| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
February 2nd 04, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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! =----- |
|
#22
February 7th 04, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#23
February 12th 04, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#24
February 12th 04, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! =----- |
|
#25
February 12th 04, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#26
February 12th 04, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! =----- |
|
#27
February 12th 04, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#28
February 12th 04, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#29
February 12th 04, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
| NOTICE TO ALL NEWS GROUP MEMBER | Equipment | |||
| NOTICE TO ALL NEWS GROUP MEMBER | Equipment | |||
| New Scottish Division Dx Group | CB | |||
| Shut Up Twisted, Shut Up | CB | |||
Linear Mode
