| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Announcement To The Group
You assclowns are totally clueless.
I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ |
|
|
How is a page you set up proof that you're not? Sounds like a circular
argument to me.... -SSB I Am Not George wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ |
|
"Lancer" wrote in message ... On 27 Jan 2004 12:37:15 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Ok, what ever George. Well watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
"BP" wrote in message ... (I Am Not George) wrote in m: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Fishy odor brought to you by google, the usenet trolls best friend.. It's ok BP, watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Landshark |
"Landshark" wrote in
. com: "Lancer" wrote in message ... On 27 Jan 2004 12:37:15 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Ok, what ever George. Well watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Landshark Read this part assclown, for personal use... LOL you are so damn impotent. Quoted Text "Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission." I'll ask again George, please stop changing your screen addy to by pass my kill file filters to harrass, troll my posts. No where did I mention you and this is harassment. Landshark Cc. to Hey dip**** you have been chasing "george" with every one of your posts for years, you "mention" george every day of your life. I am not george and the guy at comcast isnt either so now what LOL go shove a cactus tree up your ass STFU and quit your harassment of this news group. Cc. to abuse@your gay ass http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:37:35 -0600, Impotent Shark wrote:
"Landshark" wrote in .com: "Lancer" wrote in message ... On 27 Jan 2004 12:37:15 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Ok, what ever George. Well watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Landshark Read this part assclown, for personal use... LOL you are so damn impotent. Read this part dumbass, where you said you took the test. Which is it? On 27 Jan 2004 19:43:02 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: Because I took a polygraph test and had the picture notarized you stupid assclown. If you want a circular argment try twistinuts. |
Lancer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:37:35 -0600, Impotent Shark wrote: "Landshark" wrote in y.com: "Lancer" wrote in message ... On 27 Jan 2004 12:37:15 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Ok, what ever George. Well watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Landshark Read this part assclown, for personal use... LOL you are so damn impotent. Read this part dumbass, where you said you took the test. Which is it? On 27 Jan 2004 19:43:02 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: Because I took a polygraph test and had the picture notarized you stupid assclown. If you want a circular argment try twistinuts. The pic is still for personal use. Just because I took the test so what, butt****. |
Impotent Mark wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in om: Hey dip**** you have been chasing "george" with every one of your posts for years, you "mention" george every day of your life. I am not george and the guy at comcast isnt either so now what LOL go shove a cactus tree up your ass STFU and quit your harassment of this news group. Cc. to abuse@your gay ass http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ You know what isn't that the goddamn truth Damn straight |
|
Lancer wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004 08:06:51 -0800, (I Am George) wrote: The pic is still for personal use. Just because I took the test so what, butt****. LOL! you are to funny George, drunk already this early in the morning? I am not George and I have proved that to you but go on calling me that if you want, you must be drunk on the fumes from Landsharks ass to be humping my leg this early. |
Impotent Shark wrote in message ...
Read this part assclown, for personal use... LOL you are so damn impotent. Quoted Text "Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission." Public display is not considered "personal use". Once you display something publically, the "personal use" rule is useless to you... and you are open to prosecution under copyright laws, which also cover public display or performance of copyright material. Before you go wild, I am just making you aware of the law... as I have done with CB laws where someone really wanted to know. Whether you take notice of that law is up to you, but at least you are fully aware of the situation. If they come after you, you cannot say that nobody warned you. But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. |
"Braìnbuster" wrote:
Impotent Shark wrote in message ... Read this part assclown, for personal use... LOL you are so damn impotent. Quoted Text "Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission." Public display is not considered "personal use". Once you display something publically, the "personal use" rule is useless to you... and you are open to prosecution under copyright laws, which also cover public display or performance of copyright material. Before you go wild, I am just making you aware of the law... as I have done with CB laws where someone really wanted to know. Whether you take notice of that law is up to you, but at least you are fully aware of the situation. If they come after you, you cannot say that nobody warned you. But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. You might as well be talking to the wall. |
"Braìnbuster" wrote in message ...
But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. why would you want to defend stealing frequencies? or do you mean just shut up and dont say anything about it because the people who do it feel bad if there called on it? |
I Am Not George wrote in message ...
"Braìnbuster" wrote in message ... But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. why would you want to defend stealing frequencies? I have done no such thing, so maybe you should tell me why I should. What I do say is that a copyright thief is still a thief, and is in no position to whine about other people who he calls thieves. So, I am speaking out against theft... and you seem to be defending theft with excuses and diversions. The words "personal use" will not get you out of trouble if you get caught for public display of copyright material. As you are so keen on "ratting" on "criminals", are you going to rat on yourself, or wait until one of your victims decides to make you pay for your crimes. It just goes to show one thing - the "akc" are the criminals on this newsgroup, copyright theives and repeater jammers... anyone want to add to the list of crimes these so called "pro-legal" trolls are guilty of? |
Steveo wrote in message ...
"Braìnbuster" wrote: Before you go wild, I am just making you aware of the law... as I have done with CB laws where someone really wanted to know. Whether you take notice of that law is up to you, but at least you are fully aware of the situation. If they come after you, you cannot say that nobody warned you. But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. You might as well be talking to the wall. The "akc" show themselves for what they are - criminals. While they are busy complaining about and "ratting out" illegal equipment, they are happily breaking laws themselves. When they are made aware of their illegal position, they divert attention. If we didn't know better, we would think that they had no respect for the law. Wait a minute... we don't know any better. I really would love to hear about them getting "ratted out" for their crimes - specially if it is done by one of their victims. With copyright theft, there may be no set "fine" to rely on... the victim of the crime will go for a figure they feel is right as compensation, then you can add legal costs to that. Regards. Peter. |
In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote: Steveo wrote in message ... "Braìnbuster" wrote: Before you go wild, I am just making you aware of the law... as I have done with CB laws where someone really wanted to know. Whether you take notice of that law is up to you, but at least you are fully aware of the situation. If they come after you, you cannot say that nobody warned you. But remember, if you don't care about stealing copyright material, then don't lecture people about stealing frequencies. You might as well be talking to the wall. The "akc" show themselves for what they are - criminals. While they are busy complaining about and "ratting out" illegal equipment, they are happily breaking laws themselves. What laws are they breaking? When they are made aware of their illegal position, they divert attention. If we didn't know better, we would think that they had no respect for the law. Wait a minute... we don't know any better. I really would love to hear about them getting "ratted out" for their crimes - specially if it is done by one of their victims. With copyright theft, there may be no set "fine" to rely on... the victim of the crime will go for a figure they feel is right as compensation, then you can add legal costs to that. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft", and by whom? -----= 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! =----- |
In , "Hypocrite Landshark"
wrote: "Lancer" wrote in message .. . On 27 Jan 2004 12:37:15 -0800, (I Am Not George) wrote: You assclowns are totally clueless. I am not George. I never was him. Here is proof. http://www.geocities.com/iamnotgeorge2004/ Ok, what ever George. Well watch how fast the picture comes down when he finds out that it is copyrighted material. Copyright © 2004 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission Here's where he got the pictu http://www.nas.edu/annualreport/educ02.htm and the link to their legal page http://www.nationalacademies.org/legal/ I sure hope that no one turns him in, that could cost a bundle. Hypocrite Landshark Hmmmm.... let's see now.... the name is signed "Not George", the notory is fake, and the page isn't being used for any commercial gain or profit. Looks to me like the picture is used as part of a parody or joke. How is that not "personal use"? Because you happen to be on the butt-end of the joke? Even if the NAS decided to prosecute "George" for a violation of their copyright, they would have to show the damages that resulted from the use of the picture. What are those damages? There aren't any. And you should also notice that their copyright declaration is very explicit. So explicit, in fact, that I don't even think it would hold up in court unless the violation was glaringly obvious -and- there were significant damages. And if it -did- hold up in court, you would have to be prosecuted as well since you copied their legal page verbatim. So once again you live up to your name -- Hypocrite Landshark. -----= 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 ...
What laws are they breaking? Have you not been following the thread? Try looking, the answer is right in front of you. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft", Are people and companies outside of this newsgroup not entitled to the protection of the law? Is it not illegal if it doesn't involve this newsgroup or CB radio? Are some criminals above the law, as they consider themselves part of some "akc" organisation? Do the ends always justify the means - can people break the law in an attempt to "slap" other criminals? Otherwise, what is your point? |
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
What laws are they breaking? If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a lawyer. Try public display of copyright material... http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display Copyright law gives specific sole rights to the copyright owner... The right to reproduce the copyrighted work, The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work, The right to distribute copies of the work to the public, The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly, The right to display the copyrighted work publicly. Giving permission for any one of these acts does NOT give rights for any other restricted act. A copyright owner can give permission for copying for personal use, while retaining sole rights for public display of the work. Registration and copyright notices are NOT required for protection to apply or legal action to be possible. Copyright exists as soon as a copy exists, even if the work is not completed. When a work is "created": http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html Copyright subsists in works fixed in any tangible medium: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html Copyright infringement a federal law: http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm According to the above site, Americans breaking copyright laws are "federal criminals", with a possible $10,000 fine. Is that not the same as the possible fine for illegal CB? As with CB laws, whether someone gets caught can be another matter - and if a person wants to take the risk, that's their business. But, telling that person that it is OK to do it is no better than telling someone to use an illegal amp - and breaking copyright laws is no better than breaking CB laws. Also, what a copyright owner will try and what they can manage will depend upon who they are and how much power (or money) they can throw at it. A big business may throw so much money at a case, that it will end up as a loss for them... but they will make an example of the person in the hope that others are scared. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft"? Where have I said that anyone in this group was victimised by copyright theft? What a goddam hypocrite you are, Peter. YOU are the hypocrite... you claim to be "pro-legal", yet jump to defend the violation of copyright laws. But then, it's not about the law, it's about WHO is doing something. All I did was tell someone something, and you jump in with your typical angry attitude. I'll bet you went bright red and needed a lie down to recover from your fit. I wonder why you feel the need to jump in and "protect" that particular person - why anyone suggesting that they may be breaking a law makes you so angry. Ask yourself who is doing him a favour - the person warning him of what could happen, or the person suggesting that he should go ahead regardless? If I was out to get him, I would simply of kept quiet, reported it, and laughed as he got "slapped". I have made it clear that I use LEGAL CB equipment with no power amps (or pre-amps, as they are illegal here), I have advised people against using amps (where they really wanted to know), and I have spoke my mind about certain add-ons and their fitting methods. Yet, in spite of "antikeyclown" suggestions about "anger", I have had no angry response from the "keyclown" side - only from the "anti" side. Strange how the "pro-legal" mob gladly attack a legal CBer, then claim that the "keyclowns" chase legal CBers from the group. Just don't be surprised when nobody believes your claim to be "pro-legal"... the "antikeyclown" crud is all just a cover for trolling this group or working off some anger. The "anti" mob do more to damage the image of legal CB and promote illegal activities than any of your "enemies" ever could with their words. |
In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... What laws are they breaking? If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a lawyer. Try public display of copyright material... http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display Copyright law gives specific sole rights to the copyright owner... The right to reproduce the copyrighted work, The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work, The right to distribute copies of the work to the public, The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly, The right to display the copyrighted work publicly. Giving permission for any one of these acts does NOT give rights for any other restricted act. A copyright owner can give permission for copying for personal use, while retaining sole rights for public display of the work. Registration and copyright notices are NOT required for protection to apply or legal action to be possible. Copyright exists as soon as a copy exists, even if the work is not completed. When a work is "created": http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html Copyright subsists in works fixed in any tangible medium: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html Try this: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/412.html Copyright infringement a federal law: http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm According to the above site, Americans breaking copyright laws are "federal criminals", with a possible $10,000 fine. Is that not the same as the possible fine for illegal CB? As with CB laws, whether someone gets caught can be another matter - and if a person wants to take the risk, that's their business. But, telling that person that it is OK to do it is no better than telling someone to use an illegal amp - and breaking copyright laws is no better than breaking CB laws. Also, what a copyright owner will try and what they can manage will depend upon who they are and how much power (or money) they can throw at it. A big business may throw so much money at a case, that it will end up as a loss for them... but they will make an example of the person in the hope that others are scared. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft"? Where have I said that anyone in this group was victimised by copyright theft? You still didn't answer the question. What a goddam hypocrite you are, Peter. YOU are the hypocrite... you claim to be "pro-legal", yet jump to defend the violation of copyright laws. But then, it's not about the law, it's about WHO is doing something. All I did was tell someone something, and you jump in with your typical angry attitude. I'll bet you went bright red and needed a lie down to recover from your fit. I wonder why you feel the need to jump in and "protect" that particular person - why anyone suggesting that they may be breaking a law makes you so angry. Ask yourself who is doing him a favour - the person warning him of what could happen, or the person suggesting that he should go ahead regardless? If I was out to get him, I would simply of kept quiet, reported it, and laughed as he got "slapped". I have made it clear that I use LEGAL CB equipment with no power amps (or pre-amps, as they are illegal here), I have advised people against using amps (where they really wanted to know), and I have spoke my mind about certain add-ons and their fitting methods. Yet, in spite of "antikeyclown" suggestions about "anger", I have had no angry response from the "keyclown" side - only from the "anti" side. Strange how the "pro-legal" mob gladly attack a legal CBer, then claim that the "keyclowns" chase legal CBers from the group. Just don't be surprised when nobody believes your claim to be "pro-legal"... the "antikeyclown" crud is all just a cover for trolling this group or working off some anger. The "anti" mob do more to damage the image of legal CB and promote illegal activities than any of your "enemies" ever could with their words. Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law. Let's try this one more time..... Study the code from the link I quoted above, verify all of its references to other sections of the code that are relevant to this specific 'case', then come back and try -once again- to tell us what law was broken. I should add that Randy recently voiced his opinion about me, and it's not one that I haven't heard before. He feels that I am preoccupied with 'being right' all the time. That's not far from the truth, which is that I am careful not to be wrong when I talk about something. Sure, it happens once in a while that I do put the cart before the horse, claiming something as true before I verify the facts. That doesn't happen often, and when it does I'm the first to admit it. Now some people hate people like me, the "Mr. Know-It-All" type, but that's their problem (maybe they never heard the story of the Fox and the Grapes). If they don't like me proving them wrong then tough **** -- they should learn to keep mouths shut. And I'm not going to intentionally spout off about things I know nothing about just to win a popularity award from a crowd that does. So if you are arguing this subject just because you hate the 'know-it-all' types like me, it would be best if you quit now because I know what I'm talking about on this subject. However, if you sincerely think that you are right, prove it and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Fair enough? -----= 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! =----- |
"Braìnbuster" wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... What laws are they breaking? I guess Frank didn't go to the website that the picture was stolen from. He would have read that all material either written or displayed is copyrighted. They say right on the site that you needed express permission to reproduce or display their material. If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a lawyer. Try public display of copyright material... http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display Copyright law gives specific sole rights to the copyright owner... The right to reproduce the copyrighted work, The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work, The right to distribute copies of the work to the public, The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly, The right to display the copyrighted work publicly. Giving permission for any one of these acts does NOT give rights for any other restricted act. A copyright owner can give permission for copying for personal use, while retaining sole rights for public display of the work. Registration and copyright notices are NOT required for protection to apply or legal action to be possible. Copyright exists as soon as a copy exists, even if the work is not completed. When a work is "created": http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html Copyright subsists in works fixed in any tangible medium: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html Copyright infringement a federal law: http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm According to the above site, Americans breaking copyright laws are "federal criminals", with a possible $10,000 fine. Is that not the same as the possible fine for illegal CB? As with CB laws, whether someone gets caught can be another matter - and if a person wants to take the risk, that's their business. But, telling that person that it is OK to do it is no better than telling someone to use an illegal amp - and breaking copyright laws is no better than breaking CB laws. Also, what a copyright owner will try and what they can manage will depend upon who they are and how much power (or money) they can throw at it. A big business may throw so much money at a case, that it will end up as a loss for them... but they will make an example of the person in the hope that others are scared. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft"? He's right Peter who in this newsgroup was victimized? You can say the same thing about if I ran an export radio on the legal 40 channels who am I victimizing on this newsgroup? Where have I said that anyone in this group was victimised by copyright theft? What a goddam hypocrite you are, Peter. YOU are the hypocrite... you claim to be "pro-legal", yet jump to defend the violation of copyright laws. But then, it's not about the law, it's about WHO is doing something. All I did was tell someone something, and you jump in with your typical angry attitude. I'll bet you went bright red and needed a lie down to recover from your fit. I wonder why you feel the need to jump in and "protect" that particular person - why anyone suggesting that they may be breaking a law makes you so angry. Ask yourself who is doing him a favour - the person warning him of what could happen, or the person suggesting that he should go ahead regardless? If I was out to get him, I would simply of kept quiet, reported it, and laughed as he got "slapped". Exactly! I found that he had done that, I could've reported him, but what would that have accomplished? He'll get an email telling him to take it down, big deal. I thought it was funny right after I pointed that out, he put little spots over the faces of them to cover his anatomy. If I'm wrong, why worry. I have made it clear that I use LEGAL CB equipment with no power amps (or pre-amps, as they are illegal here), I have advised people against using amps (where they really wanted to know), and I have spoke my mind about certain add-ons and their fitting methods. Yet, in spite of "antikeyclown" suggestions about "anger", I have had no angry response from the "keyclown" side - only from the "anti" side. Strange how the "pro-legal" mob gladly attack a legal CBer, then claim that the "keyclowns" chase legal CBers from the group. Just don't be surprised when nobody believes your claim to be "pro-legal"... the "antikeyclown" crud is all just a cover for trolling this group or working off some anger. The "anti" mob do more to damage the image of legal CB and promote illegal activities than any of your "enemies" ever could with their words. The fact remains that picture was taken without permission from the owner. It was then reproduced and displayed on the internet, still without permission of the owner, to which it is stated very clearly on the site, that all material is copyrighted and not to be reproduced without express written permission. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci Landshark -- The world is good-natured to people who are good natured. |
In , "Hypocrite Landshark"
wrote: "Braìnbuster" wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... What laws are they breaking? I guess Frank didn't go to the website that the picture was stolen from. He would have read that all material either written or displayed is copyrighted. They say right on the site that you needed express permission to reproduce or display their material. Actually I did see the website both before and after 'modification'. You, OTOH, haven't read the laws regarding copyright infringement. If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a lawyer. Try public display of copyright material... http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display Copyright law gives specific sole rights to the copyright owner... The right to reproduce the copyrighted work, The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work, The right to distribute copies of the work to the public, The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly, The right to display the copyrighted work publicly. Giving permission for any one of these acts does NOT give rights for any other restricted act. A copyright owner can give permission for copying for personal use, while retaining sole rights for public display of the work. Registration and copyright notices are NOT required for protection to apply or legal action to be possible. Copyright exists as soon as a copy exists, even if the work is not completed. When a work is "created": http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html Copyright subsists in works fixed in any tangible medium: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html Copyright infringement a federal law: http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm According to the above site, Americans breaking copyright laws are "federal criminals", with a possible $10,000 fine. Is that not the same as the possible fine for illegal CB? As with CB laws, whether someone gets caught can be another matter - and if a person wants to take the risk, that's their business. But, telling that person that it is OK to do it is no better than telling someone to use an illegal amp - and breaking copyright laws is no better than breaking CB laws. Also, what a copyright owner will try and what they can manage will depend upon who they are and how much power (or money) they can throw at it. A big business may throw so much money at a case, that it will end up as a loss for them... but they will make an example of the person in the hope that others are scared. Who in this newsgroup was victimized by "copyright theft"? He's right Peter who in this newsgroup was victimized? You can say the same thing about if I ran an export radio on the legal 40 channels who am I victimizing on this newsgroup? If not, then who are you to complain? Where have I said that anyone in this group was victimised by copyright theft? What a goddam hypocrite you are, Peter. YOU are the hypocrite... you claim to be "pro-legal", yet jump to defend the violation of copyright laws. But then, it's not about the law, it's about WHO is doing something. All I did was tell someone something, and you jump in with your typical angry attitude. I'll bet you went bright red and needed a lie down to recover from your fit. I wonder why you feel the need to jump in and "protect" that particular person - why anyone suggesting that they may be breaking a law makes you so angry. Ask yourself who is doing him a favour - the person warning him of what could happen, or the person suggesting that he should go ahead regardless? If I was out to get him, I would simply of kept quiet, reported it, and laughed as he got "slapped". Exactly! I found that he had done that, I could've reported him, but what would that have accomplished? He'll get an email telling him to take it down, big deal. I thought it was funny right after I pointed that out, he put little spots over the faces of them to cover his anatomy. If I'm wrong, why worry. If you had reported him and actually got a reply, I would have liked to have seen your face drop while you got educated. I have made it clear that I use LEGAL CB equipment with no power amps (or pre-amps, as they are illegal here), I have advised people against using amps (where they really wanted to know), and I have spoke my mind about certain add-ons and their fitting methods. Yet, in spite of "antikeyclown" suggestions about "anger", I have had no angry response from the "keyclown" side - only from the "anti" side. Strange how the "pro-legal" mob gladly attack a legal CBer, then claim that the "keyclowns" chase legal CBers from the group. Just don't be surprised when nobody believes your claim to be "pro-legal"... the "antikeyclown" crud is all just a cover for trolling this group or working off some anger. The "anti" mob do more to damage the image of legal CB and promote illegal activities than any of your "enemies" ever could with their words. The fact remains that picture was taken without permission from the owner. It was then reproduced and displayed on the internet, still without permission of the owner, to which it is stated very clearly on the site, that all material is copyrighted and not to be reproduced without express written permission. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci You, like your twin Hypocrite Peter, didn't read far enough into the law. On that same page about halfway down is the following line: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." Hypocrite Landshark Yes you are. -----= 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! =----- |
"Braìnbuster" wrote in message ...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... What laws are they breaking? If you don't know that, you really should stop touting for business as a lawyer. Try public display of copyright material... http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#display why they arguing about copyright in the first place ??? When Peter or Steveo or any one else put up a web page there is no beef about copyright **** from akc or otherwise. But if "george" put up a page oh no then hypocrite landshark jumps in like a tattle tale and brainbluster joins him crying like two schoolyard sissies WAHHH WAHHHH copyright copyright. |
It is unlawful to reproduce copyrighted material without explicit
permission. That you need it defined further, is your problem. Ask Lelnad about it,,he can educate you on such laws. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
|
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Landshark) "Braìnbuster" wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... What laws are they breaking? I guess Frank didn't go to the website that the picture was stolen from. He would have read that all material either written or displayed is copyrighted. They say right on the site that you needed express permission to reproduce or display their material. _ LOL...Frank doesn't know what that means,,,he calimed that merely because it SAYS it is copyrighted, doesn't necessitate it IS copyrighted,,,,,heheheh! Dave, you have the comprehension of a moldy kumquat. A copyright, just like any other right, has limitations. Let's see if you can overcome your communication deficit long enough to read and understand the link I posted in my reply to Peter the Hypocrite: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/412.html And since you want to dip your wick into this thread, maybe you can answer the question that's fogging up Peter's reading glasses. Or maybe not. -----= 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! =----- |
LO..my name ain't Dave, and Geogre appears to realize it by
comprehending I actually am in Tampa Bay and have never resided on the opposite coast,,,but s'cool,,I'm not gonna look to anyone else for validation of where I reside or who I may be, that's *your* failed game....,,,it simply does not matter (to anyone except you) except for entertainment value to those that have met me on this group who enjoy watching you swing at ghosts....now,,,,,back to matter at hand,,,,sure a copyright has limitations,,,sidestep some more, if you must,,,,,,EVERYTHING has limitations,,,,LOL,,but you still, may NOT reproduce or "copy" a copyrighted piece without permission,,,period. Since you believe otherwise, I am not interested in changing your opinion,,you were taught the same thing by several others here, all whom you apparently feel threatened by, based on your continual insultive and rude demeanor to everyone that ever expressed a point of view you failed to entertain, otherwise, there would be no need for your condescension. You go on believing you have the right to reproduce copyrighted material without explicit permission. Really, no one is going to try and change your mind,,remember, you have the right to insist on remaining ignorant. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: LO..my name ain't Dave, and Geogre appears to realize it by comprehending I actually am in Tampa Bay and have never resided on the opposite coast,,,but s'cool,,I'm not gonna look to anyone else for validation of where I reside or who I may be, that's *your* failed game....,,,it simply does not matter (to anyone except you) except for entertainment value to those that have met me on this group who enjoy watching you swing at ghosts....now,,,,,back to matter at hand,,,,sure a copyright has limitations,,,sidestep some more, if you must,,,,,,EVERYTHING has limitations,,,,LOL,,but you still, may NOT reproduce or "copy" a copyrighted piece without permission,,,period. Since you believe otherwise, I am not interested in changing your opinion,,you were taught the same thing by several others here, all whom you apparently feel threatened by, based on your continual insultive and rude demeanor to everyone that ever expressed a point of view you failed to entertain, otherwise, there would be no need for your condescension. You go on believing you have the right to reproduce copyrighted material without explicit permission. Really, no one is going to try and change your mind,,remember, you have the right to insist on remaining ignorant. Did I miss it, or was there something in that jumbled rant that was relevant to the topic? ........ I read it again. Nope, nothing there but a frantic attempt to confuse the issue. Same old TwistyDave using the same old tactics. *- yawn -* The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong.... ....squawk! Polly wanna cracker? -----= 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: (Duke=A0Of=A0Windsor)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27398-402C0637-334 @storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net: LO..my name ain't Dave, and Geogre appears to realize it by comprehending I actually am in Tampa Bay and have never resided on the opposite coast,,,but s'cool,,I'm not gonna look to anyone else for validation of where I reside or who I may be, that's *your* failed game....,,,it simply does not matter (to anyone except you) except for entertainment value to those that have met me on this group who enjoy watching you swing at ghosts... And i am not george, comprehend that. I really don't care,,,,but since you brought it up...why did you say you were by placing forth his call sign as your own when asked? 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 in message
... Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law. Really, Frank... it is clear: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci" It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. /quote But you seem to wish to argue that registration is required. Maybe you should have read this part: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc" The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. /quote But surely you must know that - it was in the section that you mentioned to Mark: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr" However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. quote With or without registration, works ARE protected by copyright. Let's try this one more time..... Study the code from the link I quoted above, verify all of its references to other sections of the code that are relevant to this specific 'case', If, as you suggest, you have already done this, then quote the reference to a section which allows public display and modification of copyright material. I named the sections, and gave the wording. If you are unwilling to do the same, then you are just spouting off and hiding in a mountain of rules, pages and links. |
Landshark wrote in message ...
. He would have read that all material either written or displayed is copyrighted. Doesn't make any difference, copyright exists without any declaration, registration, or other act. That is made clear on the site you named... http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html quote Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created /quote And, although sparky happily refers to the text: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." He seems to be avoiding this, in the same section: quote However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. /quote Registration is NOT a condition of copyright. Regards. Peter. |
In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... Nice rant, but it is based on your ignorance of copyright law. Really, Frank... it is clear: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci" It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. /quote But you seem to wish to argue that registration is required. Maybe you should have read this part: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc" The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. /quote But surely you must know that - it was in the section that you mentioned to Mark: quote ref="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr" However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. quote With or without registration, works ARE protected by copyright. Let's try this one more time..... Study the code from the link I quoted above, verify all of its references to other sections of the code that are relevant to this specific 'case', If, as you suggest, you have already done this, then quote the reference to a section which allows public display and modification of copyright material. I named the sections, and gave the wording. If you are unwilling to do the same, then you are just spouting off and hiding in a mountain of rules, pages and links. You can cut-&-paste the US Code as much as you want, but the original still exists at the link I provided. I guess I have to spell it out for you..... "Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement", means that if your copyright isn't registered, you don't have any rights beyond those listed in Sec. 106A(a). That section is very specific, and those rights are limited to "Rights of Attribution and Integrity": "..... Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art - (1) shall have the right - (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right - (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. ....." That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated? -----= 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! =----- |
Duke Of Windsor wrote in message ...
And i am not george, comprehend that. OK, fellas - enough is enough, time to stop calling George "George". We wouldn't want to upset George any further. OK, better now, George? I must apologise if I have ever called you "George", George. One question... If we cannot call you "George", what should we call you, George? If it is a problem that you do not wish to be on "first name terms" with a bunch of "keyclowns", we could stop using your christian name. Would that be better, Mr. Busche. :~) |
Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
In , "Braìnbuster" "Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement", You seem to be getting confused between something being "legal" or unenforceable. The keywords here are "remedies" and "infringement". Remedies: Actions taken to cure a situation. Infringement: A law has been violated. Put together: If the law is violated, only people who have registered their work may be able to take certain action in a US court. Which makes your argument: It's ok to break the law as long as the victim may be powerless to sue your ass over your illegal act. Which is not much of a "pro-legal" argument. That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated? How about "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work". Clearly, the image has been altered (to give the impression that he is the person in the picture). I wonder if the people in that image mind being linked with the person in question - and his abusive posts on this group. But, that's not the point - copying and public display of copyright material is illegal. People who violate laws are criminals. Unless you can show that registration is a requirement for copyright to exist AND the image is not resistered, then your buddy is a criminal, and you are happily defending illegal acts. |
In , "Braìnbuster"
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in message ... In , "Braìnbuster" "Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement", You seem to be getting confused between something being "legal" or unenforceable. The keywords here are "remedies" and "infringement". A law is not a law unless it can be enforced. If every word that everybody ever wrote was protected by law, the courts would be hip-deep in diapers from the hoards of crybabies like yourself filing frivolous copyright suits every time they -think- their copyrights have been violated (and with claims almost as outlandish as the ones you are making in this newsgroup). The purpose of registration is to provide a prima-facie declaration of copyright ownership, thereby limiting claims to legitimate and bona-fide cases of infringement. Remedies: Actions taken to cure a situation. Infringement: A law has been violated. Put together: If the law is violated, only people who have registered their work may be able to take certain action in a US court. You still haven't read the code, and you still don't understand what a copyright actually is. Well, here's what you missed while smoking dope in high school: A 'copyright' is a device used to claim exclusive authorship of an artistic or literary work, and entitles the owner to all the benefits (and liabilities) resulting from the work and/or its reproduction. Now to apply this to the case at hand. First, did the author of that page claim copyright, or otherwise claim authorship of the photograph? No. Even if he had, the page was obviously a parody which is protected under the 1st Amendment (or maybe you didn't see the movie about Larry Flynt?). Second, were there any benefits derived from the use of the photograph? No, and even if there were any benefits, the criminal part of the code for copyright infringement spells out just what constitutes a 'benefit': "....either commercial advantage or private financial gain [or] 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...." So I'll ask this question YET AGAIN -- what laws were violated? Which makes your argument: It's ok to break the law as long as the victim may be powerless to sue your ass over your illegal act. Which is not much of a "pro-legal" argument. The law is clear. You are just not reading it clearly. That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated? How about "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work". Clearly, the image has been altered (to give the impression that he is the person in the picture). You can still go to the originating site and view the picture in all of its unaltered glory. The -copy- was altered. I wonder if the people in that image mind being linked with the person in question - and his abusive posts on this group. Why don't you ask them? At the same time, why don't you ask them if they granted permission to the website to publish that picture of them? But, that's not the point - copying and public display of copyright material is illegal. Wrong. You can copy any copyrighted materail all you want -- you just can't claim authorship, or use it for financial gain without permission. You can also publically display copyrighted material all you want if you are the owner of the copyright. People who violate laws are criminals. Unless you can show that registration is a requirement for copyright to exist AND the image is not resistered, then your buddy is a criminal, and you are happily defending illegal acts. Registration is -not- a requirement for copyright protection. It -IS- a requirement to seek civil remedies for infringement. The -real- issue is what protection was violated? It looks like I have to make this a multiple-guess question: Which of the following occured: A. Commercial advantage was gained by posting the copied picture; B. Person who copied the picture received private financial gain; C. Picture has a retail value of more than $1000; D. Picture was copied for use in a parody; Scroll down for the correct answer. If you scrolled all the way down here for the answer then you are an idiot! -----= 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! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com