October 2004 TAG
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
October 2004 TAG
The October 2004 issue of The American Genealogist is finally in print.
Some of the articles include:
The probable parentage of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower.
The English origin of John Winston of New Haven, Ct.
(which identifies his mother, but not his father).
The family origin of Rev. Humphrey Fenn of Coventry, England,
ancestor of the Needhams of Massachusetts.
There's also an article about Margaret wife of Sir Simon Felbrigg,
(died 1442), which discusses her identity, or the lack of evidence in
this case.
Leslie
Some of the articles include:
The probable parentage of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower.
The English origin of John Winston of New Haven, Ct.
(which identifies his mother, but not his father).
The family origin of Rev. Humphrey Fenn of Coventry, England,
ancestor of the Needhams of Massachusetts.
There's also an article about Margaret wife of Sir Simon Felbrigg,
(died 1442), which discusses her identity, or the lack of evidence in
this case.
Leslie
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
Leslie:
Could you share with me, the names of Stephen's probable parents?
Also, baptism date and place? Thanks.
Regards.
Could you share with me, the names of Stephen's probable parents?
Also, baptism date and place? Thanks.
Regards.
-
Gjest
Re: October 2004 TAG
I'm all for sharing information. However, if there's one thing we can
all agree upon it's that we are all for good genealogical scholarship.
We may disagree on what is good scholarship, but TAG is one place where
you know you get consistently top-notch genealogical research. I think
you should subscribe to TAG (it's only $30 a year) and single issues
are sold ($9.00 each). In order for more good research to be done, I
think we need to vote with our wallets and you can't find a better way
to spend your genealogical dollars than by buying TAG. The authors
don't get paid, but the work is so good, you wish it were monthly
rather than quarterly. I am not affiliated with TAG, just a fan.
TAG
P.O. Box 398
Demorest, GA 30535-0398
all agree upon it's that we are all for good genealogical scholarship.
We may disagree on what is good scholarship, but TAG is one place where
you know you get consistently top-notch genealogical research. I think
you should subscribe to TAG (it's only $30 a year) and single issues
are sold ($9.00 each). In order for more good research to be done, I
think we need to vote with our wallets and you can't find a better way
to spend your genealogical dollars than by buying TAG. The authors
don't get paid, but the work is so good, you wish it were monthly
rather than quarterly. I am not affiliated with TAG, just a fan.
TAG
P.O. Box 398
Demorest, GA 30535-0398
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: October 2004 TAG
I think you should subscribe to TAG (it's only $30 a year) and single
issues are sold ($9.00 each). In order for more good >>>research to be
done, I think we need to vote with our wallets and you can't find a
better way to spend your genealogical >>dollars than by buying TAG.
I concur enthusiastically. The best means to refine genealogical
research skills is to read, study, and savor journals like _The American
Genealogist_. Not forgetting the _New England Historical and
Genealogical Register_, _National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, and
others.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a TAG
article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of a
journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of a
journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: October 2004 TAG
Nonsense.
Authors, Heirs & Publishers Have Rights.
Buy The Magazine, Fool!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a TAG
| article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
| secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
| long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of a
| journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
| nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
| on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
Authors, Heirs & Publishers Have Rights.
Buy The Magazine, Fool!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a TAG
| article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
| secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
| long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of a
| journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
| nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
| on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
-
12-stringer
Re: October 2004 TAG
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What an arrogant panhandling bastard you are! I have more respect for the
squeegee guys, who at least give a little value in exchange.
Michael V Schumann
news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a TAG
article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of a
journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
What an arrogant panhandling bastard you are! I have more respect for the
squeegee guys, who at least give a little value in exchange.
Michael V Schumann
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
In article <1111587455.072886.118820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
The article is Ernest Martin Christensen, "The Probable Parentage of
Stephen^1 Hopkins of the _Mayflower_," TAG 79 (2004), 241-49.
Mr. Chrisensen suggests Stephen may be the man of that name baptised on
the 'last of April', 1581, at Upper Clatford, Hampshire, as son of John
Hopkins, likely by the wife, Elizabeth Williams, whom John Hopkins had
married there in 1579.
The article is a wide-ranging discussion of what is known about Stephen
Hopkins (building notably on the work of Caleb Johnson and others from
the late 1990s), and is based on a several-year search of "some 137
parish records and other sources" by Mr. Christensen (p. 242). Although
there is no absolute proof, there is a reasonable circumstantial case
and the article is an inspiration to those engaged or interested in the
search for origins of colonial immigrants.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
In article <1111544130.275467.93330@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
lmahler@att.net wrote:
Some of the articles include:
The probable parentage of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower.
Leslie:
Could you share with me, the names of Stephen's probable parents?
Also, baptism date and place? Thanks.
The article is Ernest Martin Christensen, "The Probable Parentage of
Stephen^1 Hopkins of the _Mayflower_," TAG 79 (2004), 241-49.
Mr. Chrisensen suggests Stephen may be the man of that name baptised on
the 'last of April', 1581, at Upper Clatford, Hampshire, as son of John
Hopkins, likely by the wife, Elizabeth Williams, whom John Hopkins had
married there in 1579.
The article is a wide-ranging discussion of what is known about Stephen
Hopkins (building notably on the work of Caleb Johnson and others from
the late 1990s), and is based on a several-year search of "some 137
parish records and other sources" by Mr. Christensen (p. 242). Although
there is no absolute proof, there is a reasonable circumstantial case
and the article is an inspiration to those engaged or interested in the
search for origins of colonial immigrants.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: October 2004 TAG
Bingo!
There are tens of thousands like this pogue lurking in various
Genealogical Fora.
The best thing to do is squash them like the vermin they are -- and
you've done a good job of that below.
DSH
"12-stringer" <12-stringer@d-12-20.net> wrote in message
news:Zak0e.443042$w62.337106@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| "Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
| news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a
TAG
| > article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
| > secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
| > long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of
a
| > journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
| > nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
| > on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
| >
|
| What an arrogant panhandling bastard you are! I have more respect for
| the squeegee guys, who at least give a little value in exchange.
|
| Michael V Schumann
There are tens of thousands like this pogue lurking in various
Genealogical Fora.
The best thing to do is squash them like the vermin they are -- and
you've done a good job of that below.
DSH
"12-stringer" <12-stringer@d-12-20.net> wrote in message
news:Zak0e.443042$w62.337106@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| "Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
| news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a
TAG
| > article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
| > secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
| > long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of
a
| > journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
| > nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will post
| > on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
| >
|
| What an arrogant panhandling bastard you are! I have more respect for
| the squeegee guys, who at least give a little value in exchange.
|
| Michael V Schumann
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
Why don't YOU do something useful for humanity like clip your nose and
ear hairs, Sphincter lips!
ear hairs, Sphincter lips!
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
Why don't YOU do something useful for humanity like clip your nose and
ear hairs, Sphincter lips!
ear hairs, Sphincter lips!
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Thanks, Nathaniel. At least you are a gentleman unlike certain trolls
who get their rocks off engaging insults on this board.
who get their rocks off engaging insults on this board.
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
In article <1111610269.155184.45450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
I agree that some here are as you describe. But since I posted I read
the other contributions to this thread, and would not characterize all
those who replied to you in this way. I agree entirely with Martin
Hollick in that TAG (an entirely independent journal) is worthy of our
support. Persons descended from and/or interested in Hopkins should get
the whole story by subscribing or buying the issue as a one-off.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Nathaniel. At least you are a gentleman unlike certain trolls
who get their rocks off engaging insults on this board.
I agree that some here are as you describe. But since I posted I read
the other contributions to this thread, and would not characterize all
those who replied to you in this way. I agree entirely with Martin
Hollick in that TAG (an entirely independent journal) is worthy of our
support. Persons descended from and/or interested in Hopkins should get
the whole story by subscribing or buying the issue as a one-off.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
I have no problem supporting TAG, and will purchase the item if
available (nominal as it is). But I felt we could do without the
grandstanding. Truce (at least as far as you and Martin are concerned).
Hines is nothing but a troll who arrogantly presumes to match wits
with the world when, in fact, he's only half-qualified for the job.
Again, thank you, Nathaniel, for sharing Ernest Martin Christensen's
discovery about the probable English origins of Stephen Hopkins.
available (nominal as it is). But I felt we could do without the
grandstanding. Truce (at least as far as you and Martin are concerned).
Hines is nothing but a troll who arrogantly presumes to match wits
with the world when, in fact, he's only half-qualified for the job.
Again, thank you, Nathaniel, for sharing Ernest Martin Christensen's
discovery about the probable English origins of Stephen Hopkins.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Hilarious!
Nat Taylor does some furious back-pedaling.
Par For The Course.
Too Late Smart....
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-
| I agree that some here are as you describe. But since I posted I read
| the other contributions to this thread, and would not characterize all
| those who replied to you in this way. I agree entirely with Martin
| Hollick in that TAG (an entirely independent journal) is worthy of our
| support. Persons descended from and/or interested in Hopkins should
| get the whole story by subscribing or buying the issue as a one-off.
|
| Nat Taylor
Nat Taylor does some furious back-pedaling.
Par For The Course.
Too Late Smart....
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-
| I agree that some here are as you describe. But since I posted I read
| the other contributions to this thread, and would not characterize all
| those who replied to you in this way. I agree entirely with Martin
| Hollick in that TAG (an entirely independent journal) is worthy of our
| support. Persons descended from and/or interested in Hopkins should
| get the whole story by subscribing or buying the issue as a one-off.
|
| Nat Taylor
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Crawl back into your hole, Sphincter Hines...
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
In article <1111611852.634239.132040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
I note that in another message you characterized the TAG article as 'in
public domain', which it is not: it is under copyright to the publisher
of the journal, with no rights ceded to the public domain. God forbid we
need to revisit the distinctions between copyright law and ethical
standards over the use of scholarly information (and plagiarism, etc.).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote:
I have no problem supporting TAG...
I note that in another message you characterized the TAG article as 'in
public domain', which it is not: it is under copyright to the publisher
of the journal, with no rights ceded to the public domain. God forbid we
need to revisit the distinctions between copyright law and ethical
standards over the use of scholarly information (and plagiarism, etc.).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
I seriously doubt God has an opinion about copyright law. Regardless,
I find your image of him sitting in heaven forbidding discussion about
copyright law on the newsgroup rather amusing.
Unless, of course, you intended to say "Nat forbid" rather than "God
forbid." If so, that would be a horse of a different color. If Nat
forbids something, then we should be much concerned.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
God forbid we need to revisit the distinctions between copyright law
and ethical standards over the use of scholarly information (and
plagiarism, etc.).
Nat Taylor
I seriously doubt God has an opinion about copyright law. Regardless,
I find your image of him sitting in heaven forbidding discussion about
copyright law on the newsgroup rather amusing.
Unless, of course, you intended to say "Nat forbid" rather than "God
forbid." If so, that would be a horse of a different color. If Nat
forbids something, then we should be much concerned.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: October 2004 TAG
As Coeditor and Publisher (and--for my sins--Owner) of The American
Genealogist [TAG], I'd like to make a few comments on this discussion,
including some comments on the Stephen Hopkins article in the current
(Oct. 2004 [sic]) issue.
First of all, we are--as is obvious--running behind schedule. This is
an endemic problem with scholarly journals in all fields, but in TAG's
case, it was worsened by my own hospitalization for three months and
five surgeries in the summer of 2002 (an MRSA infection, through the
kind mercies of the hospital). We are somewhat ahead of the schedule
for the 2003 TAGs and are doing our best to return to the "cover date."
Articles in current TAGs are NOT in the public domain, and I have
sometimes had to protest (usually effectively) when someone has placed
a copyrighted TAG article online without permission from the journal
and the author. But factual information, at least so far as historical
articles are concerned, is indeed in the public domain, and Nat has
provided the basic conclusions from the current TAG article on the
parentage of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower. I will add that I edited
Ernest Christiansen's article on Hopkins--and even prepared the map of
Hampshire published with it--and think that his identification is
correct. But it is not fully proven; hence the word "probable" in the
title.
On subscriptions to the major scholarly journals: if the journals do
not have enough subscribers, they will not be able to continue
publication and such articles as the two that TAG has published on the
origin of Stephen Hopkins would almost certainly never appear. We
include information on purchasing back issues on TAG's website
(<www.americangenealogist.com>), but we are not sure that we are wise
in doing so. More people want individual back issues than want to
subscribe and support what we (and the other scholarly journals) do,
and the return from back issue sales--unless long runs are
ordered--does not cover the time and effort it takes to provide them.
In other words, making them available to the genealogical public is a
service, not a means of profit.
TAG has been an entirely independent journal since it was founded by
Donald Lines Jacobus in 1922. If we were looking for profits, we would
have ceased publication long ago. Hence, I am most grateful to Martin,
Nat, and Tony for promoting support for TAG--and, of course, the other
scholarly genealogical journals.
Note in the current TAG the article by Charles Hansen on the identity
of the wife of Sir Thomas Felbrigg. This is an important medieval
problem and merits further discussion in the news group.
I'm not sure what the intent of Doug Richardson's contribution to this
discussion is. Perhaps he will explain.
DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher, TAG
Genealogist [TAG], I'd like to make a few comments on this discussion,
including some comments on the Stephen Hopkins article in the current
(Oct. 2004 [sic]) issue.
First of all, we are--as is obvious--running behind schedule. This is
an endemic problem with scholarly journals in all fields, but in TAG's
case, it was worsened by my own hospitalization for three months and
five surgeries in the summer of 2002 (an MRSA infection, through the
kind mercies of the hospital). We are somewhat ahead of the schedule
for the 2003 TAGs and are doing our best to return to the "cover date."
Articles in current TAGs are NOT in the public domain, and I have
sometimes had to protest (usually effectively) when someone has placed
a copyrighted TAG article online without permission from the journal
and the author. But factual information, at least so far as historical
articles are concerned, is indeed in the public domain, and Nat has
provided the basic conclusions from the current TAG article on the
parentage of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower. I will add that I edited
Ernest Christiansen's article on Hopkins--and even prepared the map of
Hampshire published with it--and think that his identification is
correct. But it is not fully proven; hence the word "probable" in the
title.
On subscriptions to the major scholarly journals: if the journals do
not have enough subscribers, they will not be able to continue
publication and such articles as the two that TAG has published on the
origin of Stephen Hopkins would almost certainly never appear. We
include information on purchasing back issues on TAG's website
(<www.americangenealogist.com>), but we are not sure that we are wise
in doing so. More people want individual back issues than want to
subscribe and support what we (and the other scholarly journals) do,
and the return from back issue sales--unless long runs are
ordered--does not cover the time and effort it takes to provide them.
In other words, making them available to the genealogical public is a
service, not a means of profit.
TAG has been an entirely independent journal since it was founded by
Donald Lines Jacobus in 1922. If we were looking for profits, we would
have ceased publication long ago. Hence, I am most grateful to Martin,
Nat, and Tony for promoting support for TAG--and, of course, the other
scholarly genealogical journals.
Note in the current TAG the article by Charles Hansen on the identity
of the wife of Sir Thomas Felbrigg. This is an important medieval
problem and merits further discussion in the news group.
I'm not sure what the intent of Doug Richardson's contribution to this
discussion is. Perhaps he will explain.
DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher, TAG
-
R. Battle
Subscribing to journals (was Re: October 2004 TAG) [OT]
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 amgen@alltel.net wrote:
<snip>
I would also definitely recommend subscribing to scholarly genealogical
journals which have to do with your area(s) of interest, especially such
journals as TAG which do not have another institution backing them and
thus particularly need a healthy and steady subscriber base. It is in all
of our best interests to keep such journals going, not only for the
scholarship they bring to the public but also for their effect on the
generation of such scholarship. The knowledge that there is a place to
submit the fruits of one's research for possible publication has an
invigorating and salubrious effect on that research.
Besides all that, there is at least one purely selfish reason to subscribe
to journals rather than to buy one here and there. In addition to the
genealogical education (already mentioned by Tony Hoskins) that can be
acquired by reading journal articles, there is always the chance that you
could stumble across a clue or a link to people you are researching.
While such summaries as those posted by Leslie on the contents of TAG and
Nat on the main points of the Hopkins article are informative and helpful,
you simply can't count on someone else pointing out for you all of the
relevant items contained in every article in any given issue.
-Robert Battle
<snip>
On subscriptions to the major scholarly journals: if the journals do
not have enough subscribers, they will not be able to continue
publication and such articles as the two that TAG has published on the
origin of Stephen Hopkins would almost certainly never appear. We
include information on purchasing back issues on TAG's website
(<www.americangenealogist.com>), but we are not sure that we are wise
in doing so. More people want individual back issues than want to
subscribe and support what we (and the other scholarly journals) do,
and the return from back issue sales--unless long runs are
ordered--does not cover the time and effort it takes to provide them.
In other words, making them available to the genealogical public is a
service, not a means of profit.
snip
I would also definitely recommend subscribing to scholarly genealogical
journals which have to do with your area(s) of interest, especially such
journals as TAG which do not have another institution backing them and
thus particularly need a healthy and steady subscriber base. It is in all
of our best interests to keep such journals going, not only for the
scholarship they bring to the public but also for their effect on the
generation of such scholarship. The knowledge that there is a place to
submit the fruits of one's research for possible publication has an
invigorating and salubrious effect on that research.
Besides all that, there is at least one purely selfish reason to subscribe
to journals rather than to buy one here and there. In addition to the
genealogical education (already mentioned by Tony Hoskins) that can be
acquired by reading journal articles, there is always the chance that you
could stumble across a clue or a link to people you are researching.
While such summaries as those posted by Leslie on the contents of TAG and
Nat on the main points of the Hopkins article are informative and helpful,
you simply can't count on someone else pointing out for you all of the
relevant items contained in every article in any given issue.
-Robert Battle
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
If I am not mistaken, there was a three-part feature in TAG regarding
the ancestry and descendants of Alanson Cummings by Michael Thomas
Meggison of Rochester, N.Y. I noticed that the entire contents of Mr.
Meggison's published work found its way on the rootsweb.com site.
or cite Mr. Meggison for his original research. The scenario applies
to his Beach Boys ancestry that is on the NEHGS website. So much for
compliance with copyright laws!
the ancestry and descendants of Alanson Cummings by Michael Thomas
Meggison of Rochester, N.Y. I noticed that the entire contents of Mr.
Meggison's published work found its way on the rootsweb.com site.
From what I know, the author was not upset with the posting, but he was
understandably displeased that the web poster did not properly credit
or cite Mr. Meggison for his original research. The scenario applies
to his Beach Boys ancestry that is on the NEHGS website. So much for
compliance with copyright laws!
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
-
Gjest
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Are you implying that TAG loses it's copyright protection by virtue of being in a library?
Of course you can cite it and even quote passages without being in fear of violating copyright.
How much you can quote before you run into the effect of denying it's ability to profit off its own work may be questioned. I have heard of a "10 percent rule" but I'm not sure that has a legal basis.
In general if you copy an entire work, with the effect that that work becomes worthless because it is now freely available, that would be a copyright infringement and you could be sued for interfering with the ability of that work to make a profit.
I am not a lawyer, so this is just my lay understanding.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 14:14:37 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
Of course you can cite it and even quote passages without being in fear of violating copyright.
How much you can quote before you run into the effect of denying it's ability to profit off its own work may be questioned. I have heard of a "10 percent rule" but I'm not sure that has a legal basis.
In general if you copy an entire work, with the effect that that work becomes worthless because it is now freely available, that would be a copyright infringement and you could be sued for interfering with the ability of that work to make a profit.
I am not a lawyer, so this is just my lay understanding.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 14:14:37 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
-
Steven C. Perkins
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
At 02:14 PM 3/24/2005 -0800, you wrote:
The above is incorrect. Here is a link to the US Copyright Office FAQ:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
Note the following:
"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is
permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for
purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly
reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number
of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work.
Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the
circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of
Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's
work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to
authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly,
you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change
it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright
Registration for Derivative Works.
Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use
by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that
your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful
infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal
investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be
entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are
circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be
used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office
recommends that permission be obtained. "
---------------------
Being available to the public is not being in the public domain except for
works published before 1927 and those works published after that date and
explicitly dedicated to the public domain. Certain other exceptions also
apply, but are not relevant to a currently published journal and articles.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
The above is incorrect. Here is a link to the US Copyright Office FAQ:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
Note the following:
"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is
permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for
purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly
reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number
of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work.
Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the
circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of
Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's
work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to
authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly,
you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change
it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright
Registration for Derivative Works.
Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use
by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that
your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful
infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal
investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be
entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are
circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be
used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office
recommends that permission be obtained. "
---------------------
Being available to the public is not being in the public domain except for
works published before 1927 and those works published after that date and
explicitly dedicated to the public domain. Certain other exceptions also
apply, but are not relevant to a currently published journal and articles.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
So, graffiti on a bathroom wall should be subjected to copyright
restrictions? Further, if any author gets published in any
genealogical journal such as TAG, the Register, etc., authors do not
get a penny of compensation. It's a honor and a priviledge for any
author to appear in a prestigious journal. The main purpose an author
publishes their results is to facilitate and generate more [NOT less]
interest in the material, so the author's work can be modified or
corrected, if need be. Someday, someone else may find additional
sources that would corroborate the origins of Stephen Hopkins.
My original point is obviously being lost due to the materialistic,
profit-motivated agendas of a certain few who insist I must subscribe
to a journal in order to get the answers I seek. That's like saying I
have to pay to relieve my bowels in a public restroom.
If one wants the info bad enough, it will be obtained. Mr. Johnson,
what's published in a newspaper gets repeated in conversations between
people. You want to slap a lawsuit against lay people for discussing
current events? Get familiar with Fair-Use Doctrines. I'm excited
that Stephen Hopkins's probable origins have been discovered. You and
others of your ilk will not take that away from me. Since you're into
flame wars, go to Delphiforums.com, and join your fellow traveller
trolls!
restrictions? Further, if any author gets published in any
genealogical journal such as TAG, the Register, etc., authors do not
get a penny of compensation. It's a honor and a priviledge for any
author to appear in a prestigious journal. The main purpose an author
publishes their results is to facilitate and generate more [NOT less]
interest in the material, so the author's work can be modified or
corrected, if need be. Someday, someone else may find additional
sources that would corroborate the origins of Stephen Hopkins.
My original point is obviously being lost due to the materialistic,
profit-motivated agendas of a certain few who insist I must subscribe
to a journal in order to get the answers I seek. That's like saying I
have to pay to relieve my bowels in a public restroom.
If one wants the info bad enough, it will be obtained. Mr. Johnson,
what's published in a newspaper gets repeated in conversations between
people. You want to slap a lawsuit against lay people for discussing
current events? Get familiar with Fair-Use Doctrines. I'm excited
that Stephen Hopkins's probable origins have been discovered. You and
others of your ilk will not take that away from me. Since you're into
flame wars, go to Delphiforums.com, and join your fellow traveller
trolls!
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Sphincter say what? My point was that I asked an innocent question, and
so many of you trolls want to bash a person. Apparently, that's your
idea of a sexual release. Have a nice day.
so many of you trolls want to bash a person. Apparently, that's your
idea of a sexual release. Have a nice day.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
[combining posts]
Steve Barnhoorn wrote:
This is incorrect. It is not in the public domain until the period of
copyright protection has expired. ("Public domain" is a specific legal
term, relating to the ability to reproduce a work in part or entirety
(beyond "fair use", another legal term) without permission from and
compensation to the author - perhaps you were not using it in this
precise context?)
"Should" is not the issue at hand. Wordcraft set into fixed form is
subject to copyright protection. Thus, were I to write an original
limerick on the bathroom wall, it would be subject to copyright protection.
It doesn't matter.
All this may be true, but it is irrelevant with respect to copyright.
This is inaccurate (and unfair - none of the major scholarly
genealogical journals make a profit). The text of the article IS
protected by copyright, until 95 years after the death of the author.
This is the law and the motivations of neither the author nor reader
affect this. However, the information contained within the text cannot
be copyrighted. That is the important distinction.
The comments that were made were not that you MUST subscribe in order to
obtain the information - they were that you SHOULD subscribe or buy this
issue, because if too few people do so these journals will go under and
all of the reasons you present above for why authors publish articles
will become superfluous. Obtaining the information (not the precise
text) without subscribing does not violate copyright, but it likewise
does nothing to promote the publication of such discoveries. Different
issues - law vs. ethics (and self-interest).
Umm . . . there are such public restrooms. I recall using a stall in
one to change clothes, the attendant allowing this as a favor but
insisting that if he heard as much as a flush, I would have to pony up
the cash . . . . but that is beside the point.
taf
Steve Barnhoorn wrote:
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
This is incorrect. It is not in the public domain until the period of
copyright protection has expired. ("Public domain" is a specific legal
term, relating to the ability to reproduce a work in part or entirety
(beyond "fair use", another legal term) without permission from and
compensation to the author - perhaps you were not using it in this
precise context?)
So, graffiti on a bathroom wall should be subjected to copyright
restrictions?
"Should" is not the issue at hand. Wordcraft set into fixed form is
subject to copyright protection. Thus, were I to write an original
limerick on the bathroom wall, it would be subject to copyright protection.
Further, if any author gets published in any
genealogical journal such as TAG, the Register, etc., authors do not
get a penny of compensation.
It doesn't matter.
It's a honor and a priviledge for any
author to appear in a prestigious journal. The main purpose an author
publishes their results is to facilitate and generate more [NOT less]
interest in the material, so the author's work can be modified or
corrected, if need be. Someday, someone else may find additional
sources that would corroborate the origins of Stephen Hopkins.
All this may be true, but it is irrelevant with respect to copyright.
My original point is obviously being lost due to the materialistic,
profit-motivated agendas of a certain few who insist I must subscribe
to a journal in order to get the answers I seek.
This is inaccurate (and unfair - none of the major scholarly
genealogical journals make a profit). The text of the article IS
protected by copyright, until 95 years after the death of the author.
This is the law and the motivations of neither the author nor reader
affect this. However, the information contained within the text cannot
be copyrighted. That is the important distinction.
The comments that were made were not that you MUST subscribe in order to
obtain the information - they were that you SHOULD subscribe or buy this
issue, because if too few people do so these journals will go under and
all of the reasons you present above for why authors publish articles
will become superfluous. Obtaining the information (not the precise
text) without subscribing does not violate copyright, but it likewise
does nothing to promote the publication of such discoveries. Different
issues - law vs. ethics (and self-interest).
That's like saying I
have to pay to relieve my bowels in a public restroom.
Umm . . . there are such public restrooms. I recall using a stall in
one to change clothes, the attendant allowing this as a favor but
insisting that if he heard as much as a flush, I would have to pony up
the cash . . . . but that is beside the point.
taf
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs.
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
legalisms.
-
Gjest
Re:Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Graffiti is not subject to profit, and oral conversation does not infringe on copyright because it is not a "copy". So your arguments are without merit counsellor.
The issue is not the author making a profit either. That does not raise copyright questions in this particular case because there is no compensation TO the author in the first place. The issue is the magazine making a profit. Copyright infringement is raised when your actions impair the ability to make a worthwhile profit. If you copy a few pages and make those freely available you may be ok, I'm not sure. But certainly if you copy the entire magazine and make that freely available you could be sued for copyright infringement.
That is my point. I citation and quotation in another work does not "replace" the original work and therefore if you wanted to review other parts not quoted you would presumably buy the work, or visit a library that had *bought* it. However if you copy so much that a person would have no need to obtain the underlying source, you could be violating copyright.
There are certain peculiar exceptions, but I'm not expert enough in the copyright law to be able to properly expound them.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 14:59:48 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
So, graffiti on a bathroom wall should be subjected to copyright
restrictions? Further, if any author gets published in any
genealogical journal such as TAG, the Register, etc., authors do not
get a penny of compensation. It's a honor and a priviledge for any
author to appear in a prestigious journal. The main purpose an author
publishes their results is to facilitate and generate more [NOT less]
interest in the material, so the author's work can be modified or
corrected, if need be. Someday, someone else may find additional
sources that would corroborate the origins of Stephen Hopkins.
My original point is obviously being lost due to the materialistic,
profit-motivated agendas of a certain few who insist I must subscribe
to a journal in order to get the answers I seek. That's like saying I
have to pay to relieve my bowels in a public restroom.
If one wants the info bad enough, it will be obtained. Mr. Johnson,
what's published in a newspaper gets repeated in conversations between
people. You want to slap a lawsuit against lay people for discussing
current events? Get familiar with Fair-Use Doctrines. I'm excited
that Stephen Hopkins's probable origins have been discovered. You and
others of your ilk will not take that away from me. Since you're into
flame wars, go to Delphiforums.com, and join your fellow traveller
trolls!
The issue is not the author making a profit either. That does not raise copyright questions in this particular case because there is no compensation TO the author in the first place. The issue is the magazine making a profit. Copyright infringement is raised when your actions impair the ability to make a worthwhile profit. If you copy a few pages and make those freely available you may be ok, I'm not sure. But certainly if you copy the entire magazine and make that freely available you could be sued for copyright infringement.
That is my point. I citation and quotation in another work does not "replace" the original work and therefore if you wanted to review other parts not quoted you would presumably buy the work, or visit a library that had *bought* it. However if you copy so much that a person would have no need to obtain the underlying source, you could be violating copyright.
There are certain peculiar exceptions, but I'm not expert enough in the copyright law to be able to properly expound them.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 14:59:48 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
So, graffiti on a bathroom wall should be subjected to copyright
restrictions? Further, if any author gets published in any
genealogical journal such as TAG, the Register, etc., authors do not
get a penny of compensation. It's a honor and a priviledge for any
author to appear in a prestigious journal. The main purpose an author
publishes their results is to facilitate and generate more [NOT less]
interest in the material, so the author's work can be modified or
corrected, if need be. Someday, someone else may find additional
sources that would corroborate the origins of Stephen Hopkins.
My original point is obviously being lost due to the materialistic,
profit-motivated agendas of a certain few who insist I must subscribe
to a journal in order to get the answers I seek. That's like saying I
have to pay to relieve my bowels in a public restroom.
If one wants the info bad enough, it will be obtained. Mr. Johnson,
what's published in a newspaper gets repeated in conversations between
people. You want to slap a lawsuit against lay people for discussing
current events? Get familiar with Fair-Use Doctrines. I'm excited
that Stephen Hopkins's probable origins have been discovered. You and
others of your ilk will not take that away from me. Since you're into
flame wars, go to Delphiforums.com, and join your fellow traveller
trolls!
-
Gjest
Re: Copyright law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Todd I respectfully disconcur. I would argue that graffiti has no inherent *expectation* of protection. Only those items with a reasonable expectation of protection would be protected.
Maybe there is a case law about graffit explicitly. Again I'm not sure, just a gut reaction.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Farmerie <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:41:07 -0700
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
taf
Maybe there is a case law about graffit explicitly. Again I'm not sure, just a gut reaction.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Farmerie <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:41:07 -0700
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
So, graffiti on a bathroom wall should be subjected to copyright
restrictions?
"Should" is not the issue at hand. Wordcraft set into fixed form is subject to copyright protection. Thus, were I to write an original limerick on the bathroom wall, it would be subject to copyright protection.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins
Well he is my fourth cousin ...
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 16:30:53 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 16:30:53 -0800
Subject: Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Steve Barnhoorn wrote:
This is not just splitting legal hairs, it is the law. You don't have
to like it but that doesn't change anything. Everyone in this group
should probably understand it, though.
Original content in fixed format is subject to copyright restriction -
ALWAYS, from the minute it is rendered. It is not in "public domain" no
matter how many libraries have it on their shelves, until the period of
copyright protection expires.
Information is not (except for some cases, mostly original databases,
where the information essentially _is_ the original content).
That is the law, but it was the ethics which were being discussed (until
your 'libraries being public domain' comment). It may be to your
immediate self-interest to just copy down the information you wish to
know, from whoever will provide it. However, I would suggest that it is
not so simple. First of all, it places you at the mercy of the
provider, what they choose to convey, and how accurately they convey it.
Secondly, they cannot (at least legally) provide you with the entire
article, and hence you must take the information at face value without
knowing the basis for it, the reasoning behind it, the evidence
supporting it, and most importantly, without being able to evaluate how
sound it is. (Publication is not necessarily an indication of
accuracy.) Thus, it seems to me that it would be in your self-interest
to obtain the original article.
This then brings us to another dilema. You can obtain it from a library
copy (within the strictures of fair-use) for a small cost (a dime or
whatever per page plus, perhaps, shipping), or you can obtain the
original for a greater cost (probably - you can often get old NEHGRs at
library booksales, on Ebay, or any number of places as 'used' copies for
little more than the cost of photocopying, or sometimes much more than
the cost of an original from the publisher). Again, the first would
seem to be in your immediate self-interest, but again, there are reasons
why this might not be the case. First of all, the published journal is
of inherently greated value because of its professional print and
binding, vs. an iffy copy on cheep paper (the ink subject to fading as
well as that wierd thing that happens to the first page in a notebook
from the chemicals seeping out of the cover and turning the ink sticky,
the paper subject to yellowing and tearing, the pages getting out of
order, misplaced, etc.). For this reason on several occasions, after
having photocopied large tracts or even entire books no longer under
copyright, I have later bought the original book (used or reprinted). A
second self-interest reason for buying the item rather than photocopying
it is that which has been raised - if everyone photocopies the articles
of interest rather than buying them, the journals will be out of
business, and the next time someone makes a discovery relating to one of
your ancestors, you may never have the opportunity to learn of it for
want of a medium. Thus, an argument could be made for you buying a copy
from the publisher entirely based on your own self-interest, without
invoking "materialism" and "profit-motivated agendas".
That being said, money doesn't grow on trees, and as with all such
ethical issues, each person must make their own decision what they can
and should do.
taf
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
This is not just splitting legal hairs, it is the law. You don't have
to like it but that doesn't change anything. Everyone in this group
should probably understand it, though.
Original content in fixed format is subject to copyright restriction -
ALWAYS, from the minute it is rendered. It is not in "public domain" no
matter how many libraries have it on their shelves, until the period of
copyright protection expires.
Information is not (except for some cases, mostly original databases,
where the information essentially _is_ the original content).
That is the law, but it was the ethics which were being discussed (until
your 'libraries being public domain' comment). It may be to your
immediate self-interest to just copy down the information you wish to
know, from whoever will provide it. However, I would suggest that it is
not so simple. First of all, it places you at the mercy of the
provider, what they choose to convey, and how accurately they convey it.
Secondly, they cannot (at least legally) provide you with the entire
article, and hence you must take the information at face value without
knowing the basis for it, the reasoning behind it, the evidence
supporting it, and most importantly, without being able to evaluate how
sound it is. (Publication is not necessarily an indication of
accuracy.) Thus, it seems to me that it would be in your self-interest
to obtain the original article.
This then brings us to another dilema. You can obtain it from a library
copy (within the strictures of fair-use) for a small cost (a dime or
whatever per page plus, perhaps, shipping), or you can obtain the
original for a greater cost (probably - you can often get old NEHGRs at
library booksales, on Ebay, or any number of places as 'used' copies for
little more than the cost of photocopying, or sometimes much more than
the cost of an original from the publisher). Again, the first would
seem to be in your immediate self-interest, but again, there are reasons
why this might not be the case. First of all, the published journal is
of inherently greated value because of its professional print and
binding, vs. an iffy copy on cheep paper (the ink subject to fading as
well as that wierd thing that happens to the first page in a notebook
from the chemicals seeping out of the cover and turning the ink sticky,
the paper subject to yellowing and tearing, the pages getting out of
order, misplaced, etc.). For this reason on several occasions, after
having photocopied large tracts or even entire books no longer under
copyright, I have later bought the original book (used or reprinted). A
second self-interest reason for buying the item rather than photocopying
it is that which has been raised - if everyone photocopies the articles
of interest rather than buying them, the journals will be out of
business, and the next time someone makes a discovery relating to one of
your ancestors, you may never have the opportunity to learn of it for
want of a medium. Thus, an argument could be made for you buying a copy
from the publisher entirely based on your own self-interest, without
invoking "materialism" and "profit-motivated agendas".
That being said, money doesn't grow on trees, and as with all such
ethical issues, each person must make their own decision what they can
and should do.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: October 2004 TAG
Manic 'genealogists' are very entertaining.
They get all worked up when they hear that someone
has found ONE or TWO additional ancestors to put in their
database.
They must have really boring personal lives, and
therefore try to get some excitement by collecting names of
dead persons.
Leslie
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
They get all worked up when they hear that someone
has found ONE or TWO additional ancestors to put in their
database.
They must have really boring personal lives, and
therefore try to get some excitement by collecting names of
dead persons.
Leslie
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Nonsense.
Authors, Heirs & Publishers Have Rights.
Buy The Magazine, Fool!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111606930.487920.138920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| I fail to see how something that's in the public domain, such as a
TAG
| article, cannot be shared. We're certainly not talking about state
| secrets or missile silos here. We're talking about the origins of
| long-deceased ancestor of mine! I would hardly call advertising of
a
| journal to be of any academic or genealogical value. In fact, it's
| nothing but arrogant tripe. Once I get the information, I will
post
| on-line so others can benefit from the knowledge!
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111702477.130431.93920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves for all to
read and cite. However if you treat them as though they were in the public
domain, you will find out from my publishers' lawyers that that has
unpleasantly expensive consequences.
Being available to the public and being in the public domain are two very
different things.
JSG
news:1111702477.130431.93920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite, etc.,
you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves for all to
read and cite. However if you treat them as though they were in the public
domain, you will find out from my publishers' lawyers that that has
unpleasantly expensive consequences.
Being available to the public and being in the public domain are two very
different things.
JSG
-
I'm not gonna tell ya
Re: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins
wjhonson@aol.com wrote in news:8C6FEEA3B4570C5-B54-32EF0@mblk-
r20.sysops.aol.com:
Well, I sure wouldn't be boasting about it if I were you. Talk shame
and disgrace being called down upon a family...My God! Slick Willie!!!
r20.sysops.aol.com:
Well he is my fourth cousin ...
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
Well, I sure wouldn't be boasting about it if I were you. Talk shame
and disgrace being called down upon a family...My God! Slick Willie!!!
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Bingo!
Foghorn Barnhoorn is a VERY ignorant and arrogant young fellow -- just
another Pimply Faced Kid with ATTITUDE, chained to a keyboard.
However, he enjoys FLAUNTING his ignorance -- which makes him
ENTERTAINING -- Foghorn Barnhoorn's only marginal, redeeming value.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:aiU0e.7919$QA.1610@fe10.lga...
| "Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
| news:1111702477.130431.93920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite,
| > etc., you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
|
| My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves for
| all to read and cite. However if you treat them as though they were
| in the public domain, you will find out from my publishers' lawyers
| that that [sic] has unpleasantly expensive consequences.
|
| Being available to the public and being in the public domain are two
| very different things.
|
| JSG
Foghorn Barnhoorn is a VERY ignorant and arrogant young fellow -- just
another Pimply Faced Kid with ATTITUDE, chained to a keyboard.
However, he enjoys FLAUNTING his ignorance -- which makes him
ENTERTAINING -- Foghorn Barnhoorn's only marginal, redeeming value.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:aiU0e.7919$QA.1610@fe10.lga...
| "Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
| news:1111702477.130431.93920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > If TAG sits on a shelf in a public library for all to read, cite,
| > etc., you bet your sweet bippy it's in the public domain.
|
| My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves for
| all to read and cite. However if you treat them as though they were
| in the public domain, you will find out from my publishers' lawyers
| that that [sic] has unpleasantly expensive consequences.
|
| Being available to the public and being in the public domain are two
| very different things.
|
| JSG
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80Z0e.1815$uC2.8565@eagle.america.net...
Before you interpolate a [sic], you should make sure that the original is
mistaken. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool as well as a pedant.
In this case the second "that" is called for.
"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place
for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live."
--Abraham Lincoln
JSG
news:80Z0e.1815$uC2.8565@eagle.america.net...
| My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves for
| all to read and cite. However if you treat them as though they were
| in the public domain, you will find out from my publishers' lawyers
| that that [sic] has unpleasantly expensive consequences.
Before you interpolate a [sic], you should make sure that the original is
mistaken. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool as well as a pedant.
In this case the second "that" is called for.
"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place
for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live."
--Abraham Lincoln
JSG
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Gordo loves clumsy formulations in English.
He relies on his Editors, who are far brighter than he, to weed them
out.
Unfortunately for Gordo, he HAS NO editors to review his work on SGM and
therefore often posts gibberish, balderdash, codswallop and malarkey to
SGM ---- as was the case in his hilarious confusions and conflations
concerning:
"DIRECT DESCENDANTS"
And:
"COLLATERAL ANCESTORS".
How Sweet It Is!
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:XfZ0e.7979$Kl5.28@fe10.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:80Z0e.1815$uC2.8565@eagle.america.net...
|
| > My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves
| > for all to read and cite. However if you treat them as though
| > they were in the public domain, you will find out from my
| > publishers' lawyers that that [sic] has unpleasantly expensive
| > consequences.
Gordo
He relies on his Editors, who are far brighter than he, to weed them
out.
Unfortunately for Gordo, he HAS NO editors to review his work on SGM and
therefore often posts gibberish, balderdash, codswallop and malarkey to
SGM ---- as was the case in his hilarious confusions and conflations
concerning:
"DIRECT DESCENDANTS"
And:
"COLLATERAL ANCESTORS".
How Sweet It Is!
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:XfZ0e.7979$Kl5.28@fe10.lga...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:80Z0e.1815$uC2.8565@eagle.america.net...
|
| > My books and magazine articles sit on quite a few library shelves
| > for all to read and cite. However if you treat them as though
| > they were in the public domain, you will find out from my
| > publishers' lawyers that that [sic] has unpleasantly expensive
| > consequences.
Gordo
-
Ray Montgomery
RE: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins
I know I am going to tic off some body with this joke, however it is just
begging to be told.
What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer and a crooked politician.
Answer: Chelsey Clinton
-----Original Message-----
From: I'm not gonna tell ya [mailto:NoWayJose@NotGonnaTell.org]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:22 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
wjhonson@aol.com wrote in news:8C6FEEA3B4570C5-B54-32EF0@mblk-
r20.sysops.aol.com:
Well, I sure wouldn't be boasting about it if I were you. Talk shame
and disgrace being called down upon a family...My God! Slick Willie!!!
begging to be told.
What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer and a crooked politician.
Answer: Chelsey Clinton
-----Original Message-----
From: I'm not gonna tell ya [mailto:NoWayJose@NotGonnaTell.org]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:22 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
wjhonson@aol.com wrote in news:8C6FEEA3B4570C5-B54-32EF0@mblk-
r20.sysops.aol.com:
Well he is my fourth cousin ...
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Barnhoorn <sbarnhoorn@mail.com
Only Bill Clinton does a better job of splitting hairs and engage in
legalisms.
Well, I sure wouldn't be boasting about it if I were you. Talk shame
and disgrace being called down upon a family...My God! Slick Willie!!!
-
starbuck95
Re: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
And if you weren't so ignorant you would know the proper spelling of
her name.
her name.
-
Diane
RE: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
What vitriolic talk there is on this web site. I thought the idea was to
help each other, not be as nasty as possible.
Makes you wonder why there are wars - hmmmm.
-----Original Message-----
From: starbuck95 [mailto:starbuck95@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:18 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
And if you weren't so ignorant you would know the proper spelling of
her name.
help each other, not be as nasty as possible.
Makes you wonder why there are wars - hmmmm.
-----Original Message-----
From: starbuck95 [mailto:starbuck95@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:18 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
And if you weren't so ignorant you would know the proper spelling of
her name.
-
I'm not gonna tell ya
RE: [OT] Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins
rmontgomery@calrepair.com ("Ray Montgomery") wrote in
news:BBEFKMIKPDJLBADHHDECCEDMCAAA.rmontgomery@calrepair.com:
That, has got to be one of the BEST I've heard in a good while!!!!
news:BBEFKMIKPDJLBADHHDECCEDMCAAA.rmontgomery@calrepair.com:
What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer and a crooked
politician.
Answer: Chelsey Clinton
That, has got to be one of the BEST I've heard in a good while!!!!
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG
Amazing isnit it? I cannot ask a simple innocent question on-line
without being viciously attacked, drive-by fashion.
without being viciously attacked, drive-by fashion.
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Frankly, I was originally interested in an answer to a question I
raised. Apparently, trolls have nothing better to do than to do convert
my question into a target of abuse. I have no interest in violating
copyright law. Again, was only interested in Stephen Hopkins' origins.
raised. Apparently, trolls have nothing better to do than to do convert
my question into a target of abuse. I have no interest in violating
copyright law. Again, was only interested in Stephen Hopkins' origins.
-
Steve Barnhoorn
Re: October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
I understand Sphincter Hines is wearing his mother's ear-rings. Please
return them!
return them!
-
Frank Bullen
Re: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
Dianne, you are soooooo right! I don't know where I've come across such
enormous piles of utter codswallop with - rarely - a worthwhile snippet.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane" <pandreasen@stny.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
enormous piles of utter codswallop with - rarely - a worthwhile snippet.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane" <pandreasen@stny.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
What vitriolic talk there is on this web site. I thought the idea was to
help each other, not be as nasty as possible.
Makes you wonder why there are wars - hmmmm.
-----Original Message-----
From: starbuck95 [mailto:starbuck95@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:18 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Copyright Law was October 2004 TAG (Stephen Hopkins)
And if you weren't so ignorant you would know the proper spelling of
her name.
______________________________