"Comcast News" wrote in message news:oILRc.256255$JR4.37726@attbi_s54...
Basskisser,
I don't know if you have cut and pasted entire articles published or written
by another person, but if you have you have violated the author's and the
publishers copyright, which is against the law. I think that is what jim
was talking about.

I think I posted this link but in case I didn't hit send, here is the link:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

It is written so a non lawyer can understand the laws. Computers and the
internet have made it very easy to download music or cut and paste others
people's intellectual property without knowing they are stealing and
breaking the law. The first step to correcting this injustice is for people
to understand it is against the law, and damaging to those who created the
product that is being stolen.

That is pure hogwash that would never hold up in a court of law. It is
just too vague. It would mean that, every time that someone here
posts, and then someone replies, and the reply has the original post,
and subsequent replies attached, they are violating copyright laws?


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
These cut and paste posts by you and Krause carry no validity.

1. You have violated copyright laws by reproducing and posting an
entire
article

You fool!! The article isn't copyrighted, therefore, no copyright laws
have been violated.

2. You give no link to the reported story you cut and pasted.

I certainly stated where the article came from. You do know how to do
a search, don't you?

Krause has been know to edit articles so they meet his agenda.

Post the sections of the article you want to highlight, post a link
to
the
entire article, then comment on it and make the point you wish to
make.

Failing to do so gives you and your cut and paste posts zero
credibility.

Hmm, let's see, I told you where the article came from, but, because I
didn't post a URL, it's simply not credible? I love it!! This from a
person who makes assumptions, and post wild, unfounded allegations
about people, using absolutely NO facts!!!!!!

Zoooooooooommmmmmmmmm. Right over your head....as usual.

Well, let's just start by you listing just exactly WHAT copyright laws
I have violated, shall we? I know you are stupid, so, we'll just break
your idiotic diatribe down to one point at a time, we'll start with
that one, seeing how it's first in your list.

It has been held up in court, many times. It is illegal to copy a published
article and then republish it in any format. Now the odds of you being
charged with theft of intellectual property is very slim, but if you only
obey laws because you feel their is a high probability of being prosecuted,
than you can probably download music and videos online, and copy someone
else's articles and republish them in rec.boats without losing a lot of
sleep.

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:oILRc.256255$JR4.37726@attbi_s54...
Basskisser,
I don't know if you have cut and pasted entire articles published or
written
by another person, but if you have you have violated the author's and
the
publishers copyright, which is against the law. I think that is what
jim
was talking about.

I think I posted this link but in case I didn't hit send, here is the
link:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

It is written so a non lawyer can understand the laws. Computers and
the
internet have made it very easy to download music or cut and paste
others
people's intellectual property without knowing they are stealing and
breaking the law. The first step to correcting this injustice is for
people
to understand it is against the law, and damaging to those who created
the
product that is being stolen.

That is pure hogwash that would never hold up in a court of law. It is
just too vague. It would mean that, every time that someone here
posts, and then someone replies, and the reply has the original post,
and subsequent replies attached, they are violating copyright laws?


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
These cut and paste posts by you and Krause carry no validity.

1. You have violated copyright laws by reproducing and posting
an
entire
article

You fool!! The article isn't copyrighted, therefore, no copyright
laws
have been violated.

2. You give no link to the reported story you cut and pasted.

I certainly stated where the article came from. You do know how to
do
a search, don't you?

Krause has been know to edit articles so they meet his agenda.

Post the sections of the article you want to highlight, post a
link
to
the
entire article, then comment on it and make the point you wish
to
make.

Failing to do so gives you and your cut and paste posts zero
credibility.

Hmm, let's see, I told you where the article came from, but,
because I
didn't post a URL, it's simply not credible? I love it!! This from
a
person who makes assumptions, and post wild, unfounded allegations
about people, using absolutely NO facts!!!!!!

Zoooooooooommmmmmmmmm. Right over your head....as usual.

Well, let's just start by you listing just exactly WHAT copyright laws
I have violated, shall we? I know you are stupid, so, we'll just break
your idiotic diatribe down to one point at a time, we'll start with
that one, seeing how it's first in your list.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:v5SRc.119596$eM2.57261@attbi_s51...
It has been held up in court, many times. It is illegal to copy a published
article and then republish it in any format. Now the odds of you being
charged with theft of intellectual property is very slim, but if you only
obey laws because you feel their is a high probability of being prosecuted,
than you can probably download music and videos online, and copy someone
else's articles and republish them in rec.boats without losing a lot of
sleep.

Perhaps, instead of someone's hypothesis, we should go right to the
source:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 3
Registration as a Prerequisite to Suit
The remaining technical amendment relates to the prohibition in both
treaties
against conditioning the exercise or enjoyment of rights on the
fulfillment of
formalities. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires claims to
copyright to be
registered with the Copyright Office before a lawsuit can be initiated
by the copyright
owner, but exempts many foreign works in order to comply with existing
treaty
obligations under the Berne Convention. Section 102(d) of the DMCA
amends section
411(a) by broadening the exemption to cover all foreign works.

Now, granted, this IS cut from a website, but it is law.

I am not certain what your source meant, but when you go to the US
government site concerning copyrights (
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) they state:
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
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. (See following Note.)
There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See
"Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is
"created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
"Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually
perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as
books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.
"Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds
(excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as
cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be
fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"),
or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is
fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."

end of quote.

It seems your source either disagrees with the US Copyright Office or your
cite was in reference to another matter, possible republishing someone
Usenet post when responding to a Usenet post.











"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:v5SRc.119596$eM2.57261@attbi_s51...
It has been held up in court, many times. It is illegal to copy a
published
article and then republish it in any format. Now the odds of you being
charged with theft of intellectual property is very slim, but if you
only
obey laws because you feel their is a high probability of being
prosecuted,
than you can probably download music and videos online, and copy someone
else's articles and republish them in rec.boats without losing a lot of
sleep.

Perhaps, instead of someone's hypothesis, we should go right to the
source:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 3
Registration as a Prerequisite to Suit
The remaining technical amendment relates to the prohibition in both
treaties
against conditioning the exercise or enjoyment of rights on the
fulfillment of
formalities. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires claims to
copyright to be
registered with the Copyright Office before a lawsuit can be initiated
by the copyright
owner, but exempts many foreign works in order to comply with existing
treaty
obligations under the Berne Convention. Section 102(d) of the DMCA
amends section
411(a) by broadening the exemption to cover all foreign works.

Now, granted, this IS cut from a website, but it is law.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:6E5Sc.281509$XM6.254525@attbi_s53...
I am not certain what your source meant, but when you go to the US
government site concerning copyrights (
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) they state:
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
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. (See following Note.)
There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See
"Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is
"created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
"Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually
perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as
books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.
"Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds
(excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as
cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be
fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"),
or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is
fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."

end of quote.

It seems your source either disagrees with the US Copyright Office or your
cite was in reference to another matter, possible republishing someone
Usenet post when responding to a Usenet post.

That IS the law, direct from the Copyright Act. Please go read Section
411(a) of the Copyright Act, and get back to me.

Basskisser,

So when AP, CNN, Wall Street Journal say their material has a copyright,
they are just teasing us.

Since the written works seen on most news sites have also been printed in a
newspaper and not exclusively on their web site I don't believe the section
of the code you are citing is appropriate to the news web sites. The
experts I have read believe the news web cites would fall under the section
of the code I cited.. Since every interpretation I have found agrees with
my interpretation, I will have to assume they are correct, and you are not.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:6E5Sc.281509$XM6.254525@attbi_s53...
I am not certain what your source meant, but when you go to the US
government site concerning copyrights (
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) they state:
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
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. (See following Note.)
There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See
"Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work
is
"created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
"Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually
perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such
as
books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.
"Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds
(excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such
as
cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can
be
fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks ("
phonorecords"),
or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that
is
fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that
date."

end of quote.

It seems your source either disagrees with the US Copyright Office or
your
cite was in reference to another matter, possible republishing someone
Usenet post when responding to a Usenet post.

That IS the law, direct from the Copyright Act. Please go read Section
411(a) of the Copyright Act, and get back to me.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:J5vSc.237419$a24.94086@attbi_s03...
Basskisser,

So when AP, CNN, Wall Street Journal say their material has a copyright,
they are just teasing us.

Since the written works seen on most news sites have also been printed in a
newspaper and not exclusively on their web site I don't believe the section
of the code you are citing is appropriate to the news web sites. The
experts I have read believe the news web cites would fall under the section
of the code I cited.. Since every interpretation I have found agrees with
my interpretation, I will have to assume they are correct, and you are not.

So, I take it that you haven't read the actual LAW that I posted?
If so, all would be clear to you. It is, after all, the law, from the
Copyright Act, not someone's speculation.