And by the way dumb ass, that's general information, which if you knew
anything about Copyright Law is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE.....YOU DUMB ASS!!!

N9OGL wrote:
And by the way dumb ass, that's general information, which if you knew
anything about Copyright Law is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE.....YOU DUMB ASS!!!

You are ignorant about copyright law as you are with everything else,
idiot.

On 28 Feb 2006 05:38:47 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
And by the way dumb ass, that's general information, which if you knew
anything about Copyright Law is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE.....YOU DUMB ASS!!!

But the copyright is on the work itself (the prose); not on the
information! I would suggest that it is you who hasn't the foggiest
understanding of copyright law.


----
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and then there was light.

I beg to differ, the courts have ruled a number of times that data, is
not copyrightable. One case comes to mine had to do with a phone book a
telephone company had put out and another company copied it from word
to word and the phone company sued for copyright violation and the
supreme court ruled that general data, no matter how you write it is
not copyrightable.

On 28 Feb 2006 06:06:12 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
I beg to differ, the courts have ruled a number of times that data, is
not copyrightable. One case comes to mine had to do with a phone book a
telephone company had put out and another company copied it from word
to word and the phone company sued for copyright violation and the
supreme court ruled that general data, no matter how you write it is
not copyrightable.

(*shrug*)

Tables of numbers do not constitute prose. What you ripped off does.
Try to reproduce a college text and distribute it, and see how long
it takes you to be hauled into court by its publisher.



----
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and then there was light.

On 28 Feb 2006 14:27:18 GMT, Lloyd wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 06:06:12 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
I beg to differ, the courts have ruled a number of times that data, is
not copyrightable. One case comes to mine had to do with a phone book a
telephone company had put out and another company copied it from word
to word and the phone company sued for copyright violation and the
supreme court ruled that general data, no matter how you write it is
not copyrightable.

(*shrug*)

Tables of numbers do not constitute prose. What you ripped off does.
Try to reproduce a college text and distribute it, and see how long
it takes you to be hauled into court by its publisher.

Tood thinks he's Clarence Darrow.

Problem is, he's really Richard Simmons.

AND YOUR SOME FAT COLOR GUY NAME BUTCH, LITTLE BITCH!!!

On 28 Feb 2006 06:41:27 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
AND YOUR SOME FAT COLOR GUY NAME BUTCH, LITTLE BITCH!!!

Should be "you're," Richard Simmons. Should be "colored," Richard
Simmons. But then you New Orleans faggots are all drunked up today
aren't you?

Roger is also RuPaul and Eltons honey

wrote in message
...

On 28 Feb 2006 14:27:18 GMT, Lloyd wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 06:06:12 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
I beg to differ, the courts have ruled a number of times that data, is
not copyrightable. One case comes to mine had to do with a phone book a
telephone company had put out and another company copied it from word
to word and the phone company sued for copyright violation and the
supreme court ruled that general data, no matter how you write it is
not copyrightable.

(*shrug*)

Tables of numbers do not constitute prose. What you ripped off does.
Try to reproduce a college text and distribute it, and see how long
it takes you to be hauled into court by its publisher.

Tood thinks he's Clarence Darrow.

Problem is, he's really Richard Simmons.