GO!

People who own Monica Segal's books

This is a dedicated place for all of your questions and answers about Raw Diets. There are also some really cool groups like "Raw Fed" on the topic you can join. This forum is for people who already know they like the raw diet or sincerely want to learn more. Please remember that you are receiving advice from peers and not professionals. If you have specific health-related questions about your dog's diet, please contact your vet!

  
(Page 1 of 2: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  
"Selli"

The Muddy- Princess
 
 
Barked: Wed Aug 15, '12 12:08pm PST 
Would anyone be willing to send me the nutritional analysis of chicken backs or necks (w/o skin) from Monica Segal's book?

Thanks
[notify]


Member Since
09/11/2012
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 12:30am PST 
Actually, this would be copyright infringement, and especially since I paid to have analyses of RMBs done.
[notify]
Maxwell

I'm triple- superior MAD- now!
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 2:24am PST 
Right, that one is copyrighted. Here is another analysis of chicken necks.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090213125326/http://www.barfwor ld.com/html/barfworld/analysis.html
[notify]



Member Since
09/11/2012
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 3:35am PST 
Which is inaccurate at best. That's to be expected when 1-3 samples are given to a lab...but if it works for you.
[notify]


Member Since
09/11/2012
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 3:39am PST 
Which is inaccurate at best. That's what happens when you send 1-3 samples to a lab. It takes much more than that to get a proper answer...but if you're content with that...
[notify]
Nare

Woo-woo- whineybutt
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 6:15am PST 
Feel free to enlighten us then, oh wise one. laugh out loud If it is so inaccurate then prove the source wrong.

Unless the person lending the information is claiming that all of it is theirs, and that they wrote it or did the analysis, then copyright means nothing. It isn't a crime to buy a book and then lend it to a friend, no violation of copyright there.
[notify]


Member Since
07/10/2012
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 7:10am PST 
Right you are, Nare. Facts cannot be copyrighted. Copyrights protect one's creativity.
[notify]
Rexy

I dig in mud- puddles!
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 12:50pm PST 
Also, the last time I checked (which was a few years ago, mind you), one could legally copy up to 10% of a copyrighted volume.
I can't pass it off as my own, but I am free to keep that material and use it for my personal use...
[notify]


Member Since
09/11/2012
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 1:15pm PST 
You are correct that loaning a book is perfectly legal. No doubt about it. But you might want to check with your lawyer about written information (original work re analyses) that was paid for by someone else being placed on a public forum. In this case, the 10% rule doesn't apply and our lawyers proved it. We've won one lawsuit already (only one site tried this is the past)and would be happy to ask our lawyers to get on board again, but why would it reach that level when basic respect for one's work should suffice? Protecting that work should be expected. It's simple, really. Send a private email with whatever information you'd like, keep it private rather than public, and everyone wins.

By the way, name-calling and sarcasm is beneath you, or so one would hope.
[notify]
Winston-dog

Sir Winston- Crazy-dog - can we play yet?
 
 
Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 2:04pm PST 
In that case Selli should be able to recieve the information via pm, as it is less than 10% of the copyrighted work and thus more similar to somebody photocopying the relevant pages and posting them to her, or lending Selli the book and they copy it for personal use. Is this correct?
(which I remember from my library work is legal, up to 10% (assuming copyright law is the same worldwide))
This would avoid your objection to the information being made public.

As a side note, if you are stating the other analysis is inaccurate due to insufficient sample size, I would expect your analysis to be peer-reviewed and thus in the public domain anyway? Was it published in any scientific journal to prove it is a better designed analysis?

Edited for clarity

Edited by author Tue Sep 11, '12 2:06pm PST

[notify]
  (Page 1 of 2: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2