|
skibabeage
Deleted
Apr 12, 2004, 12:20 AM
Post #1 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Apr 22, 2004, 9:40 PM
Post #2 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
I don't get it...how come the admins on this site worry about violating copyright when it comes to the route database, but it's OK to lift articles from the Associated Press and Fox?
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Apr 22, 2004, 10:09 PM
Post #3 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
This is B.S. It's a land grab. Proof that 90% of America is out for "me, me me and I don't want anybody else using it"
Let's all pitch in and purchase the bottom 1/2 of Utah, form a church called 'Biner & Rope and kick everyone else out. If we don't we'll all be confined to our own 1/2 acre rual lot to live in.
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Apr 22, 2004, 10:54 PM
Post #4 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
Funny how the AP is a subscription based news wire org that charges people to use it's resources.
Check out the link titled Buy AP News that is on the AP website.
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Apr 22, 2004, 11:00 PM
Post #5 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
Oh and since rc.com is sooooo big on enforcing the TOS... :)
Checkout the AP website TOS...paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 are interesting since they say you can't archive their material.
Just a thought... :P
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
mike_ok
Apr 22, 2004, 11:14 PM
Post #6 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345
|
You only have to buy AP articles if you intend to profit from your own publication of their work. I doubt if the case could be made that copied AP articles contribute in any substantial way to the hit-count of rc.com, and thus does not contribute in any substantial way to the income of rc.com... etc. Edit: This isn't entirely true. Technically any republication/archiving/retention of ap products must be by means of written permission. I think the case would hinge on the definitions of republication/archiving/retention. Posting on a public forum doesn't exactly match what is meant by publication, or archiving, or retention. Its more similar to repeating what you heard in a class discussion. In any case, I don't think AP is going to come after rc.com; like I said, rc.com isn't making any money off of this, and AP isn't losing any (noticeable; read: worth suing) money either.
Back to topic:
Why can hikers and picnickers hang out but not climbers? I'm confused. Climbing on the rock desecates it in some manner that eating at the base of it doesn't? Aside from the religious site/federal land controversy, I'm legitametly curious how climbing is inapropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Apr 22, 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #7 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
It looks like the print story is just a short synopsis of the broadcast story. It ran at least twice monday or tuesday and was "fair and balanced". No detectable bias either way and laid out the Access Fund's case clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 22, 2004, 11:48 PM
Post #8 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: The Boulder, Colo.-based group maintains the tribe has always said Cave Rock is a religious, sacred site. The Washoe tribe has opposed climbing on Cave Rock, located on U.S. 50 between Glenbrook and Zephyr Cove on Tahoe's east shore.
It's not called religion to Native Americans, it's called a way of life. Sacred to their way of life and daily beliefs. I would also image that Native American would have a grandfather law on this one. F-ing climbers need to get a life and let this one go.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 22, 2004, 11:49 PM
Post #9 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Why can hikers and picnickers hang out but not climbers? I'm confused. Climbing on the rock desecates it in some manner that eating at the base of it doesn't? Aside from the religious site/federal land controversy, I'm legitametly curious how climbing is inapropriate.
Maybe they just don't like climbers!
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Apr 22, 2004, 11:59 PM
Post #10 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: Unless I'm mistaken as a news moderator, news copy is durned close to public domain.
Is it public domain, or isn't it? Or are you durned close to violating copyright?
In reply to: Under the "fair use" exemption of the US Copyright law, things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research, and education may be reprinted without permission of the author, unless otherwise disclaimed on the work.
You mean disclaimed like this?
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
And what about the copyright notice at the end of every page on this site? Who holds the copyright you're claiming, you or AP?
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Apr 23, 2004, 12:07 AM
Post #11 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Mesomorfs are usually associated with fat people, so I'll just refer to you as Fat Man.
Fat Man, this thread is Cave Rock and access issues. Start another thread rather than highjacking this one. Quit being an irritating kook!
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Apr 23, 2004, 12:14 AM
Post #12 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
Ignoring the ad hominem attack and the fact that my self-deprecating moniker has completely gone over your head, I'll say just this one thing and then shut up.
In reply to: "Open Content" Climbing Information Have you ever heard of Open Source software? Well welcome to Open Source Climbing Information. Like the idea of Open Source, Open Content relies on the fact that a very large group of people that make a little effort are better than a few people who make a big effort. By all of us contributing and maintaining the content on this site, we create a bigger, faster, higher quality website than any corporation could ever afford to pay for. Almost all of the content that you see on this site has been donated, written, or created by members of the site. After you start using the site, the only thing we ask of you in return is for you to add new information and edit incorrect information. It's your duty to other climbers!
I have heard of Open Source software. It's often published under the Gnu Public License, and is NOT protected by US copyright law.
Now back to your regularly scheduled flamefests and thread hijacks.
EDIT: Hey! cloudbreak, did you delete your post?
|
|
|
|
|
mike_ok
Apr 23, 2004, 12:40 AM
Post #13 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345
|
In reply to: It's not called religion to Native Americans, it's called a way of life. Sacred to their way of life and daily beliefs. I would also image that Native American would have a grandfather law on this one. F-ing climbers need to get a life and let this one go.
"Way of life" would include daily practice. From what I gather from the news report, the rock isn't "used" for anything. They just don't like to have people on it. Furthermore, religion is "daily life" for anyone. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc, etc all constitue daily forms of life for their adherents. As to the grandfather clause, sure, you can make the case that Native Americans own everything and thus have priority. Then again, the Washo aren't the original tribe either. Then again, humans aren't the original inhabitants. We can keep pushing this back forever.
In reply to: Maybe they just don't like climbers! |
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
Apr 23, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #14 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I consider having trees a way of life, so I want to close all forest's to being cleared for lumber. oh wait, lumber makes people money, climbing dosen't. Oh I almost forgot I don't count because I don't make enough money.
|
|
|
|
|
gumbobob
Apr 23, 2004, 1:07 AM
Post #15 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
the Native AMericans don't like climbers on Cave Rock because they are touching the rock and have a "more intimate" experience with the rock itself...they say that climbers drain the power from the rock when they touch it, and only certain Native AMerican Chiefs are allowed to touch the rock and do certain ceremonies there...
Also, they are upset because a certain climber (who i shall not name) really cleaned up the place--took a lot of trash from teenagers parties--but then misguidedly decided to pour cement all over the floor of Cave Rock...this was kind of a big impact (though it did make the area much nicer for climbers)
The Native Americans also take issue with the bolts being drilled into the rock--i think they didn't mind when it was just the bolts, but now Cave is filled with fixed draws which (though they make cleaning very easy) are an eyesore to the tribe...
however, they are fighting over a hunk of rock that already has a HIGHWAY blasted through it!!! they should have argued this fact fifty years ago...
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 23, 2004, 1:19 AM
Post #16 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Furthermore, religion is "daily life" for anyone. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc, etc all constitue daily forms of life for their adherents.
And these religions also have the right to private places ( Churches, Mosque, Temples etc...) If climbers were caught climbing on these "sacred places" they would be arrested for trespassing or if you were in the Middle or Far East worst! As for tree-boy, pick a tree and protected it.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 23, 2004, 1:31 AM
Post #17 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: they are fighting over a hunk of rock that already has a HIGHWAY blasted through it!!! they should have argued this fact fifty years ago...
Sixty-years ago in Arizona ( state constitution) Native Americans were considered to sub-humans. To this day not one treaty has been honored by US and the US continues to deceive and cheat Native Americans out of monies and land that rightfully belongs to them.
In a historical case in 1971, the Taos Pueblo fought in court to reclaim land (sacred Blue Lake) stolen from them by the US Forest Service. They won the case in court. Hopefully this will happen at Cave Rock.
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 23, 2004, 1:32 AM
Post #18 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: In reply to: The Boulder, Colo.-based group maintains the tribe has always said Cave Rock is a religious, sacred site. The Washoe tribe has opposed climbing on Cave Rock, located on U.S. 50 between Glenbrook and Zephyr Cove on Tahoe's east shore. It's not called religion to Native Americans, it's called a way of life. Sacred to their way of life and daily beliefs. I would also image that Native American would have a grandfather law on this one. F-ing climbers need to get a life and let this one go.
Are you suggesting that other religions do not see their faith and traditions as a way of life. Put some gauze on the bleeding heart there and wake up.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 23, 2004, 1:36 AM
Post #19 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Are you suggesting that other religions do not see their faith and traditions as a way of life. Put some gauze on the bleeding heart there and wake up.
Read my above post, wanker! I am very awake and aware and would love to discuss this matter in person with you.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 23, 2004, 1:41 AM
Post #20 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: (1) Why is the rock holy? (2) Why does climbing desecrate that holiness?
Call and ask the tribe elders, I can't answer that for you. I would believe that they don't have answer to someone from Dallas, TX or Boulder, CO
|
|
|
|
|
gumbobob
Apr 23, 2004, 3:40 AM
Post #21 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
im not saying that either climbers or native americans are right on this one, bobd--i just want to say that the Washoe Tribe should ahve argued against the government 50 years ago when they blasted a highway through the rock...I sympathize with both sides--and even though the government of America has screwed over the Native Americans multiple times, that does not mean that they should win because of past wrongs--a case should be judged on the warrant of that particular incident (we hope)
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 23, 2004, 7:00 AM
Post #23 of 89
(10958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: im not saying that either climbers or native americans are right on this one, bobd--i just want to say that the Washoe Tribe should ahve argued against the government 50 years ago when they blasted a highway through the rock...I sympathize with both sides--and even though the government of America has screwed over the Native Americans multiple times, that does not mean that they should win because of past wrongs--a case should be judged on the warrant of that particular incident (we hope)
Hey, this is America and being right or doing right does not mean a thing. Having money and power does. The US goverment more than likely took that land for a highway to be built. It's not a case of multiple times, we are talking into the thousands if not more...and if you rely on the court system to always do what is right...then we are all in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Apr 23, 2004, 1:58 PM
Post #24 of 89
(10954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
In reply to: ...and if you rely on the court system to always do what is right...then we are all in trouble.
I would agree. However your 'single outcome acceptable' attitude is rather shallow. If public lands aren't protected to reman public every parcel in the U.S. will soon be claimed by someone with all the "money and power". Again the rights of a few prevail over the rights of the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 23, 2004, 2:15 PM
Post #25 of 89
(10954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: You are mistaking licensing (permission to use) with ownership (copyright). The copyright law very much applies to open source software, whether it is licensed under the GPL, BSD or any other license.. - d.
Correct. And, as a published author, I routinely use verbatim information that was previously published and registered under US copyright laws. As long as I remember to cite my sources appropriately, it's perfectly legal. I do not have to contact them specifically to request permission. skibabeage's post is likewise legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
