In some cases, we need to remember many copyrighted works are no more than a reorganization of existing concepts reorganized into a new format. That is, when someone writes a book on any broad subject, they have done research and assembled information in a certain format. Like a historian, they were not there to witness the events or do everything so they provide compilations from others. It is really this organization that is the basis of the copyright. The assertions in these works represent whatever the author wants. Often they are presented as fact but in fact they are no more than opinion or practice. The real question is does the author provide a complete footnoted document with references of all sources used.
I do understand why people do throw around the copyright word some. It happens often enough where some people do not want to have is to see what they are done is not taken by enterprising person, compiled in some way to make money off or take credit for what they did. For ex. on one forum someone posted a 5 cycle process...word for word like Meg's process but no mention of Meg's. I am sure AG and others do not mind people referring to those nice charts as long as they get credit for it since it builds the reputation. For example, if someone took all Mike's lessons and compiled them on a DVD and sold them to people, that is copyright infringement.
I like Mike's approach of showing techniques with various products rather than one opus on one set routine with specific products listed. Detailing is just not that exact. Emphasize the steps, not the products.
