. If you "borrow" my car without my permission,
it's called Grand Theft Auto. If you "borrow" my songs without my permission,
it's a copyright violation.
Frank
KA1WZH GO RED SOX!!!
"Mark's the man in America. I'm the man in the Dominican Republic!"--Sammy Sosa
"That play NEVER works."--Boomer Esiason
"I'd love to turn you on"--Lennon/McCartney
Revjoelle
> On other message boards on AOL we frequently post
>articles related to skating to share with the others who visit those boards.
I'm wondering where on AOL you got away with posting copyrighted articles?
That violates the AOL's terms of service and usually your post is pulled and
you get a warning if you do that.
>didn't stop to think about copyright laws being an issue. Please, everyone,
>accept my apology!
For your own good, I'd suggest you not do that on AOL--because you could put
your account in jeapordy.
Joelle
"Whoever you like is the best skater in the world."
Scott Hamilton
klf...@my-dejanews.com
> The laws are made by the rich to protect their own interests and
> so do not protect the poor.
> patents, nor intellectual property. People should learn to share.
Actually, this is not quite true. If the "poor people" that you know have
ever written anything, their work is automatically protected by copyright.
The following is a direct quote from the Copyright website
(http://www.benedict.com/):
"An original expression is eligible for copyright protection as soon as it
is fixed in a tangible form. Consequently, almost any original expression
that is fixed in a tangible form is protected as soon as it is expressed."
Whether they choose to officially *register* their work with the U.S.
Copyright Office, or choose to even slap the term "Copyright 199-" upon their
work, it is still considered their intellectual property.
The point of registering the work with the U.S. Copyright office is to extend
that umbrella of protection in case of plagiarism. If your work is
plagiarized and you wish to sue for copyright infringement, then you need to
have already registered your work with the U.S. Copyright office.
The Copyright Website explains this much more thoroughly.
But the point is that everybody's (rich or poor) work is already considered
to be their intellectual property, and already protected by copyright (even
if they *don't* stick the copyright symbol at the bottom of their work). And
as such cannot be reprinted without permission. It is up to the individual
(or the company they work for.... but that's another issue), to decide if
they want to allow anyone, anytime to reprint their work, or if they want to
charge money for it, or if they want it to be available to simply a limited
few. Yes, people should share, but since there are other people out there
who will *take*, isn't it nice to have legal protection available?
That said, I actually do have a skating related question to tack on the end
of this. Do skaters have to get permission (or pay royalty on) their program
music? Do the networks that air the competition also have to get
permission/pay royalty? (This might have been answered before, but with
thread drift, it's impossible to find an answer through dejanews).
Karen <Who wishes she had known this stuff *before* an unscrupulous video
company ripped off some of her scripts.>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PashaGirl7
<<For your own good, I'd suggest you not do that on AOL--because you could put
your account in jeapordy.>>
I've never done it on AOL--not until now, that is. I've seen several others
post articles on the ABC figure skating message boards.
Revjoelle
>I've never done it on AOL--not until now, that is. I've seen several others
>post articles on the ABC figure skating message boards
Oh--the ABC boards. There is some real inconsistent monitoring on those
boards. I don't go anywhere near them anymore.
Kkonas
Paul Wylie talked about his problems with music clearance in a BOI article a
couple of years ago. Apparently some artists also refuse to allow their music
to be broadcast, and in one instance, he had to completely change his music for
a number he learned would be televised.
Andy Meng
Kkonas wrote in message <19981001095149...@ng42.aol.com>...
It seems like we already had this discussion a while ago. To the best of my
knowledge, all these problems are with professional skaters and
performances. A couple of years ago the USFSA made a blanket settlement
with the major recording companies, so eligible skaters in the US do not
need to worry about their music selection when cutting their program. This
is the "story" as I understand it, but I have no sources. However, I have
never heard of an eligible skater having to change their music.
Andy
Margaret Burwell
Trudi Marrapodi (marr...@binghamton.edu) writes:
> In article <6uu4bt$r8m$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, klf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> That said, I actually do have a skating related question to tack on the end
>> of this. Do skaters have to get permission (or pay royalty on) their program
>> music? Do the networks that air the competition also have to get
>> permission/pay royalty? (This might have been answered before, but with
>> thread drift, it's impossible to find an answer through dejanews).
>
> and/or broadcast, from various parties to the creation of the music and
> copyright owners.
I find it interesting that the ISU included in is many rule
changes that skaters must arrive at competitions having already obtained
the necessary clearances.
Marg
Tmoms
What exactly is the law on this? Xeroxing an article and sending it to a group
of friends is not against the law, provided you don't pretend you wrote it!!!
Most of these sites are "free" so copying and distributing the articles only
serves to popularize the site, I would think? I thought the law was very
unclear on the internet, and purposefully so at this time? Need knowledge on
this?
Tmoms
Tracy Johnson
> What exactly is the law on this? Xeroxing an article and sending it to a group
> of friends is not against the law, provided you don't pretend you wrote it!!!
> Most of these sites are "free" so copying and distributing the articles only
> serves to popularize the site, I would think?
Not necessarily. I don't spend much time at all reading online magazines because I
just like reading "the real thing" -- the print copy, that is -- better. So if
someone tells me there's an article that may interest me in People magazine, as in
this case, I would either go out and buy the magazine or go to their web site that
one time. It wouldn't inspire me to start visiting People magazine's site on a
regular basis. That's just me personally but I don't think you can assume that
posting an article without permission is going to "popularize" the site. On the
contrary, if people can read something right here in the ng, why would they bother
going up to the magazine's site at all?
Secondly, one of the ways that these "free" sites make money -- the main way -- is
through banner ads and other advertising. You post just the article in a newsgroup
and you've robbed that free site of a certain portion of advertising income. Sure,
it may be minimal if this just happens once or twice, but it starts adding up. And
eventually, the free sites won't be free, so we all lose.
It doesn't hurt anyone who wants to share an article with the rest of the newsgroup
to just post the URL. That way, the site gets their hits, the people in the
newsgroup who care to read the article can do so, and everyone's happy. Well,
almost everyone. It seems you can never make *everyone* happy...
Tracy
------------------
Visit The Story Exchange at http://storyexchange.paconline.net
HILL JANET SWAN
>
>What exactly is the law on this? Xeroxing an article and sending it to a group
>of friends is not against the law, provided you don't pretend you wrote it!!!
I'm not so certain of this ........ "fair use" usually limits you to very
few copies. If your group of friends numbered three it's probably "fair
use". If it numbers 15, it's probably a violation of copyright.
>Most of these sites are "free" so copying and distributing the articles only
>serves to popularize the site, I would think? I thought the law was very
>unclear on the internet, and purposefully so at this time? Need knowledge on
>this?
I'm not at all certain what you are referring to here ..... but the fact
that something is free doesn't mean that material is not copyrighted, nor
that authors won't sue if you "steal" their work.
Many people who write things and put them up on websites don't file for
copyright protection (though just by having written them, they OWN the
copyright), and many of them would be delighted to have people copy and
distribute them ........ but it's honest, honorable, and polite to ASK
FIRST.
Many of the messages I have posted to this newsgroup and on another
list have found their way onto web pages, into dissertations, into
newsletters, into the FAQ, etc. I have never denied anyone permission to
use what I've written here ....... but I still have the copyright, and I
appreciate being asked.
janet
--
Louis Epstein
:
: Secondly, one of the ways that these "free" sites make money -- the main way -- is
: through banner ads and other advertising. You post just the article in a newsgroup
: and you've robbed that free site of a certain portion of advertising income. Sure,
: it may be minimal if this just happens once or twice, but it starts adding up. And
: eventually, the free sites won't be free, so we all lose.
DO remember to get a browser plugin that wipes out banner ads!!
www.junkbusters.com
: ------------------
: Visit The Story Exchange at http://storyexchange.paconline.net
??
Tracy Johnson
What are the question marks for, Louis? I'm not allowed to have a sig line mentioning my
personal web site like everyone else on the planet? If you visit my site, you'll see
there are NO banner ads, and no advertising of any sort, so if that's your protest, you
should check out the URL before questioning it.
Tracy
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
: > Tracy Johnson (tr...@paconline.net) wrote:
: > :
: > : Secondly, one of the ways that these "free" sites make money -- the main way -- is
: > : through banner ads and other advertising. You post just the article in a newsgroup
: > : and you've robbed that free site of a certain portion of advertising income. Sure,
: > : it may be minimal if this just happens once or twice, but it starts adding up. And
: > : eventually, the free sites won't be free, so we all lose.
: >
: > DO remember to get a browser plugin that wipes out banner ads!!
: > www.junkbusters.com
: >
: > : ------------------
: > : Visit The Story Exchange at http://storyexchange.paconline.net
: >
: > ??
:
: What are the question marks for, Louis? I'm not allowed to have a sig
: line mentioning my personal web site like everyone else on the planet?
No...I was asking what this site is about.
Tracy Johnson
I'm sorry, Louis. I shouldn't post when I'm grouchy. Yesterday was not the day for me to be
posting, obviously. :-(
Anyway, the site is for writers -- mainly amateur, but some published. Writers can submit
their work and if we think it has merit, we'll publish it on the site. It has short stories,
essays, etc. and a discussion area for writer's to exchange ideas and so on.
To bring this back to skating, hey, if anyone has a piece they've written that relates in
some way to skating, stop on by and submit it! :-) I was thinking about writing a piece
about my "skating addiction" but alas, no time...
Tracy
----------------------
Tracy Johnson
terrible typo in it. That should be "a discussion area for writers" not "writer's".
Tracy
PosterBoy
Tracy Johnson wrote in message <361E8242...@paconline.net>...
>Oops -- how do you like that? I post something about a web site pertaining
to writing with a
>terrible typo in it. That should be "a discussion area for writers" not
"writer's".
>
Don't sweat it, Tracy. Many of the finest writers were/are atrocious
spellers, and typo-prone. They just had/have good editors!!
Fortunately (or unfortunately, as the case may be), even if you hadn't
picked up the slip yourself......rssif is supplied abundantly with posters
who would cheerily point it out to you!! <G>
Cheers.
Tmoms
newsgroup
to just post the URL. That way, the site gets their hits, the people in the
newsgroup who care to read the article can do so, and everyone's happy. Well,
almost everyone. It seems you can never make *everyone* happy...
Tracy>>
You have a point, Tracy. Thanks for the explanation. However, as a footnote,
I visited a site repeatedly, and even paid for archives, when someone lifted
quotes from an article into a post. So its still a bit of a free for all on
the web, and I think more experience might be needed before rules get too
legal.
Tmoms