> Don is a wrtier of brilliant duck and mice stories. a
> new story came out this week, which will continue in
> the next. And it might be hard to feed children on the
> pay you get from disney/egmont.
Thanks VERY much for the compliment -- but "brilliant" is certainly not a
term I would use myself. All I'm trying to do with my comic book scripts is
provide a few minutes of entertainment for the reader, hopefully of the sort
that he'll remember later, and smile again. (That, and feed my children, of
course -- and Egmont does pay well enough to enable me to set aside less
enjoyable work when I have an assignment from them.)
Is it the "Robot Wrestling League" story you're referring to? It's sometimes
hard to keep track of where any given one is in the pipeline. (Especially
since the "dummies" come out four months in advance, and it takes the postal
system a month or more to get the finished comics to me.) It's the second
story about a character named Sam Simian (in English, at least), whom I like
working with.
I've finished a script for a third story about Sam, in which he and Mickey
come up against Professors Ecks, Doublex and Triplex. This one will pretty
much round out his character and situation, and now that he's "complete", my
editor (David Gerstein, whose name is perhaps familiar to you) is talking
about possibly letting other writers use him. It'll be interesting, seeing
how others handle a character I created.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Author
Topic: 200104
(579 messages)
Donald Markstein
Sam Simian
Message 346 -
2001-04-20 at 16:47:14
Donald Markstein
Personal to Erik Horthe
Message 347 -
2001-04-20 at 16:50:47
Erik --
I replied to an off-list e-mail you sent me last night (or whenever -- we're
nine time zones apart), but apparently ran afoul of your spam-filtering
system, as it bounced right back to me. Is there another address I can send
it to?
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
I replied to an off-list e-mail you sent me last night (or whenever -- we're
nine time zones apart), but apparently ran afoul of your spam-filtering
system, as it bounced right back to me. Is there another address I can send
it to?
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Rob Klein
Jaime Diaz
Message 348 -
2001-04-20 at 16:54:09
Apostolis: Jaime Diaz has his studio located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
I believe he was born in Argentina. He has been a well - respected artist
(and studio head) for many years, both in comic books and , I believe, in
animation as well. Rob Klein
I believe he was born in Argentina. He has been a well - respected artist
(and studio head) for many years, both in comic books and , I believe, in
animation as well. Rob Klein
Kenneth Glendinning
Copying
Message 349 -
2001-04-20 at 17:51:51
A very poor example to what I am saying I guess you did not understand my
last email about freedom.
Kenneth
Dan Shane danshane at bellsouth.net
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:31:58 -0400
KENNETH SAYS:
>I agree that crediting your self with someone else's work is not fair but
I
>see nothing wrong with useing someone else's work on you page as long as
you
>give them credit for it.
>As the Internet is freedom of information.
>
AND I REPLY:
And I see nothing wrong with "borrowing" your automobile without asking for
a cross-country trip, as long as I tell everyone where I got the car.
http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/ken2/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
last email about freedom.
Kenneth
Dan Shane danshane at bellsouth.net
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:31:58 -0400
KENNETH SAYS:
>I agree that crediting your self with someone else's work is not fair but
I
>see nothing wrong with useing someone else's work on you page as long as
you
>give them credit for it.
>As the Internet is freedom of information.
>
AND I REPLY:
And I see nothing wrong with "borrowing" your automobile without asking for
a cross-country trip, as long as I tell everyone where I got the car.
http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/ken2/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Francesco Spreafico
The liar and thief, Mr. Totti
Message 350 -
2001-04-20 at 18:14:31
From: "Angelo Toti" <donald313us at yahoo.com>
> I have taken off my pages. What do you want more? Do
> you want to arrest me? Are you a cop?
Apologies are generally welcome in these cases... you know I use to
apologize when I make a mistake and somebody makes me notice it. I did make
many mistakes when I was "young" in the net, we all have. So a simple
"Sorry, I didn't mean to" would have be great.
That's all, just a matter of politeness.
--
Sprea
> I have taken off my pages. What do you want more? Do
> you want to arrest me? Are you a cop?
Apologies are generally welcome in these cases... you know I use to
apologize when I make a mistake and somebody makes me notice it. I did make
many mistakes when I was "young" in the net, we all have. So a simple
"Sorry, I didn't mean to" would have be great.
That's all, just a matter of politeness.
--
Sprea
Kenneth Glendinning
More on the thief (I thought we were past
Message 351 -
2001-04-20 at 18:14:47
I understand what you are saying and agree with you up to a point.
Firstly if it was me I would see it as free advertising more than theft and
I do not see how it could cost you money but maybe I missed something if so
fill me in?
Also many of you may not agree with me but the Internet is what I see as
TRUE freedom of speech and I do not like the idea that it can be owned
although the Internet is.
I see everything put on the Internet as free info although as Harry pointed
out we do have copyright laws that I think go to far as have most things
these days.
Please do not battle me on this as the offender has removed the site anyway
as he can see that people do not like what he has done.
As the site was unfair.
But still needed to get my point across.
Kenneth
Donald Markstein Donald Markstein" <dmarkstein at earthlink.net
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:55:13 -0700
>I agree that crediting your self with someone else's work is not fair but
I
>see nothing wrong with useing someone else's work on you page as long as
you
>give them credit for it.
>As the Internet is freedom of information.
Kenneth Glendinning:
You're not the only person who thinks the Internet has made copyright law
obsolete. And it may be that we'll have to re-define a few things and come
to a revised understanding of what is meant by intellectual property.
But we have not yet done so -- and I very strongly suspect that like the
vast majority of extravagant predictions for new technology, the one about
the end of copyright will turn out to be more than a little on the, shall we
say, "enthusiastic" side. The law still states that the creator or copyright
holder of a piece of intellectual property has the right to choose where it
will be displayed -- and so do the Yahoo/Geocities Terms of Service, which
bind Mr. Totti as long as he is using their resources to display "his"
pages.
(By the way, is his name spelled with two T's, or three? I've seen him spell
it both ways.)
I have worked hard to make my Toonopedia (http://www.toonopedia.com) what it
is. I did not do so for the thrill of seeing myself "credited" for it. By
now, nearly 40 years since my first printed byline, I've become a bit jaded
about that -- I still enjoy it, but when that much effort goes into
something, I prefer the sort of reward that makes it easier to feed my
children.
Not being Uncle Scrooge, I CAN NOT AFFORD to spend that much time and
creative energy on work with no prospect of paying. If anyone can simply
come along and take it, without permission and without paying me, then the
work has no value to me and therefore will not be done. As dreary as the
prospect may be, I will be forced to apply my writing skills to trade
papers, advertising, and other types of work that pay reasonably well but
don't hold any real interest for me.
When Mr. Totti steals a person's work, he steals that person's livelihood.
When he wonders why anyone would make a fuss over Internet thievery, he is
saying that person's work has no value. And when YOU say it's okay to steal
as long as the victim is "credited", you are promoting a brave new world in
which work that is attractive to thieves will of necessity be relegated to
the creator's spare time -- and therefore, will tend not to be done.
If Mr. Totti wants to use another person's work, let him ask permission. And
let him be prepared to pay for it.
Quack, Don
http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/ken2/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Firstly if it was me I would see it as free advertising more than theft and
I do not see how it could cost you money but maybe I missed something if so
fill me in?
Also many of you may not agree with me but the Internet is what I see as
TRUE freedom of speech and I do not like the idea that it can be owned
although the Internet is.
I see everything put on the Internet as free info although as Harry pointed
out we do have copyright laws that I think go to far as have most things
these days.
Please do not battle me on this as the offender has removed the site anyway
as he can see that people do not like what he has done.
As the site was unfair.
But still needed to get my point across.
Kenneth
Donald Markstein Donald Markstein" <dmarkstein at earthlink.net
Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:55:13 -0700
>I agree that crediting your self with someone else's work is not fair but
I
>see nothing wrong with useing someone else's work on you page as long as
you
>give them credit for it.
>As the Internet is freedom of information.
Kenneth Glendinning:
You're not the only person who thinks the Internet has made copyright law
obsolete. And it may be that we'll have to re-define a few things and come
to a revised understanding of what is meant by intellectual property.
But we have not yet done so -- and I very strongly suspect that like the
vast majority of extravagant predictions for new technology, the one about
the end of copyright will turn out to be more than a little on the, shall we
say, "enthusiastic" side. The law still states that the creator or copyright
holder of a piece of intellectual property has the right to choose where it
will be displayed -- and so do the Yahoo/Geocities Terms of Service, which
bind Mr. Totti as long as he is using their resources to display "his"
pages.
(By the way, is his name spelled with two T's, or three? I've seen him spell
it both ways.)
I have worked hard to make my Toonopedia (http://www.toonopedia.com) what it
is. I did not do so for the thrill of seeing myself "credited" for it. By
now, nearly 40 years since my first printed byline, I've become a bit jaded
about that -- I still enjoy it, but when that much effort goes into
something, I prefer the sort of reward that makes it easier to feed my
children.
Not being Uncle Scrooge, I CAN NOT AFFORD to spend that much time and
creative energy on work with no prospect of paying. If anyone can simply
come along and take it, without permission and without paying me, then the
work has no value to me and therefore will not be done. As dreary as the
prospect may be, I will be forced to apply my writing skills to trade
papers, advertising, and other types of work that pay reasonably well but
don't hold any real interest for me.
When Mr. Totti steals a person's work, he steals that person's livelihood.
When he wonders why anyone would make a fuss over Internet thievery, he is
saying that person's work has no value. And when YOU say it's okay to steal
as long as the victim is "credited", you are promoting a brave new world in
which work that is attractive to thieves will of necessity be relegated to
the creator's spare time -- and therefore, will tend not to be done.
If Mr. Totti wants to use another person's work, let him ask permission. And
let him be prepared to pay for it.
Quack, Don
http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/ken2/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Fluks, H.W.
The liar and thief, Mr. Totti
Message 352 -
2001-04-20 at 18:58:47
Angelo:
> > You have some strange points of view, and lots of
> > your reasoning doesn't make sense at all.
>
> It's easy to say [same text as above].
> Without saying anything on what sentences
> "don't make sense".
I think dozens of other people already reacted to your words. There's no
need for me to repeat that.
If you really want a full analysis of what I think is wrong in your words,
ask me again and I'll send it to you in private mail.
> > When you write "will always be", that's a prediction.
> > Therefore it cannot be
> > "the truth", since we don't know the future yet.
>
> When I say "tomorrow, 1 + 1 will still equal 2" this
> is a prediction, and this is also the truth.
No, that's not a prediction, it's a mathematical definition. It's not a
description of the real world.
> The error in your reasoning is at the last part of
> your sentence: "we don't know the future yet". We do
> know part of what the future will be.
No. We can *guess* parts of our future. We never *know* for sure. So by
definition, we can't say it's a *fact*.
--Harry.
(Why am I still discussing things like "truth" with a liar and thief, who
repeatedly admitted that he's proud of that?)
> > You have some strange points of view, and lots of
> > your reasoning doesn't make sense at all.
>
> It's easy to say [same text as above].
> Without saying anything on what sentences
> "don't make sense".
I think dozens of other people already reacted to your words. There's no
need for me to repeat that.
If you really want a full analysis of what I think is wrong in your words,
ask me again and I'll send it to you in private mail.
> > When you write "will always be", that's a prediction.
> > Therefore it cannot be
> > "the truth", since we don't know the future yet.
>
> When I say "tomorrow, 1 + 1 will still equal 2" this
> is a prediction, and this is also the truth.
No, that's not a prediction, it's a mathematical definition. It's not a
description of the real world.
> The error in your reasoning is at the last part of
> your sentence: "we don't know the future yet". We do
> know part of what the future will be.
No. We can *guess* parts of our future. We never *know* for sure. So by
definition, we can't say it's a *fact*.
--Harry.
(Why am I still discussing things like "truth" with a liar and thief, who
repeatedly admitted that he's proud of that?)
Donald Markstein
German, Portuguese, etc.
Message 353 -
2001-04-20 at 19:04:49
Stephan Packard:
I've been hearing wonderful things about Erica Fuchs for years, but had no
idea she was THAT good. Thanks for telling us about her contributions to the
language.
And speaking of things I've never seen, published in languages I can't
read -- I also appreciate Fernando Ventura's descriptions of Brazilian
Disney comics. He makes me wish there were English language versions of
them, available where I could get them
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
I've been hearing wonderful things about Erica Fuchs for years, but had no
idea she was THAT good. Thanks for telling us about her contributions to the
language.
And speaking of things I've never seen, published in languages I can't
read -- I also appreciate Fernando Ventura's descriptions of Brazilian
Disney comics. He makes me wish there were English language versions of
them, available where I could get them
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Katz K. Suzuki
漫画
Message 354 -
2001-04-20 at 19:12:24
Hello Stefan:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:11:47 +0200
"Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the topic has been brought up: Does anyone know if there are any
> web shops selling ?? in ???? ???? preferred. And is it possible to
> order from ??????
Since you seem able to read/write Japanese, why not try
Amazon.co.jp (http:www.amazon.co.jp) ?
They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
pocket books you would like.
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
katz-s at interlink.or.jp
"No matter where you go, there you are."
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:11:47 +0200
"Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now that the topic has been brought up: Does anyone know if there are any
> web shops selling ?? in ???? ???? preferred. And is it possible to
> order from ??????
Since you seem able to read/write Japanese, why not try
Amazon.co.jp (http:www.amazon.co.jp) ?
They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
pocket books you would like.
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
katz-s at interlink.or.jp
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Walnut
Manga
Message 355 -
2001-04-20 at 19:12:34
Hello Becca and all,
To answer your question and such, please let me introduce myself
first. My names is Katz Suzuki, and yes, I am a Japanese and in
Japan.
I have been lurking on the list for about three years.
I have worked as an editor and a translator for Egmont under Byron
Erickson's direction when Disney manga stories were being published
in Japan.
David, we met in at Egmont office in Copenhagen in September 1998,
remember? ;)
To answer Becca...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:56:42 -0400
"Becca Ridout" <skyrat13 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> This might be a bit of a long shot (compared to looking for
> Scandinavian stuff), but is there anyone on this list in Japan?
So... it seems it was not long shot after all!
As for your requests, I'll see what I can do to help.
Though I don't know anything about Trigun, I could ask one of the
manga artists that I worked with.
Please give me a private e-mail on details.
Bye for now.
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
katz-s at interlink.or.jp
"No matter where you go, there you are."
To answer your question and such, please let me introduce myself
first. My names is Katz Suzuki, and yes, I am a Japanese and in
Japan.
I have been lurking on the list for about three years.
I have worked as an editor and a translator for Egmont under Byron
Erickson's direction when Disney manga stories were being published
in Japan.
David, we met in at Egmont office in Copenhagen in September 1998,
remember? ;)
To answer Becca...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:56:42 -0400
"Becca Ridout" <skyrat13 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> This might be a bit of a long shot (compared to looking for
> Scandinavian stuff), but is there anyone on this list in Japan?
So... it seems it was not long shot after all!
As for your requests, I'll see what I can do to help.
Though I don't know anything about Trigun, I could ask one of the
manga artists that I worked with.
Please give me a private e-mail on details.
Bye for now.
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
katz-s at interlink.or.jp
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Stefan Persson
??
Message 356 -
2001-04-20 at 19:31:36
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katz K. Suzuki" <walnut at earthling.net>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: ??
> They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
> pocket books you would like.
It seems so: Searching for "??" (manga) gave me 31502 results! I realize
that I have to specify my search more...
From: "Katz K. Suzuki" <walnut at earthling.net>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: ??
> They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
> pocket books you would like.
It seems so: Searching for "??" (manga) gave me 31502 results! I realize
that I have to specify my search more...
Katz K. Suzuki
漫画
Message 357 -
2001-04-20 at 19:36:46
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:31:36 +0200
"Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
> > pocket books you would like.
>
> It seems so: Searching for "??" (manga) gave me 31502 results! I realize
> that I have to specify my search more...
Well... I guess you need to specify the title.
What mangas are you looking for?
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
walnut at earthling.net
"No matter where you go, there you are."
"Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > They ship internationally, and has virtually every newer manga
> > pocket books you would like.
>
> It seems so: Searching for "??" (manga) gave me 31502 results! I realize
> that I have to specify my search more...
Well... I guess you need to specify the title.
What mangas are you looking for?
--
Katz K. Suzuki (Katsumasa)
walnut at earthling.net
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Angelo To(t)ti and copyright
Message 358 -
2001-04-20 at 19:51:54
FRANCOIS WILLOT to SOREN OLESEN, 19-04-2001:
>> Kicking him off this list is pure discrimination. History has shown
>> that nothing good comes out of that. Angelo has not spammed this list
>> in any sense, nor has he posted off-topic messages.
> I second that (and I also am the owner of a site that Angelo "used").
I agree with Soren and Francois. (My site also was "used".)
Angolo did not remove my name from the page he used. So, in other words,
I was credited as the maker of the page.
My (main!) objection to Angelo's use of that page was that he changed its
contents, for example by removing one line from Barks' "Ode to the Disney
Ducks". By crediting me as the sole maker of that page, he suggested that
I was the maker of that error as well!
Anyway, I still try to trust that Angelo didn't have any bad intentions
by including that page on his site. At this moment I guess that his usage
of other sites was a matter of not knowing the do's and don'ts of making
a website of his own.
But even if he did have bad intentions then I still do not see a
connection between that and his subscription to this mailing list.
About copyright in general:
In the discussion about copyrights and stealing, I've seen comparisons
with stealing someone's possessions. Even though I agree with the thought
behind that comparison, I can imagine that it can be a bit confusing when
what possesion is copyrighted material.
For example:
1. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone steals that paper. Now that
this piece of paper has been stolen, I do not have it myself anymore.
2. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone makes xeroxes/scans of that
paper. I still do have the original art myself.
In example 1 the picture is stolen by removing it.
In example 2 the picture is stolen by *multiplying* it.
A person who is familiar with copyright laws won't see much difference
in both examples.
A person who does *not* understand copyright laws, will have difficulties
with understanding example 2, because of the big (practical) difference
between removing and multiplying.
Indeed there are copyright laws, but as with many other laws, it can be
rather difficult to *understand* these laws.
I think it's a rather common situation that people break a law without
knowing it. I think that a lot of judges and lawyers would be without work
if this wasn't the case.
As for copyrights, just look at Napster. Why does it take so long before
this network is being shut down? And why do some artists sue Napster,
while other artists *support* Napster? The artists who sue Napster say
that the network is bad for their income. The artists who support Napster
say that it is *good* for their income, because a lot more people get
interested in their work.
As the Napster trial has taken quite a long time, with lawyers and judges
involved, I think that the copyright laws apparently aren't as clear as
some people would like them to be.
Also, when you subscribe to free webservers like Geocities (or if you buy
software), there indeed is a list of rules and conditions. Mostly, these
rules are written so clearly that you'll need a dictionary and a lawyer
to *really* understand them.
So, even though I do *not* like the way *how* this copyright discussion
has started, I do find it a very interesting subject on its own.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
PS. Please note that my thoughts on copyrights don't have anything to do
with Angelo or with anyone else involved in the discussion about his site.
It's just my opinion on copyrights in general.
>> Kicking him off this list is pure discrimination. History has shown
>> that nothing good comes out of that. Angelo has not spammed this list
>> in any sense, nor has he posted off-topic messages.
> I second that (and I also am the owner of a site that Angelo "used").
I agree with Soren and Francois. (My site also was "used".)
Angolo did not remove my name from the page he used. So, in other words,
I was credited as the maker of the page.
My (main!) objection to Angelo's use of that page was that he changed its
contents, for example by removing one line from Barks' "Ode to the Disney
Ducks". By crediting me as the sole maker of that page, he suggested that
I was the maker of that error as well!
Anyway, I still try to trust that Angelo didn't have any bad intentions
by including that page on his site. At this moment I guess that his usage
of other sites was a matter of not knowing the do's and don'ts of making
a website of his own.
But even if he did have bad intentions then I still do not see a
connection between that and his subscription to this mailing list.
About copyright in general:
In the discussion about copyrights and stealing, I've seen comparisons
with stealing someone's possessions. Even though I agree with the thought
behind that comparison, I can imagine that it can be a bit confusing when
what possesion is copyrighted material.
For example:
1. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone steals that paper. Now that
this piece of paper has been stolen, I do not have it myself anymore.
2. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone makes xeroxes/scans of that
paper. I still do have the original art myself.
In example 1 the picture is stolen by removing it.
In example 2 the picture is stolen by *multiplying* it.
A person who is familiar with copyright laws won't see much difference
in both examples.
A person who does *not* understand copyright laws, will have difficulties
with understanding example 2, because of the big (practical) difference
between removing and multiplying.
Indeed there are copyright laws, but as with many other laws, it can be
rather difficult to *understand* these laws.
I think it's a rather common situation that people break a law without
knowing it. I think that a lot of judges and lawyers would be without work
if this wasn't the case.
As for copyrights, just look at Napster. Why does it take so long before
this network is being shut down? And why do some artists sue Napster,
while other artists *support* Napster? The artists who sue Napster say
that the network is bad for their income. The artists who support Napster
say that it is *good* for their income, because a lot more people get
interested in their work.
As the Napster trial has taken quite a long time, with lawyers and judges
involved, I think that the copyright laws apparently aren't as clear as
some people would like them to be.
Also, when you subscribe to free webservers like Geocities (or if you buy
software), there indeed is a list of rules and conditions. Mostly, these
rules are written so clearly that you'll need a dictionary and a lawyer
to *really* understand them.
So, even though I do *not* like the way *how* this copyright discussion
has started, I do find it a very interesting subject on its own.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
PS. Please note that my thoughts on copyrights don't have anything to do
with Angelo or with anyone else involved in the discussion about his site.
It's just my opinion on copyrights in general.
Shelley Hanson/KlezmerAllThatJazz
One more time, Grandma and Scrooge
Message 359 -
2001-04-20 at 19:54:19
U.S. #14, Barks one-pager
Opening panel: Grandma: Oh, such wonderful FOOD, Scrooge! It's the best I've
ever eaten!
Scrooge (tipping his hat): Yes, yes! Good night, Grandma!
2 panels of Scrooge groaning
Donald: Uncle Scrooge! You look SICK!
Scrooge: I AM!
Scrooge: Owoooo! I took Grandma Duck to dinner at the Ritzmore Cafe!
Donald: What made you sick? Something you ate?
Scrooge: No! It was something Grandma ate!
Scrooge: The broiled lobster at #4.75 a plate!
It's unlikely that a brother would tip his hat to his sister, or that he
would refer to her as Grandma Duck to his nephew Donald (since she would
thus also be Donald's aunt, and would not need to be identified as Grandma
DUCK even if Donald called her Grandma); and Scrooge certainly wouldn't
treat his sister to an expensive dinner! Sounds like a date to me.
Opening panel: Grandma: Oh, such wonderful FOOD, Scrooge! It's the best I've
ever eaten!
Scrooge (tipping his hat): Yes, yes! Good night, Grandma!
2 panels of Scrooge groaning
Donald: Uncle Scrooge! You look SICK!
Scrooge: I AM!
Scrooge: Owoooo! I took Grandma Duck to dinner at the Ritzmore Cafe!
Donald: What made you sick? Something you ate?
Scrooge: No! It was something Grandma ate!
Scrooge: The broiled lobster at #4.75 a plate!
It's unlikely that a brother would tip his hat to his sister, or that he
would refer to her as Grandma Duck to his nephew Donald (since she would
thus also be Donald's aunt, and would not need to be identified as Grandma
DUCK even if Donald called her Grandma); and Scrooge certainly wouldn't
treat his sister to an expensive dinner! Sounds like a date to me.
Donald Markstein
Copyrights and pirates
Message 360 -
2001-04-20 at 19:58:01
Eta Beta:
Certainly, there are abuses of the copyright principle, and you've correctly
cited some of the more egregious ones. Personally, I think this sort of
thing starts with legally equating a corporation with a "person" rather than
considering it the ordinary property of its stockholders (as opposed to a
form of "property" that its "owners" can not be held responsible for the
actions of), but if I were to start in on the rights of corporations versus
those of human beings, and how (through a complex chain of reasoning) this
relates to your legitimate complaints, I could go on for a VERY long time,
and it would be VERY off-topic.
But this has little to do with individuals owning that which they create
themselves, and seeing it stolen by a scofflaw who then complains about THEM
"harassing" HIM for his crimes.
Mr. Totti:
I laughed out loud when you criticized Don Rosa for insulting you, after
your gratuitous and unfounded statements about others. I'm not complaining
about your knee-jerk statements on my Web site, which you give no evidence
of having actually seen -- as I said earlier, they worked very much to my
benefit (which is why I phrased my original objections in such a way as to
invite them). But I'm far from the only one you've dished it out to.
Here in America, we have an expression for the likes of you -- "a real piece
of work". We usually say it while rolling our eyes in disbelief.
> I have taken off my pages. What do you want more?
I want you to stop defending your theft, which gives a very strong
impression that you're simply going to do it again. Your current post, in
which you compare those who object to your larcenous ways to Nazis, and
yourself to a freedom fighter, does little to assure anyone that their
belongings are safe from you.
An acknowledgment that your original actions were done in an excess of zeal,
and that you now realize you were wrong to take other people's pages without
permission, would go far toward bringing this entire line of discussion to a
very welcome conclusion.
Why not take a few days off from the list, and cool down? You may find that
there is a good deal of justification in what has been said to and about
you. You may even find it in your heart to apologize to those you have
wronged.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Certainly, there are abuses of the copyright principle, and you've correctly
cited some of the more egregious ones. Personally, I think this sort of
thing starts with legally equating a corporation with a "person" rather than
considering it the ordinary property of its stockholders (as opposed to a
form of "property" that its "owners" can not be held responsible for the
actions of), but if I were to start in on the rights of corporations versus
those of human beings, and how (through a complex chain of reasoning) this
relates to your legitimate complaints, I could go on for a VERY long time,
and it would be VERY off-topic.
But this has little to do with individuals owning that which they create
themselves, and seeing it stolen by a scofflaw who then complains about THEM
"harassing" HIM for his crimes.
Mr. Totti:
I laughed out loud when you criticized Don Rosa for insulting you, after
your gratuitous and unfounded statements about others. I'm not complaining
about your knee-jerk statements on my Web site, which you give no evidence
of having actually seen -- as I said earlier, they worked very much to my
benefit (which is why I phrased my original objections in such a way as to
invite them). But I'm far from the only one you've dished it out to.
Here in America, we have an expression for the likes of you -- "a real piece
of work". We usually say it while rolling our eyes in disbelief.
> I have taken off my pages. What do you want more?
I want you to stop defending your theft, which gives a very strong
impression that you're simply going to do it again. Your current post, in
which you compare those who object to your larcenous ways to Nazis, and
yourself to a freedom fighter, does little to assure anyone that their
belongings are safe from you.
An acknowledgment that your original actions were done in an excess of zeal,
and that you now realize you were wrong to take other people's pages without
permission, would go far toward bringing this entire line of discussion to a
very welcome conclusion.
Why not take a few days off from the list, and cool down? You may find that
there is a good deal of justification in what has been said to and about
you. You may even find it in your heart to apologize to those you have
wronged.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm