<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Tzafrir Cohen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com">tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 03:11:10PM -0400, Dean Collins wrote:<br>
> Who is Chris Langford in Huntsville Alabama and is he seeking Digium's<br>
> permission in order to report the asterisk mailing lists out onto the<br>
> internet<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://asteriskbizrss.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://asteriskbizrss.blogspot.com/</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/04174728129647374395" target="_blank">http://www.blogger.com/profile/04174728129647374395</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> What can be done to stop people doing this and making money out of<br>
> selling ads on these crappy blogsites?<br>
<br>
</div>Hmmmm.... How did you get this information? Isn't it because someone<br>
else indexed content they did not generate? That someone even makes<br>
money from selling ads for search results!<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Tzafrir Cohen<br>
icq#16849755 <a href="mailto:jabber%3Atzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com">jabber:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com</a><br>
+972-50-7952406 mailto:<a href="mailto:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com">tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.xorcom.com" target="_blank">http://www.xorcom.com</a> <a href="http://iax:guest@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir" target="_blank">iax:guest@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Dean is just mad that he is not the one with the money making scheme this time. <br><br>"<a name="m11">While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any
new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the
work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little
protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against
the publication, <strong>actual</strong>
damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means
actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any
money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value,
such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the
actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author
would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly
on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive."<br><br>http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html<br><br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totaro<br><br><br></a><br><br></div></div><br></div>