| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
From: =A0=A0 Frank Gilliland Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Announcement To The Group Date: =A0=A0 Sun, Feb 22, 2004, 8:16pm (EST-3) X-Trace: =A0=A0 corp.newsgroups.com 1077509839 216.64.140.103 (22 Feb 2004 22:17:19 -0600) X-Comments: =A0=A0 This message was posted through A href X-Comments2: =A0=A0 IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone, X-Report: =A0=A0 Please report illegal or inappropriate use to X-Comments3: =A0=A0 A href =3D"http://www.newsgroups.com"Visit Organization: =A0=A0 Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. In , "Bra=ECnbuster" wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... In , "Bra=ECnbuster" A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. Mercy sakes alive..... |
Twistedhed wrote in message
... Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. Mercy sakes alive..... Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think, maybe a closet Keyclown? ;~) According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove the "infringement" of such laws. Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection to the Internet. Regards. Peter. |
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. I'll remember that next time you lot are whining about CB rules not being enforced. You can still go to the originating site and view the picture in all of its unaltered glory. The -copy- was altered. Unless the offender breaks into the property of a copyright owner and mutilates their original copy... then that is ALWAYS the case. If they did get to the authors original copy, then the case would be one of breaking in and criminal damage - not copyright. Even the image on the site will not be an "original"... that is a copy of an image held somewhere else. You can also publically display copyrighted material all you want if you are the owner of the copyright. That was never in dispute. Registration is -not- a requirement for copyright protection. It -IS- a requirement to seek civil remedies for infringement. Exactly. Just remember not to whine about non-enforcement of CB rules, because the FCC believe that the results do not justify the costs of action large enough to make even a small dent in the "problem". We get the same over here, CB rules have been broken for years. The RIS got so fed up with being snowed under while under-funded, that they found a way around it: 1. Remove and change rules to make those people legal. 2. Force victims of interference to take a long and costly "remedy - or suffer". The number of violators dropped rather quickly when they removed most of the unenforceable rules... and then again when they effectively stopped the complaints by putting the procedure out of sight and out of reach. At least we all know where you stand on the matter of "infringement" (law breaking)... it's fine to "freeband", as long as nobody can claim those frequencies are being "stolen" from them. Anyway, they still have the original frequencies in their radio... freebanders are only using the copies in their radios :~) |
In , while pounding his keyboard in despair,
"Peter the Hypocrite" spotted a post by TwistyDave that gave him a glimmer of hope and wrote: Twistedhed wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. Mercy sakes alive..... Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think, maybe a closet Keyclown? ;~) According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove the "infringement" of such laws. Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection to the Internet. Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a line connecting keyclowns with child porn is somehow going to validate his argument.... This wasn't a contest, Peter, but you are sure acting like a sore loser. The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable; 2) child porn perverts -do- get busted (several hundred in a single sting operation last year, or don't you read the news?); 3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright infringement, and therefore the issue of child porn has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement; and 4) you are a hypocrite for even trying to make such a connection when it is that very same behavior by others in this newsgroup that you have claimed to despise. And the concept that "a law is not a law unless it can be enforced" is an old one, and certainly -doesn't- apply to keyclowns since those laws can indeed be enforced -- the FCC is just too busy taking bids (and probably kickbacks) on prime spectrum space. Got any more lame arguments? This post Copyright 2004 by Frank Gilliland, all rights reserved. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
From: (Bra=ECnbuster)
Twistedhed wrote in message ... =A0=A0=A0=A0Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. Mercy sakes alive..... _ (Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think, maybe a closet Keyclown?) Full blown Kloset KeyKlown? Now THERE is made-up word we can live with..... =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0;~) (According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove the "infringement" of such laws. Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection to the Internet. Regards. Peter.) Excellent point, especialy since it has been shown members of Team Voob have tried to defend illegal and perverted actions regarding sex and children...such as intentionally eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex on cordless phones. There most definitely exists a pattern here that Team voob members share regarding such filth. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a line connecting keyclowns with child porn is somehow going to validate his argument.... Brain didn't draw that line,,,Hall did by telling us how he got excited regarding his illegal monitoring of minor girls while they spoke of sex on a private telephone. |
In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. I'll remember that next time you lot are whining about CB rules not being enforced. You do that. And while I point out specific cases where CB rules -are- enforced, you go back and figure out where and why that concept originated. You can still go to the originating site and view the picture in all of its unaltered glory. The -copy- was altered. Unless the offender breaks into the property of a copyright owner and mutilates their original copy... then that is ALWAYS the case. If they did get to the authors original copy, then the case would be one of breaking in and criminal damage - not copyright. Even the image on the site will not be an "original"... that is a copy of an image held somewhere else. Very good. Maybe there's hope for you yet..... You can also publically display copyrighted material all you want if you are the owner of the copyright. That was never in dispute. You coughed up an unqualified, "....copying and public display of copyright material is illegal", which is not true if the person making the copies or public display is the owner of the copyright. Correct? (Be careful here, I'm setting you up!) Registration is -not- a requirement for copyright protection. It -IS- a requirement to seek civil remedies for infringement. Exactly. You don't even know what you agreed with. Just remember not to whine about non-enforcement of CB rules, because the FCC believe that the results do not justify the costs of action large enough to make even a small dent in the "problem". The "problem" is the FCC. We get the same over here, CB rules have been broken for years. The RIS got so fed up with being snowed under while under-funded, that they found a way around it: 1. Remove and change rules to make those people legal. 2. Force victims of interference to take a long and costly "remedy - or suffer". The number of violators dropped rather quickly when they removed most of the unenforceable rules... and then again when they effectively stopped the complaints by putting the procedure out of sight and out of reach. Cause and effect, Peter. But make sure you have your causes and effects matched up correctly. Now, back to copyright infringement..... At least we all know where you stand on the matter of "infringement" (law breaking)... it's fine to "freeband", as long as nobody can claim those frequencies are being "stolen" from them. The frequencies being "stolen" are "registered" with the federal government, which makes the violators subject to "remedies for infringement". You lose again, Peter. Don't you even think about this stuff before you type it? Anyway, they still have the original frequencies in their radio... freebanders are only using the copies in their radios :~) Now that's just plain dumb. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
but you are sure acting like a sore loser. You go all around the houses, trying to pretend that no law was broken, then finally admit that it was. But that's OK... because he can get away with it. Doing a U-turn", in an attempt to mask your previous claims - then declaring the other person the "loser" will not work. You finally admitted what I already said... you agree with violating certain laws, because the victims may not be able (or willing) to take action. The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable; Really. How does one trace the user of a mobile 'phone? For example, the company who provide my mobile 'phone service have no details of my name or address... but I still have the service. I just go to a shop, and "top up" the phone at any time. If I violated terms of service, at best all they could do is to shut down the service. I could then sell the 'phone in a free-ads paper and get another. Just like Google accounts - if you get "busted, you just get another. The "untraceable" reports are being mentioned on UK TV and radio, and by child protection groups... so take up the argument with them. 2) child porn perverts -do- get busted (several hundred in a single sting operation last year, or don't you read the news?); I think you need to look up a bit more, get the full facts. The American "sting" operation *identified* many UK perverts. Try finding out how FEW of those perverts actually got "busted". The UK police have a long list of "perverts" handed to them by the American police... but are sitting on that list. There is a big difference between being "stung" by some operation and being successfully prosecuted... specially if you happen to be members of the UK Government. Oh yes, some Government perverts were reportedly "stung", but they have not been dealt with. In fact, the story seems to have been dropped. No doubt, when Tony p*ss*s off another one of his ministers, they will then spill the beans on who is involved - like they have on the spying done on U.N. people. 3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright infringement, That's it, Frankie... twist and squirm with silly replies. Got any more lame arguments? Have you got any more lame excuses why you and your buddies should be exempt from the law? Here you go, Frankie... I'll try to put it in terms that even you should be able to understand: What stops enforcement of CB laws: Time, money and resources. Clearly the authorities are unwilling to spend the money on the equipment and work-force needed to tackle the "problem". What stops the UK taking enforcement against the perverts identified by the American "sting" operation: Time, money and resources. The department is under-funded and under-staffed. In fact, it has been reported that they are so under-funded that they are relying on software that can be obtained free. Not that which is best for the job - that which is free. What stops enforcement action against some copyright violators. Time, money and resources. All it takes is registration to allow them to take legal action - but that costs money. If someone has many items to copyright, then the costs can be high, and staff may be needed just to deal with registration of material as it is created. Put simply, same thing. If you believe that, because a copyright holder will not spend time and money on actions needed to enforce the law, that breaking that law is acceptable, then you are suggesting that all other laws which lack the funding to enforce them are fair game for criminals. You claim to be "pro-legal", yet stand up for breaking certain laws... because you can get away with it. |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
... You are wrong. I never admitted he broke the law. You defended him with a rule that applies once violation has taken place. If he broke no law, then your "no court action" reply does not apply. The problem is that you have yet to show which law you claim was violated. I have answered that, even giving you the links. Not my fault you lack the ability to understand English. However, you have yet to show how non-registration makes it legal for *anyone* to copy, display, and even alter such items. The willingness of a victim to take action has nothing to do with whether a law was violated or not. At last, you agree... so whether or not a copyright owner decides to take required action for a civil action to be possible makes no difference - the law was broken. I am beginning to think you are losing the plot... forgetting whether you should be arguing the "pro-legal" point, or that of the criminal mind. Doesn't the phone use some sort of unique identification (like, for instance, a 'phone number')? How do these give your name and address... the police cannot arrest a number. Unless that ID is linked to a name and address, it is useless for anything but contacting the person. Is it immune to triangulation? The key word here is "mobile". Sure, if someone is stupid enough to use it from home for that kind of thing. Even then, it would require time, money, and workforce - yet the police are not even given the funding to chase those who have already been identified. If these tactics were available here and used for anything, it would be used for things such as missing people. Two 10 year old girls, carrying a mobile phone, go missing... yet the phone was not tracked down to find them. And if you dispose of the phone, does it somehow sterilize itself of any trace evidence Depends on if you put it on the fire (or in the furnace at your work place). I wouldn't imagine that much could be obtained from the ashes left over from the fires used in the houses around here. (remembering that a phone is something you hold to your head and speak into; i.e, it collects hair, dandruff and saliva)? Only any use if the police already have the name and address, so they can collect samples from the suspect... no good for "tracking" someone down. Plus, it also comes down to the commitment of the service provider to make sure that they are able to track down that phone... even if it has been changed to another provider (as they often are). Heck, Frankie, they cannot even track down the 1000s of mobile phones that get stolen. And not forgetting how this world is turning into a giant television studio, does this phone somehow render you invisible to surveillance cameras and microphones whenever you use it? If it does all of that then I would consider it to be 'untraceable'. You do sound rather paranoid. Next time you go to take a p*ss in a lavatory, better check for a camera first. The only cameras in this small town would be the few used privately for private areas. As long as someone doesn't break in to a property, just to use their phone, I would say that they needn't worry too much. I would imagine that many areas are the same, apart from large town and city centres. The fact is that some -do- get busted, which was my point. So do *many* copyright criminals. When they get names of violators, they act on it - breaking down doors in "dawn raids" and collecting evidence. They also walk round "car boot" sales and "flea markets", where copyright infringement is most common, busting people on the spot. They are even smart enough to pin-point and grab the "look-outs" (often children), before they get to warn their boss that the "fuzz" are coming. 3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright infringement, and therefore the issue of child porn has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement; If you think that violating laws is OK when the victims are unlikely or unable to take action is fine, then you must love child pornographers and their customers - their victims are often unwilling (or even unable) to speak out or take any action. Again, willingness to enforce the law does not nullify its violation. EXACTLY. You are now arguing MY point... just because the copyright holder may not be willing to take action (which he could if he registers the material or if it is not of US origin), it doesn't mean that a law has not been violated. Yet they still operate. If the violators were impossible to trace (your own words), then there is no point in trying, is there? But they still try. If their conviction rate is zero, why do they keep trying, Peter? Your problem is your lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of some people. You can only understand the "urges" you feel to vent your anger at anyone you can. So, it is not surprising that you do not understand the desire of some people to keep trying against the odds when they know that what they are doing is good for other people. By keeping going, they are getting some "busts", and making a big issue of the under-funding. The fact that it is public knowledge that they lack funds is proof that they are getting the issue known. With enough pressure, the government may give them the funding - specially if they feel it is a vote winner. Just like the lack of CB enforcement and some people putting pressure on by reporting those taking Amateur band space illegally. I hear that some CBers have noticed that, due to that pressure, enforcement has been on the increase - and aimed at the big targets. Even after all this time, you -=STILL=- haven't even read the code. Registering a copyright allows the victim to take -civil- action. There is also -criminal- action for copyright violators for which the owner of the copyright needs no registration, and those violations are specified in the -criminal- part of the code which I have already quoted and you subsequently ignored. You mean section 412, the one that refers to what can or cannot be done in the case of an infringement? You still seem to be relying on the "they can do nothing about it" theory. If the works are unregistered, it is because the copyright owner decided not to take that action. Now, remember your words? The willingness of a victim to take action has nothing to do with whether a law was violated or not. So, now show us the part where it says that anyone can legally copy, display, or "mutilate" copyright material, as long as the material is unregistered. Never mind the childish insults, someone of your "advanced" years really should know better. It seems to display a loss of control of a situation and your emotions. Maybe Tim can give you something to calm you down, put you at peace with the world. Just watch where you stub the thing out - I hear that you can be in trouble if you are not careful about disposal of cigarette ends. With all those cameras watching, you are sure to get caught. You claim to be "pro-legal", yet stand up for breaking certain laws... because you can get away with it. You are a hypocrite for even suggesting such a thing. Sure, Frankie, just because I refuse to see how a "pro-legal" person can defend copyright infringement, that makes me a "hypocrite", huh. Like the emperor's new clothes... if we cannot see your imaginary "cop out", we must be stupid hypocrites. |
In 40443d3a.0@entanet, "Braìnbuster" wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . snip babble Even after all this time, you -=STILL=- haven't even read the code. Registering a copyright allows the victim to take -civil- action. There is also -criminal- action for copyright violators for which the owner of the copyright needs no registration, and those violations are specified in the -criminal- part of the code which I have already quoted and you subsequently ignored. You mean section 412, the one that refers to what can or cannot be done in the case of an infringement? Un-dirty-word-believable. This exchange has continued for this long, yet you -----------[[[[ STILL ]]]--------------- haven't read the code. Well, recess is over, Peter...... Start with Sec. 501, entitled "Infringement of Copyright", which defines a copyright infringer as "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner AS PROVIDED by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a)...."[emphasis added]. Okay, we now have a law that clearly states what comprises an infringement! Holy ****, that was just too damn difficult, wasn't it, Peter? Whew...!!! Next we look at the PROVISIONS -- sections 106 through 121. What do THEY say? Let's see, first come the 'rights' of a copyright..... Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Sec. 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity ......which nobody is disputing. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to copy the work, and the author may have exclusive right to claim authorship. Real simple, huh? Okay. Now, did you notice the first line of Sec. 106? It says, "Subject to sections 107 through 121", which means a copyright has LIMITATIONS, as can plainly be seen in most of the following titles: Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Sec. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord Sec. 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays Sec. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions Sec. 112. Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings Sec. 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works Sec. 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings Sec. 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords Sec. 116. Negotiated licenses for public performances by means of coin-operated phonorecord players Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs Sec. 118. Scope of exclusive rights: Use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting Sec. 119. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of superstations and network stations for private home viewing Sec. 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works Sec. 121. Limitations on exclusive rights: reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities Let's just start at the beginning, shall we? Sec. 107 -- "Fair Use". Just what does that mean? As Mr. Owl says, "Let's find out!" ======== "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." ======== Now let's apply each factor to the web page in question. (1) What was the purpose and character of the use of the copy? Was it used for commercial purposes? No. Was it for nonprofit educational purposes? I suppose a technical argument could be made there, but I personally wouldn't consider it educational. So that section doesn't help. (2) What was the nature of the work from which the picture was copied? Well, it wasn't exactly a work of art, and it certainly wasn't anything someone would pay to view in and of itself. (3) How much of the original work was copied? One picture from the original page. Byte-wise it is only 20% of the work. Size-wise it is much less. And since the pic has very little to do with the topic of the page, it certainly can't be considered to be an indispensible component of the work. On the contrary, it's a fairly poor quality image for the intended purpose of the page. (4) What impact did the use of the copy have on the owners of the original page? Is it affecting their business? No, and it's not like this was a bootleg CD sold by the thousands, or a forgery of a famous painting being sold as the original. The original page isn't even selling the page -- it's free to view by anyone! Has the author's reputation suffered by the use of that copied photo? Do you even know who the author (or authors) is? And who, beside you, actually cares that it was copied? Apparently not even the owner of the copyright cares! So do -you- think that the copy in question falls under the "fair use" clause? I think most people are reasonable enough to see that there was no infringement here. But you probably don't see it the same way, and that's fine, because we have many, many more sections filled with copyright limitations to consider, not to mention the limitations under criminal infringement as outlined in Sec. 506. We should take a look at that real quick: ======== (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either - (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. ======== WOW! Look at that -- another law that defines infringement, and with provisions for punishment, too! By golly we are really getting somewhere now, aren't we, Peter? But wait! It says, "...evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement." Well, Peter, what else did he do that might constitute criminal infringement? Anything? Did his actions result in "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain"? Did the copy he made of the photo have a retail value of more than $1,000? Anything at all? Can't you think of ANYTHING ELSE he did that might make his actions illegal under criminal code? No? Well, we are running out of law. He's not guilty of infringement under civil or criminal law. How about case law? Oh, that's right, I already mentioned the movie.... you know, the one with the title that is the same as the case: "The People vs. Larry Flynt". You know what the US Supreme Court determined there, Peter? That parodies are protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going to claim that the web page in question is not a parody then you had better up your dosage on the Thorazine because you don't have a very good grip on reality. Sure, Frankie, just because I refuse to see how a "pro-legal" person can defend copyright infringement, that makes me a "hypocrite", huh. Like the emperor's new clothes... if we cannot see your imaginary "cop out", we must be stupid hypocrites. You have it all wrong, Peter: You are a stupid hypocrite not because you refuse to see how a pro-legal person can defend copyright infringement, but because you refuse to see that I am -not- defending copyright infringement at all. THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMENT as defined by CIVIL LAW, by CRIMINAL LAW, by CASE LAW, by PUBLIC CONSENSUS (since nobody else is whining), and also apparently by the AUTHOR (who also is not whining). There was only YOU desperately looking for another reason to attack people in the newsgroup that you don't like! Get some therapy. I hear that Twisty regularly visits a very good shrink, but it might take a while to get used to his invisibility...... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..
I hear that Twisty regularly visits a very good shrink, but it might take a while to get used to his invisibility...... OMG ROFLMFAO that is hilarious but so true |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com