Good question... I dunno what is the answer to that question. I'll do some Googling and get back to you if I bump into an anything. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could give you an answer..

I just realized, you called me a nitwit. Good comeback. Now why don't you do like a small amount of you do and demand that she remove that letter from her forum and if she does not sue her. That way you will see how wrong you are about this copyright argument of yours. Keep in mind, she did not charge for "your letter."..

I respect your opinion and even helpwanted's opinion, but I have to disagree. I would like to make a comparison..

The other site's forum is free and open to the public. You claim that she is violating the copyright laws because she asks you to purchase some Lending Tree credit repair kit. I have read through that forum over the past several days, and I have yet to be restricted in any way. So, if asking you to buy her "kit" or whatever makes her using a letter from CN a violation of copyright laws, the following must also be true..

CN has various advertisements, including one for Lex Law. Although signing up for Lex Law is not required, it is nevertheless requested you sign up if you do not want to do this yourself. You still have full access to this board without signing up..

With her board, you do not have to sign up for her kit to gain access to the board. Lord knows I tried to get denied access to something so I can be sure I did not owe anyone an apology. I have yet to find it..

Given the foregoing, how are the two situations different. If this Kristi is violating copyright laws, I guess CN better starting purging information it "borrowed" from other sites as well...

Ok, i'll try to explain this the best I can. All of the info. on creditnet is available to everyone for free. On Kristy's site, all of the sample letters and techniques are NOT available w/o buying her product. IMO, I just think Kristy should give credit where credit is due. Obviously no one is going make a landmark federal copyright/intellectual property case out of it, but it's just a good, decent thing to do.



I only bring this up, because my step-father was a behind-the-scenes musician who wrote and played music for many famous artists (like Stevie Wonder, Kenny Loggins, etc) And when he created his own music under a "different name" a certain well-known company "stole" his music from the samples on his website and used it as their own because they knew he liked to remain "nameless" Obviously he could have sued for big money, but he felt it was not as important as people just enjoying his music for what it was. But he would have probably given them the music for free if they had just asked (or for a minimal fee) Nevertheless, it's just not the greatest act in business "ethics" (there's that ethics work again. lol)..

Helpwanted,.

Maybe if you had actually obtained a copyright for a published work you would know that a copyright is "a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. " This can be found at.

Www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q1.

What this means that it has to be an original work, which helpwanteds letter is not. It also does not protect the letter even if it was original instead of stolen from Marci (even if he gave credit after his theft). The letter is not a literary , dramatic, or artistic work anymore than a recipe is and can not be copyrighted by itself anymore than a single recipe. It would have to contain significant additional original literary , dramatic, or artistic work to qualify...

Helpwanted, you need some help. You sound like a high strung individual. As you can see no one cares who you are also and they certainly don't care about you not getting credit for the letter that you "partially" wrote. Move on...

In humble defense of helpwanted, the letter was not stolen at all by him/her, PsychDoc or any of the other many who have used it as as platform. When I posted "sample letter paid CO" I stated that anyone could feel free to benefit from it (i.e. use it) or to overlook it as they saw fit. And helpwanted did. There's no shame in helpwanted's use/modification of it at all and I'm glad it worked for that creditor..

:-).

Hey, wait a minute! I beg your pardon..

Sweet-talk is.

Very much.

An artistic and dramatic endeavor. Just ask any woman who has convinced her man that the idea she gave him was his to being with..

:-)..

While I am not a copyright lawyer, I go off personal experience that not all things are copyrightable. After leaving the security field I went into several other fields. One of those, was writing articles for computer publications. Some of my articles I was able to copyright since it had significant original work that was of an artistic or literary form. A couple of articles (sidebars) primarily gave steps to resolve a problem just like this letter or listed files that are ok to delete. Those were not capable of being copyrighted.



I don't believe in this case that letter was something that could be copyrighted. I am, however, certain that helpwanted's responce or accusations are not appropriate..

Ron..

This is just sad, sad sad sad!.

Let those amongst you whom have not copy and pasted, cast the first.... stone? megabyte?.

(Copywrite Jan. 15, 2002)..

This post is just ridiculous. First of all, not everyone out there looking for help in this area are aware of all the credit discussion boards that are out there. If someone doesn't want their letter to be used I suggest they don't post it on a public message board. If we're all to research who wrote the first draft of every sample letter out there- we'd be wasting a lot of time that could be spent on more productive issues. For example, I don't know who wrote the initial sample intent to sue letter. Does that mean I can't share it on another board because I don't have that information???? I guess I'm mistaken too as I thought the boards were about people helping people.



Of course, I don't see why the poster, helpwanted, has such an issue with this as he's certainly NOT the initial author of the letter..

Kristy is NOT charging for the letter nor did she claim she wrote it. Not one time have I seen Kristy take credit for something she didn't do and not one time have I seen her tell a poster that he/she needs to pay to get advice..

Humblemarc, sample letter and techniques are available on Kristy's site free of charge. Sample letters can be found on the homepage under "consumer info"...

Again, I could care less, but Kristy DOES know where she gets here letters from. What's the reason for not giving credit to the author (the last known author or site)?.

What exactly is she selling, if not the "complete and proper" way to use the sample letters and techniques? don't tell me, she doesn't get customers who want to know ALL the info. she posts for "free"?.

Again, I really don't care, just be honest about what is really going on. whatever it is...

Personal side note I have NEVER posted any of my very effective letters that I use for my clients on ANY board for this very reason. sooner or later, some one "borrows" it for their own purposes..whatever those might be...

From the TOS of Cred.

8. PUBLIC CONTENT POSTED TO CREDITNET.

(a) For purposes of the TOS, "publicly accessible areas of the Service" are those accessible by the general public..

(b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Creditnet Message Boards or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Service, you grant Creditnet the world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Creditnet Message Board to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Service. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Service..

(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Creditnet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed..

Helpwanted, once you posted your letter, you kinda gave up any rights to it lol. Credit net could SALE your letter and make MILLIONS, not a dang thang you could do about it... You feel better now?.

Just kinda makes all the energy wasted on this thread a waste of time, dosnt it?..

Georgiaboy is right. The TOS rule out intellectual "property", which is a farce anydays, in the face of file-sharing and open-source programming licenses. Copyright is CopyWRONG. The Supreme Court just upheld a 20 year extension to Mickey Mouse, because a rich corporation couldn't bear to have him in the public domain. Copyright? CopyWRONG. Nonsense.



It's just my opinion, but it seems that people use copyright to make a fast buck, to hide behind it when their work is criticized, and most of them are owned by corporations, not individuals, for the purposes of the greedy form of Enron-esque capitalism, not the American Dream capitalism, which is supposed to be tempered with responsibility..

I hope the Walt Disney company loses goodwill over this, to compensate for their copyWRONG greed. And the RIAA and the MPAA can go to hell...