SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2004 The current plan for the RAW Title match is HHH vs. Chris Benoit, with Benoit playing iron man and winning the Rumble, despite his placement at #1. Who was the last guy to win the Rumble but loose the title match? HBK at 11? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enigma 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2004 Who was the last guy to win the Rumble but loose the title match? HBK at 11? Technically, it was The Rock at WM2000. He won the Rumble but didn't win the match at WM2000. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Doyo Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Are you saying copying and pasting the observer onto this board for others to read is plagerism? Well, no because plagiarism is when you take the credit and they made it clear that it was from the Observer. Call it whatever you want, but copyright violation is punishible by prison time and fines up to $150,000. Not that Meltzer is going to turn anyone in to the FBI any time soon, but if it becomes rampant maybe he would. It is a fuckin message board, so who gives a crap. So you are saying that the people who actually spend their money on the newsletter don't have access to the internet? If it becomes more common for the newsletter content to appear on message boards, less and less people will actually pay for it and this would lead to Meltzer and the others having to find a new line of work. Then we would all be left with the likes of sites run by 13 year olds as the source for wrestling news. Of course this isn't going to happen anytime soon and it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did. I support music downloading and wrestling tape trading because they both do more good than bad for those industries. People get to sample bands and federations and if they like them enough, most people end up spending money on the original albums/tapes and going to live shows. Newsletters, on the other hand, are just text and most aren't going to pay for them if they can read them all over the net. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Who was the last guy to win the Rumble but loose the title match? HBK at 11? Technically, it was The Rock at WM2000. He won the Rumble but didn't win the match at WM2000. Thanks. Somehow I totally blocked that event out of my mind. (Lucky me.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 All hail Doyo, Lord of the anal retentive! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 At RAW in San Antonio, the company sent people out when it came to t-shirts. One person, who was in the second row, had a WCW t-shirt from the 90s. They didn't approach him during Heat, but before RAW started, he was told he could not wear the shirt. The person actually told security, “You own the rights to WCW.” He said, "I know, but we don't want it on TV." They told him if the t-shirt aired on TV, he would be ejected from the building. You'd think he'd be able to leverage a free shirt or two out of the scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Doyo Report post Posted January 7, 2004 All hail Doyo, Lord of the anal retentive! Ha, you're the one that seems to get upset at people for not knowing where to draw the line for what is or is not heavy metal and its subgenres. Now excuse me while I go try to take a big dump. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k thx 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Are you saying copying and pasting the observer onto this board for others to read is plagerism? Well, no because plagiarism is when you take the credit and they made it clear that it was from the Observer. Call it whatever you want, but copyright violation is punishible by prison time and fines up to $150,000. Not that Meltzer is going to turn anyone in to the FBI any time soon, but if it becomes rampant maybe he would. It is a fuckin message board, so who gives a crap. So you are saying that the people who actually spend their money on the newsletter don't have access to the internet? If it becomes more common for the newsletter content to appear on message boards, less and less people will actually pay for it and this would lead to Meltzer and the others having to find a new line of work. Then we would all be left with the likes of sites run by 13 year olds as the source for wrestling news. Of course this isn't going to happen anytime soon and it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did. I support music downloading and wrestling tape trading because they both do more good than bad for those industries. People get to sample bands and federations and if they like them enough, most people end up spending money on the original albums/tapes and going to live shows. Newsletters, on the other hand, are just text and most aren't going to pay for them if they can read them all over the net. The man has a point, but at the same time, if you're d/ling music and videos, you're doing the same thing. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and all that. Also, Meltzer is largely making a profit on typing up things he's heard from other people, without giving them a cut or recognition. Therefore, he's technically doing the same thing. only charging for his knowledge. It's not as if we're stealing his creative work. It's the same as every news site in the world reporting the same stories: was something is reported, it becomes public domain (I'm not sure if it does legally, but it is at least considered such). Yes, the people who posted this could possibly be sued for using the same words as Meltz, but they are siting a source, and as such it is legally sound. It's the same as someone quoting information from a book in a scientific paper. Plus, it's a fucking message board. Seriously, who gives a fuck? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PowerPB13 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Plus, it's a fucking message board. Seriously, who gives a fuck? The same people who care about who wins or loses a scripted wrestling match? -Patrick Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k thx 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Plus, it's a fucking message board. Seriously, who gives a fuck? The same people who care about who wins or loses a scripted wrestling match? -Patrick That is probably just as sad. Anybody who actually gives a fuck about who wins a match before or after it's finished deserves to be Ro-Sham-Bo'd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Doyo Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Also, Meltzer is largely making a profit on typing up things he's heard from other people, without giving them a cut or recognition. He lists a whole bunch of names in a "special thanks to" section every issue. He doesn't force anyone to send him results or talk to him on the phone. Therefore, he's technically doing the same thing. only charging for his knowledge. It's not as if we're stealing his creative work. He takes the time to tranfer all of the info into his own words. The history of the Civil War may all be public domain knowledge, but if someone writes a book on it that writing becomes copyrighted material. Yes, the people who posted this could possibly be sued for using the same words as Meltz, but they are siting a source, and as such it is legally sound. It's the same as someone quoting information from a book in a scientific paper. You can quote a few sentences and maybe you can get away with a whole paragraph, but you can't copy a whole section. If you review a Stephen King book, you can't legally quote an entire chapter or even a whole page, just smaller sections. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 The net and copyright law are like oil and water... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enigma 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 I remember back in 1997, there were stories of people showing up to WWF TV tapings wearing nWo shirts, and they were given free Austin 3:16 t-shirts to wear over them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k thx 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Also, Meltzer is largely making a profit on typing up things he's heard from other people, without giving them a cut or recognition. He lists a whole bunch of names in a "special thanks to" section every issue. He doesn't force anyone to send him results or talk to him on the phone. Therefore, he's technically doing the same thing. only charging for his knowledge. It's not as if we're stealing his creative work. He takes the time to tranfer all of the info into his own words. The history of the Civil War may all be public domain knowledge, but if someone writes a book on it that writing becomes copyrighted material. Yes, the people who posted this could possibly be sued for using the same words as Meltz, but they are siting a source, and as such it is legally sound. It's the same as someone quoting information from a book in a scientific paper. You can quote a few sentences and maybe you can get away with a whole paragraph, but you can't copy a whole section. If you review a Stephen King book, you can't legally quote an entire chapter or even a whole page, just smaller sections. The difference between King and Meltzer is that Kings work is his intellectual property, while Meltzers is news. There are hundreds of credible news sites who quote pages of peoples work, for example military reports, without breaking the law provided they provide a proper source. Meltzer giving thanks is very different from him directly naming his source. Often the news he gets is probably second hand, and therefore he is reporting it without the direct permission of whoever said it. And finally, this news is often a straight report without Meltzer adding his opinion. The words he uses are used to convey the news, not add to it. Therefore repeating it with a source is (probably) legal, or at least not illegal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Doyo Report post Posted January 8, 2004 The net and copyright law are like oil and water... Not since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed a few years ago. The difference between King and Meltzer is that Kings work is his intellectual property, while Meltzers is news. There are hundreds of credible news sites who quote pages of peoples work, for example military reports, without breaking the law provided they provide a proper source. The facts themselves are not copyrighted, but Meltzer's conveying it by putting it into his own words is. USA Today can't copy word for word a news article from the New York Times. You can only use copyrighted material under terms of the Fair Use Act. It allows for portions of material to be quoted for such purposes as reviewing, reporting or school teaching. Any government documents and military reports that are made available are public domain. Meltzer giving thanks is very different from him directly naming his source. Often the news he gets is probably second hand, and therefore he is reporting it without the direct permission of whoever said it. The price of milk might go up. I heard someone on the street say this today, but am I breaking a law by not naming the person? You can't copyright facts or rumors, but once they are put into a fixed medium (such as a newsletter) through use of one's own words, a copyright is created. And finally, this news is often a straight report without Meltzer adding his opinion. The words he uses are used to convey the news, not add to it. Therefore repeating it with a source is (probably) legal, or at least not illegal. Nope, a couple years ago there was a lawsuit that involved the L.A. Times and Washington Post against the website www.freerepublic.com Users of that site's message board were copying and posting news articles from those newspapers for people to discuss. The newspapers issued a warning to the site, but the site refused to try and stop it. The Times and Post won the lawsuit because of copyright laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
