Kasim Sulton online chat synopsis (Copyright discussion)
 

A synopsis of Kasim's online chat has been added at http://www.kasiminfo.com/2004/01/25.html including some Meat Loaf info.

Please note that the copyright of the contents of that page belong to KasimInfo.com and are not to be copied without permission onto other websites or mailing lists. (Of course this is too late for the Republic Of Loafdom mailing list as Vicki Pearson has already posted it in total breach of copyright.)


Edit (R.): Duplicated Sue's original post for a proper start of this new thread.

Vicki gave a full acknowledgement of her source when she passed on the information to our closed private mailing list, in the same way others do in this open public forum when they pass on information from the web and the press.

Vicki, who is a dear friend of mine, is always scrupulous in acknowledging her sources of information, shares information freely with the purest of intentions, and imo deserves better than being smacked down in public in a forum where she is much liked.

But copyright law does state that the holder of said copyright is the only one who may decide if and how material may or may not be reproduced by 3rd parties.
If SueW thinks that all information should stay on her website, and is not to be copied anywhere else without explicit permission to do so (just guessing here), that's her right. And acknowledging the source does not mean that you can do anything you want with copyrighted material. That's like downloading an mp3, and saying: "It came from that album".

Disclaimer: nothing personal implied anywhere. Just the facts about copyright law.

I won't even bother to comment on that

Addition:

Nor am I going to make any further comment on Michael Marxen's post below than to say it is one of the grosser exaggerations I have seen on this forum. Too silly really.

Caryl,

please stick to that rule more often!

The use of a forum is to have many different contributions and not being hijacked by someone that comments nearly each and every single post by anyone.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself :-)

bunch of little children here sometimes.uaahk. :x

Of course if people joined in the chat themselves then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Plus you get to ask Kasim questions!

SueW

CHSIB Micheal

Think mountains out of molehills is another way to describe it.. It makes topics get way out of hand and seem far worse than they ever were. Putting lots of people in a bad light in manys eyes. Would this be the aim?

Deb

I'm no lawyer but I think you & I understand copyright in much the same manner, evil nickname... It's the holder not the borrower who decides when and where is permissible...

Ditto David & Deb's comments - thanks, Sue for all your time & work to keep us informed.

Thank you Caryl :)
Vicki

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself :-)

yep. :(

Re: Kasim Sulton online chat synopsis (some Meat info)
 

Sue
Thanks for posting the link, a lot of people were talking about it in chat last night, I hope we weren't breaching your copyright.

Personally I feel it's a shame you felt that you needed to add the last line, as I am sure you like the rest of us realise that Vicki's only intention is to share any Meat related information with all fans. Personally I would welcome any promotion of my work and and site (if i had one).
It was not a criticism, derogatory, and it was duly credited.
It did not invite people to go and criticise.

Vicky emailed a closed group of friends to bring to their attention what she thought was interesting info.
At work today I was discussing the book I'm currently reading and quoted a few paragraphs from it, I don't think I was in breach of any copyright.

The synopsis is great Sue, thanks for the link!

To just throw my two pennorth into the ring on this copyright thing, as the owner of some copyrighted material on the web, I have no objections to people publicising a link to my site and inviting people to follow said link to view the material, which at the end of the day is far far easier than copying and pasting the whole thing, and uses less bandwidth, and attracts visitors to the site in question where the interested individual could then perhaps linger longer and learn more, and I'm sure Sue doesn't object to KasimInfo beiung linked to in a similar way, as the MLUKFC won't object to any free publicity.

Simple netiquette states - provide a link to the info, not the info :D

CHSIB Andy!

In fact Vicky did not e-mail "a closed group of friends" as Sin said but rather sent it to a Yahoo mailing list which is covered by Yahoo's Terms Of Service which includes the phrase

"You agree to not use the Service to:

<snip>
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;"


Until that disgraceful photo of Meat Loaf's head on the picture of the fire-fighter after 9/11 was made, the ROL mailing list was openly listed in Yahoo's directory and anybody could join it so it is not an enclosed list.

As I indicated before, if someone from the ROL mailing list had taken the time to attend the chat and then to spend an hour or so writing the synopsis themselves then they could have posted that to the ROL list themselves and this whole episode could have been avoided.

To get back to the subject of the chat, I'm actually surprised that more people aren't talking about these tapes being sold on E-Bay or the fact that Kasim reckons that Meat Loaf will be off in June which was the month that he mentioned touring in Europe again.

SueW

P.S. After I made my initial post, I did PM Vicki and told her not to post info from my site directly to the mailing list and she replied that she wouldn't so hopefully this event will not occur again anyway.

SOME FACTS

The ROL mailing list was set up in the beginning to be not listed openly in Yahoo directory. Back last year I checked the settings and it was still so listed

Last September I changed the list to a closed private list. That is exactly what it is.

sue w as the rol is a closed mailing list and you got thrown off it someone must have tipped you off have you got the balls to tell us or is that copyright too

copyright rickmiester promotions no part of this message to be used
without the express permission of the owner

I'd want someone to tip me off if emails were going back and forth on a mailing list about me, like the ones on there have been about Sue. Sue's licky enough to have friends I presume that care enough to let her know what's going on. At least whats being written here can be seen by all. Everyone knows what Sues saying. Unlike the ss style on the ROL. Is everyone sworn to confidentiality then? Is it like, ok to talk about anyone and anything and no one can repeat it? Sounds lovely if this is how it is.

Someone tipping Sue off about whats being said about her, Is NO different to the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat.

And no it wasn't me that told her, but If I could of I sure as hell would of. Just as i'm sure if I was saying the things about Caryl that she has Sue on the ROL in the past few days, someone would tell her. Just a shame not everyone can see how personal its getting over there.

Deb

yep

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself Deb! Right On! What's good for the goose is good for the gander is what I have always been told! You absolutely and without hesitation took each and every word right out of my mouth! You are awesome Deb and totally in the right about this!

ROCK ON FIRE BALL!!!

Extremely fair and valid point, one difference in the cases however -
If Meat is signposted to comments these are made in a public forum and that's all anyone is doing singposting him to where that information is freely available.

If there is a dedicated email group set up for a specific membership or purpose with an agreed policy then that is totally different. I am subscribed to the ROL and I will not claim to read every mail that drops in my Inbox - iget over 200 a day from various sources and have other things to do. However when the list was reorganised last year I accepted an agreement.
Lets not forget that this didn't start of has a bad thing - this started off with a piece of information shared amongst people who would be interested.
Any subsequent conversation has been the effect of the actions taken.

I still do not see the need for the remark to have been posted in the first place. I'm sorry I found it totally unnecessary and could and should have been dealt with in private by email or PM.

Sue and I have had a few discussions about speaking as we feel on each individual case on it's merits and I'm sure even if she doesn't agree with me she will accept where I'm coming from.

The knock on effect of that single addition to the original post has been imho to resurface referrences to other sites which has caused issues in the past and we have all ben trying to move away from. It has also spoilt what could have been a very interesting discussion about the content of the chat itself.

For example the ebay sales.......now I'd like to discuss the pro's and con's of that into the ground. but I really don't now feel like this thread is the place to go with it

On most parts Sin I agree with you.

The knock on effect of that single addition to the original post has been imho to resurface referrences to other sites which has caused issues in the past and we have all ben trying to move away from. It has also spoilt what could have been a very interesting discussion about the content of the chat itself.

Caryl actually resurfaced a lot of this herself on the ROL. no one can blame people for letting Sue know what was being said about her.

The content of the chat that was posted on the ROL actually seems to of missed out much of what kasim actually said and turned it more to a Meat related chat, which in fact it wasnt. Sue missed out on participating in that chat to get it all down for everyone, For her to see it turned into just a Meat discussion isn't very nice.

Also seems unfair that basically anyone on the ROL can say what they want about anyone here, the OIFC or anyone else, while anything anyone says here gets picked to pieces with a fine tooth comb, by the same people insisting their comments not to be repeated.

Deb

I am going to take from this that you are saying it is wrong to drag someone's good reputation through the mud in public, but it is okay to stone them in the privacy of a "private" list? I would think common courtesy would be to live by the motto of treat everyone with equal respect, fairness, and dignity.

"Come on people now...
Smile on your brother
Everybody live together
Try to love one another
Right now..."

Seems there is an aweful lot of hate coming from certain corners of the room right now, which makes me horribly sad. I love each and every one of you from the very bottom of my piggies to the top of my platinum tipped locks.

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

Sorry Deb I am going to have to disagre slightly here. I am certain people were picked on those grloups you mentioned. They are on here as well. I used to be on Loafdom and the remarks made back and forth between people was at times overwelhming(sp)! I dont mind it so much on here a this stuff doesnt or didnt come in my email on a daily basis. Comments will always be repeated its like a back up and people want to always be right and others are wrong. We all do it.

I have no intention of defending the fact that the ROL list is a private list with a confidentiality requirement. That it is so was agreed by the active list members, and it is by no means unique. I will, however, address and correct some points of fact. Meat said in the not too distant past:
Yes Open Forum, but not sit in my my room and just read words and make up what I want ... THe title says Meat Loaf UK fan Club .... op-ion yes, but putdowns, Lies and just plan being angry over what I don't know I will not tolerate
Like him I like what is being levelled at me to at least be accurate. I like the same to be the case for the ROL list and it's members.

When people join the ROL closed mailing list thay are asked to abide by the following:
Disagreements are fine as long as no-one attacks any other list members
Pictures and what people say stay here and should not be posted to any other person, list or website to invite criticism, and never without the invitation or agreement of the person who posts it.
And we don't indulge in gossip about Meat's personal life, or in debates about whether Meat is better than JIm Steinman or vice versa. Both are great talents in their own right, and both are respected here.
Oh .. and it's helpful if you're changing the topic of discussion to change the subject title of your email :)

The reason given is that:
the list is a relaxed place to be where we can have fun at times, share experiences and thoughts, and sometimes comfort each other when we're down, and to have this atmosphere we need to be able to speak freely without fear of being attacked or of having what we say being posted elsewhere around the internet.

I am going to include one opinion rather than fact here. This does not to me seem to bear any resemblance to the actions of ~~~~~~'s crack killer SS in Nazi Germany, and I think to suggest this is a lamentable thing to do. To bandy such terms about is imo to trivialise a shameful time in history, and is incredibly insensitive given the number of German people in this forum.

FYI Deb, no-one has said anything derogatory about SueW on our closed mailing list until she chose to make her comment about Vicki at the start of this thread. That since then people have commented on her action as being unnecessary and unreasonable is hardly surprising given the fondness which those who post on the list have for Vicki. (And I'll head off at the pass any suggestion that they would not have known about this unless I had raised it. Several of our list members are members of this forum, and had already seen it for themselves)

I have no idea what you mean when you compare this to "the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat." Who are these "people"? I can only respond for myself, but I have never "tipped" Meat off about something being said on a private mailing list about him.

As to your comment "... saying the things about Caryl that she has Sue on the ROL in the past few days", perhaps rather than make veiled suggestions you would care to say exactly what "things" I am supposed to have said? The ROL archives show that I have made only 5 posts about this issue, and in only two of them have I referred to Sue, and then I have only referred to her actions and not her person.

And David, as you say you agree with absolutely everything the awesome Deb had to say, perhaps you could please take this as a reply to you also. I recall you have said in this forum, comment on the actions and not on the person. I have done that and no more. No-one has been "stoned" on our list, nor has anybody's "good reputation" been dragged through the mud, ever. This week people have merely expressed their view on specific actions taken by two people, one whose name is not known. Common courtesy, respect, fairness, and dignity are precisely what we ask from people who join. People are expected not to copy posts to any other person, list or website to invite criticism, and never to copy posts without the invitation or agreement of the person who has posted it. When someone takes it upon themselves to violate this, people are predictably hurt and angry.


Deb you then made a further post and I would like to comment on these points:
A breach of confidentiality is just that. To refer on a private mailing list to a previous incident is not the same as bringing it up again in a public forum. No-one should infer from what you have posted that I am repeatedly saying things about SueW, because that is simply not the case.

Vicki made it clear that she was posting some points from the chat that referred to Meat. For it to "be turned into a Meat discussion" is imo entirely predictable and understandable on a list of Meat Loaf fans who rarely mention or discuss Kasim. None of our list members are daft enough to think that a Kasm on-line chat would just be about Meat! Vicki just posted some extracts from the chat, and that was clear from what she said.

I'm struggling a bit to understand your final point, and at a loss to understand why you bring the OIFC into this .. if you're suggesting that I say or encourage anyone to say anything derogatory about the OIFC on the ROL list you can, to quote a famous song, stop right there. I don't do this anywhere, and Vee and Wez (both of whom are ROL list members) know this. But in broad terms, yes, people are free to say what they want within the rules of the list. How often have I heard "Freedom of speech" quoted on this forum. And ROL list members should be able to expect confidentiality, ie the only people who will comment on what they say will be others on the list, because it is not a public list or public forum where you can expect any visitor to comment on what you say. (Just as when David/Jules set up a private list last year I am sure they did not expect correspondence from that to be posted publicly, nor passed on to people not on the list without agreement. Indeed this was made clear.) That said, it is not practice on the list to indulge in derogatory discussion about people, save the kind of thing one would expect on any mailing list, eg people expressing disapproval of Bin Laden, anger at someone who has abducted or murdered a child, or (because this is a Meat fan list) irritation at a negative newspaper review.

A private mailing list which specifically makes a condition of confidentiality should be able to expect just that. Ours is not one where people are generally talked about behind their backs, although at times people will get excited about negative reviews or unkind or untrue things said about Meat. In the same way they do not like people breaking confidentiality, nor attacks on other list members

Vicki posted on this forum that she had told Meat of David's 'rant' about re-scheduling a show in the US. That's who 'these people' are Caryl. Your mate.

Another thing that all members ROL (and all Yahoo list members) have to agree to is the Yahoo's Terms Of Service which includes the phrase

"You agree to not use the Service to:

<snip>
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;"

Vicki was in breech of this. As this was not the first time this has happened, I made it quite clear in my post and I also PM'ed Vicki to tell her after I had made this post and she agreed not to do it again.

I'm with Sue on this!

And as for being insensitive to the Germans or whatever you were going on about, you were very insensitive when you decided to take up art last year.

1. Vicki is not "people" plural. Deb's post implied that a number of people were doing this. And Vicki's action in drawing Meat's attention to the concern which had been expressed got David a reply from Meat .which apparently satisfied him

2. A public forum is different to a private list. We were talking about someone passing a post from a private list, with a confidentiality agreement, to someone not on that list, presumably for the purpose of causing trouble.

And on a more general point to SueW. When you were on our mailing list you knew that Vicki regularly posted extracts from your site, always acknowledging where they had come from, generally giving the direct link. I know she once wrote to you and asked if it was OK to do this. That she took your agreement then, and the fact that you did not after that ever mention or complain about her doing it was I think sufficient reason to presume you did not mind.

And when you did mind, all that was required was an email or pm to Vicki asking her not to. When you did, she immediately agreed, because that's the kind of person she is. What some, myself included, question is your decision to make the comment about her that you did in an open forum. It was unnecessary, and an unkind thing to do to someone who did what she did, not to steal any intellectual copyright, but in the innocent belief that you had no objection, and who immediately responded positively when you wrote to her direct.

What has angered Vicki's many friends is not that you have pointed out to her that she should not post material from your site, which you have every right to do, but that you chose to accuse her in public of breaching copyright, and in a forum where she is tireless in responding positively to people, and generous in sharing items of interest.

Mmmmh ...

I just post my 3 eurocents worth here ...

(1) The copyright
It's quite easy actually.
Sue organised the chat, monitored it and typed the synopsis. The synopsis is her work. If you want to use this for your publication, you have to ask for permission - regardless if it's a private or a non-private publication. If you don't ask, you violate the owner's copyright, even if you give credit. If you had permission to publish something in the past, it does not allow you to publish something different of the same creator. You must ask again.

(2) Sue's reaction
Well, i don't know the complete circumstances, but if I had spent 3 hours of arranging and publishing that synopsis just to find it copied somewhere else just 5 minutes later, I would have been quite pissed off by that and might have reacted the same way.

Anyway, afaik & iirc, Vicki apologised and Sue accepted, thus the story is over. I don't see a need to discuss this until doomsday.
I do however miss Vicki's view of this. I see messages speaking for her, but where is her comment? She might have a different view of things.

Holy COW!!

SueW, it appears I owe you an apology as well! I was given a link to this last evening via an email, and I just found out about your copyright request! I sent the link to the Jimlist earlier today, and I had NO idea there was any problem with it at all.

I have never heard of not being able to post links to materials on the net, and I am very sorry if I breached a rule here.

Di
... who did enjoy the information and updates though, is sooooo excited about the news of the US concerts that may be scheduled in the future, and is really curious as to the news that Bat III is possibly not farther along than what is shared here.

DavidD wrote:
David you can take it anyway you wish, we have had numerous discussions about interpretation on here. I was trying during a very quick luch break to show a difference between something that is already in the public domain being pointed out and someone repeating a conversation intented for just a few. The topic of the conversation is irrelevant, just the issue that if feel you are amongst friends you should be able to express you feelings in that environement.
This is sounding like Sue has been slandered and personally insulted, I have not seen anything like that on the list only thoughts and feelings on the action taken.
I do not believe that any goes through life without saying words in anger, temper or frustration, this does not make them any less a person.


It distresses me greatly that when ever an action is questioned or the like the implication is inferred that the motivation is hate. Why do you feel this is the case? I'm a reasonably mature enough woman to be able to say I don't agree with your action, with out feeling or being hateful.

No, no....I saw your post to the Jimlist and that was fine as you just posted the link which is the correct thing to do. The same was done on a Todd Rundgren mailing list. The problem arose because Vicki copied things directly from my webpage - she didn't even post the chatpage link in her message to the ROL list.

SueW

Thank you so much! I am very relieved! I felt very badly about it. :(

Was a very interesting transcript, and had some good news. :)

Di
.... back to the day and breathing.... ;)

Sultonfan wrote:
half way is always a good start 8)

I can only speak for what i have seen, and can say that any discussion has been after the posting on here referring to ROL and Vicki, and that discussion has been around the actions rather than the person, obviously linked with how list memebrs feel about it.

Well I suppose that would be because members of that particular list are primarily concerned with Meat! :lol: I can understand how Sue might feel, but all I was saying was I didn't feel that making the last line on the post was necessary, other ways would have been equally effective.

As I haven't seen that happen I can't express a view. But I have said how I feel there is a difference between posting on public forums and taking in a group, whatever the topic or subject matter is.

Phew Caryl where to start in reply to all this.... slightly blinded by words here, but trying to make sense of it and to work out which bits to reply to.

Just to put the record straight here, I also am a bit peed at a thread on Kasim getting hijacked by all of this, Sue and Vicki had sorted this out, you once again have fueled it by posting in defense of Vicki, and before you say it, Yes I have also for Sue, but i'm really sick to the back teeth of letting it all go by. so many threads have been hijacked in this way. Whats started off with two people maybe having a slight problem has often turned into ww3 (and no thats not belittling the war before you put more words in my mouth)

We don't all have as much time as others to put everything into exactly the right words. So sometimes what I'm thinking or trying to say, may come out slightly different. Which you seem to pick up on.

Back to the responses from you...

caryl wrote :
The reason given is that:
the list is a relaxed place to be where we can have fun at times, share experiences and thoughts, and sometimes comfort each other when we're down, and to have this atmosphere we need to be able to speak freely without fear of being attacked or of having what we say being posted elsewhere around the internet.

The same goes for here Caryl, even though its not written, I know for a fact that people feel the same way here about you, in response to them, me included.

caryl wrote :
I am going to include one opinion rather than fact here. This does not to me seem to bear any resemblance to the actions of ~~~~~~'s crack killer SS in Nazi Germany, and I think to suggest this is a lamentable thing to do. To bandy such terms about is imo to trivialise a shameful time in history, and is incredibly insensitive given the number of German people in this forum.

Don't even go there with trying to make every German in this forum think I'm geting at them, because I'm pretty confident that they know I'm not, I personally know many of them and they are the most genuine. nicest people I know, and have became very good friends of mine. For your information by SS I actually meant "Secret Squirrel"

caryl wrote:
I have no idea what you mean when you compare this to "the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat." Who are these "people"? I can only respond for myself, but I have never "tipped" Meat off about something being said on a private mailing list about him.

What I meant was: Vicki tipped Meat off about posts about Columbus thread.
You tipped meat off about the bootleg thread.

I know for a fact that very many people here, feel very uncomfortable about this, to have to feel that everything they post may get taken out of context and to get Meat pointed in their direction is no different to how you feel about what you say being pointed to someone else.

Just noticed you say you've never tipped Meat off about something said on a private mailing list, which could be taken to mean you have on here, I really don't think keep saying the ROL and here or anywhere else are different, just because you have people sign the confidentiality act, doesnt mean its ok to do it there but not here. Does R have to make this private to get the respect that the ROL wants? It should just be ok to have an unwritten rule for this.

caryl wrote:As to your comment "... saying the things about Caryl that she has Sue on the ROL in the past few days", perhaps rather than make veiled suggestions you would care to say exactly what "things" I am supposed to have said? The ROL archives show that I have made only 5 posts about this issue, and in only two of them have I referred to Sue, and then I have only referred to her actions and not her person.

Well as you ask what exactly here goes......

These are a couple of extracts from things been posted by yourself:

Secondly it was Sue Williams who, when she took my 9/11 card from this non-public mailing list and shoved it on her worldwide website posting the link in the UK forum to invite people to comment negatively on it, said:
The picture can be viewed at [...] but please note it is on MY server not the MLUKFC server so the copyright breech is not due to MLUKFC.
From this it would seem that Sue Williams, whilst she may not be able to spell "breach" of copyright consistently, is not above doing it herself for spite, whereas Vicki gave full acknowledgement to her source and passed the information on for the purest of intentions.

Picking on Sues spelling is pretty away from the point also dont you think, If we all did that everytime Meat posted you'd be continually on his back. Also to say Sue was doing it for spite wasnt just fact either.

My question therefore is, who here has informed Sue Williams of Vicki's innocent posting on our ROL mailing list so that the former can publicly criticise and attempt to incite disapprobation of Vicki and ROL? For as far as I am concerned you are not welcome in this small group, the rest of whom treat each other with love and respect, support each other and deserve better than having someone sneak off and break the confidentiality rules of our friendly ROL family list.

Why does that have to be the reason for someone telling Sue? Where has Sue tried to publicily critisise and incite disapprobation of Vicki and the ROL?

And to Vicki I say, I am so sorry my friend that you of all people, whose motives are the best, who only tries to freely share information which will be of interest about our beloved Meat, and who clearly acknowledged your source and so imo were guilty of no copyright violations, should be subjected to this kind of mean-spirited attack. Believe me, as one who was subjected to a disgraceful and sustained attack last year in the UK forum I know just how hurtful it is.

No one has said Vicki doesnt have the best motives, Sue was annoyed over one thing, it's all being blown way out of proportion.

Nothing will happen to Vicki, apart from being hurt by this nasty spitefulness, which of course is bad enough as she of all people does
nothing to deserve it! . All the talk of copyright is smoke blowing .. to say your material is copyright is not alone sufficient in law to protect
it. You have to register copyright, and keep registering updates, which is a
costly business. I know you will not have been responsible. But I see no
reason why we should tolerate this tittle tattling from the list, and we won't.

Once again, where was Sue nasty and spiteful???? There is no need for these type of comments on this. This isn't just fact. Who's tittle tattling? Me? Sue? not sure who you mean here, but who ever I dont see it as tittle tattling. And what ever anyones said ovwer here has been said openly, unlike this i'm reffering to here.


back to replying to your post on here:

Caryl wrote: No-one has been "stoned" on our list, nor has anybody's "good reputation" been dragged through the mud, ever. This week people have merely expressed their view on specific actions taken by two people, one whose name is not known. Common courtesy, respect, fairness, and dignity are precisely what we ask from people who join

I disagree, you have tried to drag Sues reputation through the mud, with how you worded all of the above i have quoted. How you said it isnt just views.


I'm struggling a bit to understand your final point, and at a loss to understand why you bring the OIFC into this .. if you're suggesting that I say or encourage anyone to say anything derogatory about the OIFC on the ROL list you can, to quote a famous song, stop right there

I said:
Also seems unfair that basically anyone on the ROL can say what they want about anyone here, the OIFC or anyone else, while anything anyone says here gets picked to pieces with a fine tooth comb, by the same people insisting their comments not to be repeated.

I wasnt bringing the OIFC into this, what I was saying is. That The ROL if they agree to confidentiality, can say anything about anyone, on the MLUKFC, The OIFC, The MOTS, The Mickey Mouse fanclub, or anywhere else for that matter. While the people on the forsaid lists cant say anything back. Does that make more sense?


You also say about freedom of speech, well Sue also has the freedom of speech in saying what she did, If you agree with it is another thing. But I fail to see why you have to continually jump on eevrything someone says and have an opinion. As someone once said, let things go. Then these long off topic threads wouldnt happen. Just an observation but the vast majority of threads that have gone this way have usually happened because you've done this. And i'm afraid to have to be the one to say it, but you do get peoples backs up with this. it makes them react and not always in the nicest way, just as It makes you react when something was said about Vicki.

Finally I fail to see the moral difference about being able to say things on the ROL and expect people who dont agree or find it offensive not to repeat it. yet Its ok to do it here. Hopefully Sue's name can take a break for a while, as I'm sure to be taking over in the firing line

Deb

For Crying Out Loud.

My gosh!

I just read through this whole thread you guys.... *All* of you need major hugs! 8O {{{hugs}}}

I don't know the entire background very well, but there is a lot of strong feelings here, a bit of hurt, and a large amount of angst being felt by some really nice people.....

(It certainly made me feel better about my current week on the net though....) ;)

Di
.... sending warm wishes to all of you.... and hoping that everyone will emerge from this with lighter hearts!

As I could be "accused" of being a guilty party to any any hijacking - I'll refer back to my earlier comments. IMHO there was no need what so ever to make referrence to what had been done. Indeed making the statement was inviting comment.
I believe it should have been dealt with in private between Vicki and Sue.
To me the statement was just as bad as making a child stand in a corner with the pointed "D" hat on, for everyone to point and stare. I had hoped we were above that.

My hearts still light Di :D

I've just spent the weekend and all the previous shows with some of the nicest people from here that i could wish to meet. So it couldnt be any other way..

Plus one thread doesnt effect the way I feel come another thread. As Sin said.. Each thread on its merits or something like that....

Deb

Hi Deb!

:D

Well... I love what you just wrote, and I am going to take that with me back into my own day. ;)
... Each thread on it's merits and onto it's own.... I really love that! :D Excellent advice.

It it so great that the UK concerts have gone so well.... I *knew* I should have popped over for the London concerts. I did some poor planning over the holidays, should have followed Terry and Jules fine example.... ;)

Have a great day!
:D
Di

I agree with Sin this should have been handled between SueW and Vicki and should not have been posted on this forum. The only reason why someone posts an all ready settled dispute and make's it public is to make people take sides which is what has been done. How can you expect to publicly amonish someone without thinking that there friends will not stick up for them is beyond me. And since I am neither friends of SueW or Vicki's I am saying this as a Meat Loaf fan. Since it is being said that SueW PM'ed Vicki and told her that what she did was wrong and she apologized then it should have been dropped at that and not brought to everyone's attention. So the next time something like this happens why don't the concerned parties handle it through PM's and email unless you want to get everyone else involved this would be the best thing to do.

The very digusted with this whole topic.
~Autumn~

Just to set the record straight, Sue posted here, before It was took to pm.

Deb

Debs, either way, before or after my whole point one this one is I for one don't think here was the place.

I think it was settled after Sue's post.

Things like that shouldn't happen at all.

I understand what you mean Sin but maybe Sue was so fed up after spending so much time on something, to have it posted somewhere else without her permission. As has already been posted here, because Sue has given permission once, doesnt mean its granted automatically. I can understand that she wanted to draw attention to it. If my site was used without me saying so, I'd probably feel the same. I've spanet far more of my spare time on it than I can afford, and I'm sure the same can be said for Sue.

Deb

R.

I don't mean to seem like I am draggin things out and I have nothing to win or lose either way in this as I am not friends with either of the two involved in this matter, it's just that the thread has been hijacked by nothing but arguing over a matter that should have been settled by the two individuals in question and I was just pointing out that as a Meat Loaf fan that I prefer to read post's about Meat and the band and not arguements that should be settled in private.

If this is wrong so be it, as I do not speak often but god there are so many more important things in the world to think about and care about then this. Meat is sick, people are going to be missing a concert that they so wanted to see.

Just pointiing out that these kind of arguments can and should be handled differently and that I thought it was time to get back on track.

~Autumn~

Yes Debs I can quite see that Sue might have felt fed up, but calling attention to it - I think should have been to the person concerned in private, especially where it is obvious there was no malice intended in the act questioned. If this couldn't be resolved in that manner and was still an issue then I would whole heartedly support it being brought into the "public arena" and in fact would do so myself. But in this instance I don't believe that was the case.
I'm sure you and Sue like all the others running sites give a lot of spare time and funds to keep these upto date, I don't question that for a moment.
But the old adage two wrongs don't make a right does spring to mind.

I see you quoted me earlier and yes I always say each topic on it's own merit. This is something I really do believe and whilst I have publically and privately thanked Sue in the past for various things, I don't agree with her actions on this one, who know's where I'll land next time next time :lol:

I'm wondering if we should now free up the board and continue this in PM's or emails, so I'll invite anyone who wants to pass comment or thought on any of my posts or comments on this thread to contact me

That's exactly what I think.

Now, what was that chat about anyway?

In response to R ... yes I feel very badly about the way this was handled.

A while back I asked SueW if she minded if I posted information from her site on the ROL list .... and she said she had no objections. I assumed that it would be ok this time as well .. and unfortunately, I assumed incorrectly.

SueW has every right to say that things cannot be posted from her website .. and as soon as she told me this in a PM I agreed and assured her that it would not happen again. However, it was not necessary to post this on a public forum, and everything in this thread has followed because of that.

As I said before, I tried for at least 15-20 minutes to get into the chat, and was unsucessful. I've heard I'm not the only one ... which is something you may want to think about in the future :roll: If I had been successful, I would have gladly taken my own notes so as to have a transcript of the Meat Loaf related information to pass on to our ROL mailing list (since that's what it's all about). There are a lot of people on our mailing list who do not have as much free time as I do, so yes, I scout out any Meat Loaf related news and pass it along to them.

And as far as my bringing David's thread to Meat's attention .....

Meat has opened a line of communication with his fans, such as myself, here on the forum, and for that I'm very grateful. There are a lot of threads posted here, and given Meat's grueling schedule, he doesn't have the time to look at everything. So when David raised his concern about his Ohio concert, I brought the thread to Meat's attention .... it was Meat's decision to post a response, not mine. Quite frankly, I get the feeling Meat listens to me ..... so if I see something I think he should know about, I'm not afraid to point it out to him.

This is my last post on this thread .... so to Sin, Rick & BadAttitude I say thank you for the support. To Caryl, I say thank you again for your support .. and I'm truly sorry how this has escalated and how it has affected both you and the other members of the ROL mailing list. And to all your comments above, I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself.

Vicki

At the end of the day who really gives a shit? and if you do why?

There's no one here who hasn't broken Copyright law in the past, you know all them bootlegs and video recordings, demo's, downloading of songs, even the ones from private websites etc etc etc. That's all copyrighted but I bet the old conscience wasn't clicking into place then.

Personally if I were Kasim I wouldn't really care who read what, where or when, I'd just be thankful that the masses are reading it.

Pud:o]

What I'm finding interesting is all the armchair lawyers around here bandying around what is and what is not copyright.

Di the original post violate a copyright?

I've no idea, I didn't see it. But here's a few questions:

Did the poster take the information and make it seem as if it were her's in direct violation of the facts at hand?

Will the creator of that information stand to lose anything financially?

Will the poster of that information gain financially thereby depriving the creator?

Was there proper credit attributed to the proper creator?

Was there a violation of the 'Fair Use' clause?

Can a chat transcript be considered copyright protected to a single person/entity without full knowledge and agreement of all participants that giving up their rights to ownership of their statements? This is a question, I think for the courts to decide, but as it would seem to, right now, fall under the 'conversational' rules, it would not apply in my opinion. A group of people having a conversation cannot expect to retain copywrite ownership of those statements.

Was the work in question an actual intellectual work of a person, persons or entity as a whole that would fall under the copywrite act?


Those are some of the questions that needed to be answered before armchair lawyers get to start throwing things around. Can I answer them? No, I'm not privy to all of the facts. As I suspect most people are not.

however, I wish to state that I, once again, find Driskell's information concerning copywrite law to be laughably errenous and dangerous to pass along.

Rabe...
...who has a huge interest in the copywrite act and laws applying to it...

Thank you Rabe for a post which raises some very interesting questions which help clarify some of the doubts I had. I know this is a subject on which you are far, far better researched than me, and than most people I actually know. Some of your questions I can answer, and some as you say would need to be tested. I think though that it is far from clear that what happened was a "total" breach of copyright, and not even a clear one.

Definitely not

Hard to see how this could be anything but no

No

Yes I would have said so. Although on this occasion a link was not given, the source was made clear.

Yes, that occurred to me, for I would have thought that judged against most of the Fair Use criteria it would not be a violation. It would need to be tested I suppose, but given attribution was made, and there was no financial loss for the person who considers she held a copyright, and no financial gain to the poster of the information, I would have thought the application of Fair Use would be strengthened.

As you say, one for the courts to decide, but I think you make an extremely valid point

Hard to see how it would be considered that. I doubt the secretary of a committee owns the intellectual copyright of the minutes of a meeting, and would have thought notes taken of a "chat" would be viewed in a similar light (unless the transcriber had altered it and inserted novel additions perhaps :) ), and there would still be the question of ownership rights you mentioned above.

Rainer said things like this "shouldn't happen at all", but copyright isn't a simple issue, and mistakes will be made. On this occasion there was no intent to breach any copyright, no belief that this was a breach, and no certainty that in law it was.

Pud said who cares? (I paraphrase :wink: ) and made some fair points about people's use of music on the net. My concern was the way this was handled. It did not need to come to the forum, and imo should not have come to the forum. Had it not been brought to the forum on the opening post of this thread, so introducing an additional point for debate, the thread would have remained on the first paragraph of the topic.

sigh! Just as we get back on topic along comes none other than Caryl to drag it way off topic again!

You musn't really care about Meat if all you actually do is hijack his board. Can't you use PM and leave the rest to do what hey are here for and thats to read about Meat or in this case Kasim. We aren't here to read about you or your issues, sorry.

You took the words right outta my mouth Chris

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself Chris & Deb :-)

Maybe some kindly moderator would consider splitting the threads? Just a suggestion... :wink:

And thanks to David, we may have a more stable home for the next chat. You ROCK, man!!

I was thinking same laura :)
and yep David Rocks :D

I agree Chris, Dave and Deb! We just got home after one of the most amazing weeks of our lives and to find the same old issues arising again is most disappointing.

Jules 8)

I see you don't refer to Rabe as "dragging it way off topic again!"

The topic of copyright was not introduced by me, but by the originator of the thread at the start. It was an issue she brought here, so it can hardly be attributed solely to me. I was responding to an interesting post from Rabe which was on that part of the topic.

How many for a full house? :lol:

Frankly I'm surprised that the topic has not been split before. Also interested to see I've been reclassified from a Meat sycophant to someone who really doesn't care about Meat .... :wink:

Yes Caryl, it is interesting how 'dragging down the topic' is attributed to you rather than people trying to clarify the topic at hand. Was there a violation of copyright?

After doing a bit more research on copyright law last night, I've come to the conclusion that a 'chat transcript' cannot be copyrighted because it does not meet the merits of what is and is not considered a 'creative work'.

Now, however, the summary of the chat itself created by the site owner could be. Which was posted? I don't know.

But then again, even if the summary were posted did it constitute a violation of copyright? Again, I don't know, not having all the facts at hand. But it would seem that, in answering all the questions, there was a far better benefit to the site owner than not (how many more people are now aware of the site than before because of the information posted? I know I was unaware of it's existence prior to this issue being raised. Unfortunately, however, I'm going to try to become unaware of it again. I just don't like the politics involved here.)

As for what venues should Kasim play in a UK tour? The ones that will have him obviously. Though I do find that the UK seems to be a much better place for new, struggling or artists seeking a 'comeback' to get bookings. Another musician I greatly admire has had much more success getting bookings in the UK than here. I'm not sure why, but it's a true statement.

Not to mention many people find success or re-find success in Europe again after having lackluster sales/luck in the states. Cher's comeback with 'Believe' is definitely attributed more to Europe than the States. Though I was disappointed when I saw Meat in Reno that Kasim didn't do an 'opening' set (it was one of the joint Meat/Cyndi Lauper dates) because I wanted to see what everyone is talking about. But that's the way it goes.

Rabe...

.
Interesting but not surprising Rabe :wink:

It comprised extracts from the latter, but the source was acknowledged, it's hard to see any financial loss, and as you say there were potential benefits to the site owner.

And you should have got your buns over here Rabe .. Kasim opened all Meat's concerts and you'd have had your chance .. perhaps if Meat returns in the summer? :)

Interesting :roll:

very odd that all of your 6 posts Rabe seem to be defending or making posts for Caryl to agree with. Maybe a coincedence, but interesting the same

Seems from pms I'm not the only one to of noticed this either :wink:

Wow...it is interesting isn't it?

Caryl and I often agree on many things. But please don't bring up the issue of gun ownership rights...otherwise you'll see many disagreements.

But then again, when you are friends with people it seems to be the case that you are going to agree on a lot of things.

However, since your post seems to be a condemnation of Caryl and I having similiar agreements, would it have been so condemned had the information been something you, Sulton Fan, would have agreed with? Or is that more of the hypocrisy that seems to suffuse the very marrow and breadth of this forum?

Caryl...I would love to come to the UK for shows and venues. It seems that they are smaller, more intimate and more exciting and energetic. Reading accounts of concerts and other performances over there is sometimes painful in that they seem to be so much more exciting and fabulous than my own accounts! Plus, I've serious considerations and reserves about how shows are promoted and tickets are sold over here...not something which seems to happen over there. When, within seven minutes of going on sale I can have purchased and been in my car ready to drive home and my seats are still in the upper mezzanine...there is a problem with that.

Rabe...

If you say so :D

I will split the thread later when I get home & thank you all for the very kind words!

Much love to everyone on this board!!!

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

:twisted: I think that's a good decision to split it David :D .
I was about to sugest that a moderator either lock it, split it, or at least pass the popcorn round and phone the pizza dude :mrgreen:
Don't forget folks, the "Our Little Poets" thread is OPEN right now in Off Topic for anyone who feels the need to express themselves.It's a much better way of doing so than overlong posts in which the whole point is lost :wink: .
(Sorry, I just hate posts that are much longer than they need to be.Blame it on a short attention span :wink: )

Ah well FM, I don't much like letters I send to a private list being copied, dissected and commented on here by someone not on that list .. so you're not the only one out of luck :wink:

If you're referring to me, you actually asked for proof of what you'd said, I gave it.

again, just as were getting back on topic :zzz:

What amazes me is that some people have time to go back and forth on this subject all day! writing pages and pages of stuff that isnt Meat Loaf related and its only 4-30! have you nothing better to do? They say the net is addictive, in some cases thats obviously true.

Copyright discussion and random bicker part of the the "Kasim Chat" thread.
Now you can discuss and bicker on topic. :p :))

Oh ... as this is now Off Topic for all forums except one, ... have fun with it, Neil. :p

:twisted: I'm gonna get you for this R. :lmao:

I have to say I don't understand why this has been split.
If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion.
IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic.

Seems like I'm wrong again but it seems daft to me you start a discussion and you include the "agenda".
Otherwise anyone could start a thread throw in the odd dig in the opening post and we have a situation where we are off topic.

Some mice have all the luck :twisted: :lmao:

Can't fault the logic of that Sin, I agree with you. Having said that, at least the division of the thread will prevent any posts to the second part of the opening post being referred to as "dragging the thread off topic"

Sin - you and I agree on something again.

SueW

Yes I am. I asked for you to say exactly what "things" I was supposed to have said, though quite why that necessitated quoting large chunks of an email which you had no legitimate business seeing I don't know. Nor does it invalidate my saying I don't like having my correspondence, sent to a private list, bandied about here.

I said I thought it was wrong when one of David's posts was taken from here and quoted in another public forum. It's even less excusable for mail from a private list to be passed around between people not on that list.

And now the topic has been split, I'll point out for the public record that I have never drawn Meat's attention to a thread on this list as you claimed earlier. I wrote to him and his management company when I saw the item on eBay, and I would do so again.

What now, do you want to have it merged again?
I don't mind, that's easy. I'm just a tad surprised, regarding the "Get back on topic posts".

:twisted: Personally, I agree with the decission to split the thread.
OK, there were two points brought up in the initial post, but one was about Kasim (with references to Meat) the other was about the ethics of copying the info to other sites.IMHO there was just way too much going on in one thread.

I definatly think it works much better as two threads 8) .

Just my 2 $00.02 :wink:

If you ask me, which you didn't, (but I'm going to respond anyway 'coz I'm like that) then splitting this thread is a good idea. The whole thread diverged into two topics anyway and it became hard to follow either the discussion following on from the chat or the "discussion" about the copyright issue, both are valid discussions and both are at times interesting, although one of them may get a little more out of hand than the other.

Bottom line is that Vicki has both publicly and as I understand it privately apologised for her "error" (quotes used on purpose!!). So this thread will probably (hopefully?) die a quick and painless death..........


Andy

Whoops .. got cut off just as I was posting!

I said I agreed with Sin that the copyright discussion wasn't off-topic as it had been introduced in the starting post.

However, as I suspect it is easier to split the two topics than persuade those who keep talking about "dragging" the thread off topic to desist, this seems the simplest solution.

Some mountains are VERY hard to climb :wink:

I don't believe Vicki "apologised". I think she said that as soon as she knew SueW was not happy for her to quote from her website and acknowledge the source, she would of course not do this.

:twisted: well it had to happen sometime - still at least we've managed to avoid relegation into "the unspoken zone"

And now you are?

:twisted: I can't believe i'm about to say this.
Can we stay on topic please :lmao:

The point is about the Kasim interview being copied without permission.NOT weather the original thread should have been split or not :lol: .
At this rate i'll have to split this thread again 8O

Ever played consequences? :twisted:

Not at all .. I merely agreed with Sin on her point about copyright actually being on topic, and have said that splitting the threads seems the simplest way to avoid people complaining that it's off-topic.

lol,,, and then can we have the thread splitting so we can see how surprised Caryl is by R's splitting of the original thread, and also for the discussion about Sin and Sue agreeing, and then we'll need a separate thread for you to whine about having to split the threads....... were you busy this week lol :D

Doesn't bother me either way - i merely expressed in my earlier post my surprise that after returning home from a long hard day at work, this had happened .
As to this thread being labeled copyright discussion, for me that actually wasn't the point in question it was how the starting post had be made and whether that was a fair way to tackle the issue

Am I the only one here who feels that most of this has NOTHING to do with copyright law and EVERYTHING to do with who doesn't like who?

it's a bit childish.

If this were merely about copyright law- the task is simple, submit the information to a duty-council online and they'll tell you where the law stands...I have a feeling, however, that it is not about copyright law at all.

just a thought...and i'm outta here!

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself R!!!

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

This strikes me as rather pointless David, particularly as I have already replied just above to the somewhat mystifying comment .. some might even think it was just posted for the sake of having a pop at me ..

This has degraded from silly to senseless, why isn't it in fight club?? Surely despite the lack of flames, any semi-conscious individual can see that this has degraded into two camps fighting. There is nothing worthwhile being said- law is law- it's easy to ascertain-but nobody is interested in 'copyright law', they are interested in

'who-said-what-to- whom-and-who-has-a -right-to-say-that-and-who-doesn't-and-why-they- don't-like-so-and-so'

This is simply rediculous. People are looking for excuses to dredge up old fights, that's all- there is nothing new being said here that hasn't been said before...aren't we adults?? Why are we holding a popularity contest on a fan forum?

:?

Little dancer wrote:
I agree and it gets tedious.
Think it was an odd decision to split the thread too.

Well...
I have no problem with the thread being split...I have a problem with people putting each other down and pretending it has something to do with 'copyright law'--

Popularity contest, that's all SOME are trying to turn this whole fan forum into...

I don't understand why ADULTS hate each other so much over NOTHING!

that's all

And it's always Caryl who has to defend herself :roll:
Vicki

its nothing more than tittle tattle, its boring and offensive!!!!!!! and it isnt what we want to read!