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! =-----

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , "Bra=ECnbuster"

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,


And it will be countered with copyright rules that -are- enforced. Do
you have a point to your beer babble this evening?


you go back and figure out where and why

that concept originated.


"A law is not a law unless it is enforced" is not a concept,,just a
half-baked, comment from yourself that no one else has ever heard,
agrees with, or adheres. Twisted, man,

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.

In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
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,


And it will be countered with copyright rules that -are- enforced. Do
you have a point to your beer babble this evening?


you go back and figure out where and why

that concept originated.


"A law is not a law unless it is enforced" is not a concept,,just a
half-baked, comment from yourself that no one else has ever heard,
agrees with, or adheres. Twisted, man,


Try looking up the term 'positivism' in reference to jurisprudence. You might
also stop by your local public library and see if they have a copy of "The
Concept of Law" by H.L.A. Hart (Oxford, 1961). Excellent book.... that is, it
-could- be an excellent book if you can overcome your communication deficit long
enough to read it.







-----= 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! =-----