Maybe We Need A Neighborhood Watch Program on Hancock Street Where Citizens Can Police Citizens

I'm in favor of a neighborhood watch program, but maybe an increase in police coverage (providing the budget will allow it) would help as well.

The Srrathglass Park Association is beginning a Neighborhood Watch program. I would imagine that the adjacent brick park apartments might be able to join their efforts. If not, you can contact Chief Carter for more information. Here is a link http://www.usaonwatch.org/ for more information on the national program.

It seems contradictory for TRR to be stating how we need to cut our police force and then complain when there is vandalism such as the sign at Hosmer and the window on Hancock St. I think in any neighborhood if a citizen sees something suspicious they call the police but it shouldn't be the citizen's job to patrol but if we keep cutting these departments they'll have no choice.

I applaud the efforts of the new owners, and wish them every success in making this property viable again. As for a Neighborhood Watch, I hope that there are enough concerned residents willing to sacrifice a few hours sleep to help prevent further senseless, juvenile acts of violence (emphasis on juvenile).
Of course, I can't look at that building and think that all it needs is a set of gasoline pumps and a garage door, and we'd have St. Cyr's Service Station back again. Sorry, I think I just heard the melody from "Memories" in the recesses of my brain.

Does anyone know the function of the building? I think it looks nice and I'm glad to see that it's being used again.

I believe it will be a beauty salon.

The RFP has received the following email alleging that this forum broke copyright laws when we allowed the original post in this thread to remain here. Here is her email:

From Jennifer Norris
oops.com

date Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:52 AM
subject COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
mailed-byroadrunner.com

https://rivervalleyfreepress.forumotion.com/accountability-f5/maybe-we-need-a-neighborhood-watch-program-on-hancock-street-where-citizens-can-police-citizens-t64.htm

THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM YOU OF A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. PLEASE REMOVE THIS STORY FROM YOUR WEBSITE (Maybe We Need A Neighborhood Watch Program on Hancock Street Where Citizens Can Police Citizens). YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAWS TO PRINT OUR STORIES IN THEIR ENTIRETY ON YOUR WEBSITE.

THANK YOU.

I didn't realize the information on TRR was copyrighted. However, In response to her email, the original post has been edited. We will also ask all of our members to not post stories from TRR in their entirety.

Thank you Ms. Norris for the notification about this issue and for your interest in our forum.

RVFP

I think we're covered so long as we indicate it is quoted and cite the source... we don't want to hyperlink to TRR though I think that is what she is trying to encourage.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


source

In the late 60's and early 70's, there was a recording artist name Harry Nilsson, who made (among others) an album called "The Point." It was the story of a boy named Oblio and his dog, Arrow, and their adventures in a metaphoric world that drew strange resemblence to the machinations of our federal, state and local governments. The underlying theme throughout the story is that people "see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear." I submit that the owner/editor/writer/reporter/janitor at TRR suffers from this philosophy. It seems that, yes, there are indeed copyright laws protecting written works from that consortium, but there is also a provision known as the "fair use" exemption. Brad Templeton at Templeton.com explains fair use in this way:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon."

I would suggest that RVFP, by posting the TRR story here, was most certainly inviting commentary and possibly parody about that organization and its editorial musings. And it is doubtful that the TRR story has any commercial value since the TRR issues are not being sold anywhere. The only remaining point of contention is whether or not the entire story needed to be reproduced to allow proper commentary and debate. I believe that there has been no grievance and that regarding copyright laws, TRR gets "The Point."

C: I didn't mean to step on you - I was composing my replhy when you posted, and I didn't see it until I finished. Please accept my apology.

Lol. not a problem Steve- my post just cited the law, your post explained it much better.

Content on TRR is proteted by a creative commons license that allows it to be shared for non-commercial purposes. Here is the entire legal wording of the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

C wrote:we don't want to hyperlink to TRR though I think that is what she is trying to encourage.

Nawh, she's complaining because she was caught violating copyright laws. It's nice to know she reads everything we post here though.