2000

Re: Rights to Images

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0358  Friday, 18 February 2000.

From:           Stephen Holcombe <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Feb 2000 23:19:02 -0500
Subject: 11.0341 Re: Rights to Images
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0341 Re: Rights to Images

> >Even where there is display of owned images by
> >the owners, it is still impermissible for someone
> >else to download and duplicate, or print out
> >and duplicate, those images without permission.
>
> The act of looking at a website involves downloading and duplicating its
> images since downloading is the electronic transfer of an image from the
> server to the client, and the image on the computer screen is duplicated
> in video RAM as well as application RAM and there's almost certainly a
> copy on the hard disk too. So, do you mean the site can't be looked at?
>
> If perhaps you mean that the only permitted form of
> downloading/duplicating is "retrieval once-per-view without storing for

No no no. The key word here is "duplicate," which I don't think Laura
made clear enough. Certainly the image is "duplicated" in the way that
Gabriel describes, but the illegality lies in duplicating an image and
then giving or selling it to one or more other people. Usually this
would consist of a hardcopy, something printed out, but even making a
copy on diskette and giving it to your roommate would be technically a
violation. If that person goes to the website and gets his or her own
copy, though, that's legal.  Nitpicky? Well, we are talking about the
law...

Re: Saints & Sinners

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0357  Friday, 18 February 2000.

From:           Mark Lawhorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Feb 2000 09:07:45 -1000
Subject: 11.0346 Re: Saints & Sinners
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0346 Re: Saints & Sinners

I am coming to this topic a bit late, so please forgive me if someone
else has already mentioned this little tidbit.  In Love's Labour's Lost,
where charity and cupidity are confused in good old Chaucerian fashion,
there are two references to Saint Cupid (4.3.340 and 5.2.87).
Woudhuysen speculates in the Arden 3 edition of the play that "the usage
is possibly unique to Shakespeare" (222), a possibility of which I
remain skeptical.

Mark Lawhorn

A Hypertext Model

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0355  Friday, 18 February 2000.

From:           Tom Dale Keever <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Feb 2000 14:27:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        A Hypertext Model

I draw all SHAKSPERians' attention to the following URL:

http://www.cs.amherst.edu/~ccm/prufrock.html

It will take you to a unique "interactive" version of Eliot's poem.

Has anyone done a similar version of any of Shakespeare's great
soliloquies or sonnets?

If not, why not?

I also note that Eliot fought all his life, successfully, to keep his
poetry from appearing is such a vulgar form as a paperback book.  I
wonder how he would feel if he knew he'd been published in cyberspace.

Re: 'English Isles

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0356  Friday, 18 February 2000.

From:           Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Feb 2000 12:44:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Rice Pudding
Comment:        SHK 11.0339 Re: Rice Pudding

Dear Alexander Houck,

You mention the 'English Isles'.

Please don't.

Terence Hawkes

Re: Armorial Device

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0354  Friday, 18 February 2000.

From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 17 Feb 2000 09:55:20 -0800
Subject: 11.0349 Re: Armorial Device
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0349 Re: Armorial Device

Thank you very much.  That was driving me mad!

By the way, any relation between "Spencer" and "Spenser"?  And I don't
suppose there's a connection with the uppedy advisor in Edward II?

In any case, the fact that prosperous sheep farmers could aspire to the
Lords, casts the question of whether they could afford rice into a
completely new light!

Cheers,
Se


Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.