potato

the success of a leader rests on his ability to put capable people in key positions. the fact that lcm not only failed to do that but also got behind their idiotic policies to the detriment of twi followers demonstrates his lack of ability. the other thing about being a leader... it is your fault. you take responsibility. if the organization/project/battle/war is lost, guess who's fault it is? when they write history, it's the guy running it who gets that distinction (except for obvious things like some dude embezzled millions, or a sentry fell asleep and let the enemy in)... although we all know $h1t rolls downhill when it comes to who suffers for their bad leadership, so perhaps responsibility is moot since it's never just the leader who pays for his bad decisions. twi is/was badly run. lcm was the decision-maker. that spells responsibility and fault, to me.

oh of course, Belle! I don't want anyone taking credit for something I worked so hard to copy and distribute. I need to protect myself from thieves, dontcha know.

Belle, WD will have to defend them to be consistent. hey dmiller, I want copies of your non-copyrighted songs so I can reprint them with "by potato" on them. after all, they're public domain, right? I want something to inflate my ego and stroke my vanity, that seems like an easy way to do it... then I can distribute the printed music to a bunch of musicians and get a name for myself as a composer, and it will be OK because it's not a crime. right WD?

they don't cloud the issue. giving an overview of all usage of a word doesn't make it less understandable. and you're looking for a specific application for intellectual property where one doesn't exist. the common thread in the definitions is that where there is a resource to be used, there is a context for using it. the context is established in the Copyright Act and other legal resources, as property rights are a legal matter. that context has been discussed abundantly in this thread.

I never said that was part of a dictionary definition. I was discussing use of public domain material, citing dictionary entries to help answer the apparently mystical question of "what is the public domain", and my statement "as long as they don't pretend to own it" a natural conclusion based on required disclosure of public domain material by the copyright office when registering comilations and derivative work, and the Copyright Act, section 506 ( c ), which says that putting a fake copyright on a work is a crime: Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. again: if the public owns it, you can't, and therefore you may not copyright it. if you do, you are committing a crime. again: now... lest anyone jump on "appropriation" as permission to claim ownership, please go look the word up. appropriation is using something for a specific purpose, as granted by authority, so in this case, anyone can use public domain material as they see fit as long as they don't pretend to own it.

you're welcome. I see you picked through to get the meanings that support your view. now, in the interest of objectivity, I'll post the definitions in whole so that an overall feeling of application within contexts can be gained by the less obsessive among us. appropriate: American Heritage Dictionary 1. To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education. 2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it. vWordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University 1. give or assign a resource to a particular person or cause; "I will earmark this money for your research"; "She sets aside time for meditation every day" [syn: allow] 2. take possession of by force, as after an invasion; "the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants"; "The army seized the town"; "The militia captured the castle" Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1 : to set apart for or assign to a particular recipient, purpose, or use <the legislature appropriating funds for the program> 2 : to take or make use of without authority or right —ap·pro·pri·a·tion and about appropriation: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 1. the act of appropriating. 2. anything appropriated for a special purpose, esp. money. 3. an act of a legislature authorizing money to be paid from the treasury for a specified use. 4. the money thus authorized: a large appropriation for aid to libraries. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 1. The act of appropriating. 2.1. Something appropriated, especially public funds set aside for a specific purpose. 2. A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose. WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University 1. money set aside (as by a legislature) for a specific purpose 2. incorporation by joining or uniting [syn: annexation] 3. a deliberate act of acquisition so really, I think the literal translation according to usage for public domain would more appropriately be: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large (here's the ownership part... the materials are placed in the care of the public at large for their benefit), are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone (the materials are for use within the context of publicly owned knowledge with no exclusivity of use implied, no rights assigned to the user, and no transfer of ownership).

f'ing nazis!!! I see the point of protection but omg this is rediculous. they aren't protecting the pd version, they're out to protect someone else's version of it (artistic expression is a valid right to protect) and the problem lies with your lack of registering YOUR version with them... which to me spells extortion on so many levels.

I encountered strong-arm tactics like this from a company that tried to apply their trademark to a similar name (one that could not trademarked) that I was using. sounds completely illegal. public domain music is owned by everyone, and no one can take it from the public domain once it's there.

I know this is a bit off topic... but how can this, a legal impossibility, happen? I want details. something once in the public domain cannot be removed, unless by law change granting such rights made the rights retroactive, which as far as I know has only happened in a limited application regarding some foreign copyrights.

you know, WD, having found your source I'm not sure it's appropriate since it is in the context of computing, which the Copyright Act had whole sections added to cover. Free On-line Dictionary of Computing public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work. The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. In fact the phrase "public domain" has no legal status at all in the UK. Here are some others... I'd tend to gravitate to the more established and scholarly works on usage: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 1. the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection. 2. land owned by the government. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 1. Land owned and controlled by the state or federal government. 2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright. WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University property rights that are held by the public at large Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1. land owned directly by the government 2. the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone now... lest anyone jump on "appropriation" as permission to claim ownership, please go look the word up. appropriation is using something for a specific purpose, as granted by authority, so in this case, anyone can use public domain material as they see fit as long as they don't pretend to own it.

exactly, no exclusive rights. which vpw violated by putting a copyright notice on plagiarized work... but aside from that, where did this definition come from? some sources are better quality than others, so please cite your source.

I'd be interested in hearing what copyright lawyers would have to say, so please post what you find out. I've read plenty of articles by copyright lawyers over the years, particularly ones associated with universities, because copyright law has a direct bearing on much of my work.

I read it. you believe something based on what you call a "fact"... that his interest was only getting the material out. that may be so, but it is irrelevant to whether vpw stole the material and passied it off as his own. you also say he gave away printings. we have no idea if it was intentional, an inadvertent ommission of required notice, or an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. if he wanted his work in the public domain, we have no idea if he also intended others to pass his work of as their own, and I fail to see how this bears on the discussion at hand, which is whether or not vpw plagiarized. so? what does this have to do with plagiarism? vpw said all kinds of things that were... simply put... made up. the pattern can only establish two things that I can think of right now. ignorance, or intent. the ignorance question has been addressed.

the definition of public domain is pretty simple. it's owned by the public rather than by specifically-named individuals. it's passed out of copyright protection protecting the rights of an individual and become the property of the public at large. I already provided a link that explained it in part, but here's another from Stanford with some good info: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_...apter8/8-a.html oh by the way, if an author revised a work under the old copyright laws, the revisions were not protected under the same copyright and could become public domain although the original copyright was still in effect... and vice versa. material added to a public domain work is all that can be copyrighted, not the public domain material within the work. for vpw to put a copyright on his books that contained material lifted from Stiles' work (if it was indeed public domain) was, quite simply, defrauding the public of their right to ownership by explicitly stating he owned the materials in the books. Additionally, the Copyright office has specific requirements for registering derivative works (this refers to filling out their form) and I think this has bearing on this discussion... basically, authors who create derivative works from public domain sources are supposed to disclose what they used. anything else is an attempt to defraud the public... Space 6. Derivative work or compilation · Complete this space if the work being registered contains a substantial amount of material that: * was previously published * was previously registered in the U.S. Copyright Office * is in the public domain, or * is not included in the claim Preexisting material (space 6a) · Briefly, in general terms, describe the preexisting material that has been recast, transformed, or adapted. See examples below. Do not complete this space for compilations. New material added (space 6b) · Briefly, in general terms, describe all new copyrightable authorship covered by the copyright claim for which you seek this registration. See examples below. All elements of authorship described in space 2 should be accounted for in space 6b. The statement used in 6b may be used in space 2 to describe the author’s contribution. Authors of preexisting material identified in space 6a should not be named in space 2. If the claim is in the compilation only, state “compilation” at space 6b. lf the claim is in the compilation and any other material, state both “compilation” and the material that has been compiled, for example, “Compilation and foreword,” “Compilation of photographs, additional photography, and foreword,” “Compilation of recordings and liner notes,” “Compilation of gospel songs, additional music, and foreword,” “Compilation of 19th Century Political Cartoons, new foreword, and index.” here's the link to that... I couldn't edit my post for some reason and I forgot to paste this in: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

WD, I started this thread because of the (new to me) realization that vpw was little more than a thief when it came to his body of ideas and writings. vpw's plagiarism in general is applicable, so it's perfectly fine with me for Belle to bring up Leonard, or anyone else whose work was victimized by vpw. a narrow view into a handful of instance and one victim might make it easier for you to defend your position that the jury has to remain out on whether vpw was a thief, WD, but it feels like an attempt at a cover-up. we've already established what copyright is, what plagiarism is, and what public domain is. and also that stealing public domain works by passing them off as yours is fraud, with an attached fine.

I find it interesting that you can guess at Stiles' motives in supposedly injecting his book into the public domain ("...his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety."), yet in the face of clear evidence of habitual plagiarism, no one can make a guess on whether it was intentional or unintentional. couple of things to remember: 1. no one knows without doing the requisite copyright search whether the book was public domain. 2. it apparently IS stealing to take the text of a public domain source and put your own name on it as author. it is owned by the public and is free for all to use, reprint, and distribute, so implying ownership is fraud according to the Copyright Act. 3. one of the main reasons a work was intentionally put in the public domain was so that it could be freely distributed (i.e. reprinted in whole with author's moral rights respected). it prevented the distribution of knowledge from being throttled.

welcome, punkelf. God bless you for sharing your story. it's very true there are predators of both sexes, and victims can be either sex. I'm raising my kids to be aware of the evil that people can do, because I don't ever want them to be faced with a situation and be confused about why it's happening, or what is happening... and I do everything I can to protect them. predators hide everywhere.

I'd shut 'em down, liquidate all their assets, start a fund to pay for therapy (medical and emotional) for past and present members (for past and present expenses), and give the rest of the money to foundations helping victims of domestic abuse. but first I'd throw a party at HQ! open to everyone!

http://www.familytables.net/

no... I got the impression that she was using a different last name though, possibly maiden name, and living in Oregon I believe. I heard it from Ed Oeding, I think. it was years ago that I got the information.

she married Rod McCann and they're living in Colorado.

looks to me like he's saying he wrote original works, and that although he "learned" from others, the research was his. well, looks like he was delusional or a liar. I can't swallow that he "forgot" and wrote all that material by accident from his photographic memory, not realizing he didn't come up with himself. still plagiarism! and fraud!

hey and guess what, it's also a crime! I posted this on the other thread: Copyright Act Section 506©: Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. so... if we assume Stiles' work was public domain when vpw... uh... copied it (just to give him the benefit of the doubt, we won't hold him to any biblical or academic standard and I'll refrain from using the words that make some people so uncomfortable... STOLE and PLAGIARIZED) the act of putting his name and copyright notice on material owned by the public is an act of fraud... if he had properly cited the portions of his work that were in the public domain, there would be no crime. no matter how you look at it, a crime was committed. and yes, it's still plagiarism.

and for those who think there was no crime: Copyright Act Section 506©: Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. so... if we assume Stiles' work was public domain when vpw... uh... copied it (just to give him the benefit of the doubt, we won't hold him to any biblical or academic standard and I'll refrain from using the words that make some people so uncomfortable... STOLE and PLAGIARIZED) the act of putting his name and copyright notice on material owned by the public is an act of fraud... if he had properly cited the portions of his work that were in the public domain, there would be no crime. no matter how you look at it, a crime was committed.

while plagiarism branches off, I want to also point out that copyright law isn't as clear-cut the simple lack of copyright notice. certain people here assume vpw came by his duplication of Stiles' work honestly. if vpw actually ran a copyright search to see if he could legally copy the work (which hasn't at all been established under the former copyright laws) then he deliberately set out to defraud another man of credit for his work, which even for a public domain work can be illegal. here's a good primar: http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html