Bogley

[tanya]

rcwild wrote: tanya wrote: I don't know!? But I think you might be fun to play games with :naughty:

What kinda games do you like? Hubba hubba.

If it involves ropes, I'm your guy.


I could get into a man with your rope skills. :naughty:

[rcwild]

tanya wrote: I could get into a man with your rope skills. :naughty:

Damn! You really are a naughty girl. Better get back to your homework. I'm going to go take a long cold shower.

[fouristhenewone]

i thought this was an all ages website. where's a moderator!!!!?????

[CarpeyBiggs]

fouristhenewone wrote: i thought this was an all ages website. where's a moderator!!!!?????
bogley moderator is an oxymoron.

If anyone is interested, here are the forum rules:
http://bogley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3

Of course, on bogley, rules are more like suggestions. Suggestions that should be taken very lightly. :rockon:

[skianddive]

rcwild wrote: You'll find a clear summary of the law here:

http://webnet77.com/webstuff/copyright.html
Geez, Rich, I asked you to do some research, not find a *single* article written by an ambulance-chasing Internet lawyer who was put on probation by the CA State Bar for 3 years. The Bar did this because he was caught fleecing people all over the world who were looking to obtain a U.S. green card:

http://tinyurl.com/3ajhk2

It appears that he subsequently wrote the article so that he could try to regain his credibility and begin pursuing frivolous lawsuits for Internet clients. And you will note that the article is *his* interpretation of the law, not a summary of it.

But if you did some real research, you would find the websites that I use when I need legal advice on Internet copyright and trademark law. The first is www.nolo.com and their interpretation of the "Fair Use" rule:

http://tinyurl.com/g5eww

[NOTE: NoLo's lawyers write some great books using layman terms, including their "How to Form a Non-Profit Corporation in California". I have this book, and there's a great description of what out-of-state non-profits must do in order to do business in California. I'd send you copies of the relevant sections, but the book is protected by copyright law.]

The second is www.bitlaw.com which focuses on Technology Law:

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html

One thing I found interesting is that BitLaw does not reference Mr. Amkraut's article under its list of relevant Internet articles that pertain to Technology Law. Why do you suppose that is? Does anyone have a guess?

http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html

I won't go into all of the boring details, but if you read from the above sites, you will see that there isn't a lawyer in the land, including David L. Amkraut, who would want to prosecute anyone for using those procedural images from Steven when they were posted here at Bogley.

And, thanks, Rich. I see you are still using my ideas to improve the ACA site without acknowledging my Intellectual Property. Within a couple of hours of my noting the problems with viewing images on your site, you revised your posts to embed all of your pics in one post, and you then modified the image usage rules so that they would be displayed without having to log on to the site.

[rcwild]

skianddive wrote: Geez, Rich, I asked you to do some research, not find a *single* article ...

You still don't get it. Just because a violation of the law is difficult to prosecute does not make it legal. People with ethics do their best to follow the law, even if they know they won't be caught if they break it.

skianddive wrote: And, thanks, Rich. I see you are still using my ideas to improve the ACA site ...

Actually, I started looking into it right after Sombeech said he couldn't see the images. But feel free to take the credit if you need to.

[rcwild]

For anyone actually interested in canyoneering ...

A few people have been playing around with the Pirana releasable block system and reporting favorably. NOTE: Steve is the only person I know who has used it in actual practice. Others are setting it up and testing in backyards and garages.

It seems to have a significant advantage over a standard releasable figure eight block in that it is much less likely to bind up with the rope pinched between the eight and the rap ring.

The one thing that was making people a bit nervous was the lock-off loop over the horns. When that part of the rope is not under tension, there is a concern that the loop may come off the horns. That issue could be resolved by keeping a close eye on it. Better yet, add another tie-off, like the one in the bottom two photos in someone-pretending-to-be-Steve's post near the beginning of this thread. Or tie a mule hitch using the brake strand around the rappel strand. Tie the mule tight up against the bottom of the Pirana to keep tension on the lock-off loop.

For anyone unfamiliar with the releasable figure eight block ... it has a huge advantage over other rigging systems. You don't need to learn blocks for some situations and contingency anchors for others. The figure eight block performs both functions. The releasable feature comes in handy when you toss the rope and are not quite sure if it reaches the ground. If it doesn't, simply release the block and feed out more rope. It also comes in handy when someone gets stuck on the rope (i.e. baggy clothing caught in rap device). When deployed in this "quick rescue" mode, it is important to have a rope twice the length of the rappel ... just in case someone becomes stuck near the top of the drop.

[tanya]

Happy Birthday Rich!

[skianddive]

rcwild wrote: You still don't get it.
I get it perfectly. You don't seem to understand, however, that a single article by an ambulance-chasing lawyer doesn't mean crap. If you took the time to look over some of the more expert material that I referenced, and then took the time to comprehend it, you would note that prosecuting people, for using instructional pictures which are not protected by a filed copyright and which are certainly not artistic, would be frivolous.

Now, if you took one of Tanya's pictures, which I know she hasn't copyrighted but she has signed, and then removed her watermark and passed them off as your own, she would have a *legal* case against you.


rcwild wrote: People with ethics do their best to follow the law, even if they know they won't be caught if they break it.
Just like the author of your reference article, huh?


rcwild wrote: Actually, I started looking into it right after Sombeech said he couldn't see the images. But feel free to take the credit if you need to.
I will take credit for it because I know what you did on the ACA site. Sombeech only complained of not being able to see the images, while you fixed *everything* that I complained about. You are not a very good fibber.

[skianddive]

tanya wrote: Happy Birthday Rich!
Careful, Tanya. You're treading on thin ice by using that picture - looks artistic to me. :haha:

The Internet Image Nazi might turn you in!

[rcwild]

tanya wrote: Happy Birthday Rich!

You're awesome, Tanya. Thank you. Now, if only you could deliver that in person ... :knary:

[skianddive]