http://mb1.theinsiders.com/foregonst...cID=8036.topic

"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net...
http://mb1.theinsiders.com/foregonst...cID=8036.topic

Did you have express permission to post that site?

Did you have express permission to post that site?

Posting a link, or even an accredited excerpt, is not a copyright violation.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

http://mb1.theinsiders.com/foregonst...cID=8036.topic

Did you have express permission to post that site?

What the hell. I did not copy the material, and it is probably not
copyrighted anyway. Links are legal. Stupid idiot. Ask you 5 year old son
to explain it to you.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

http://mb1.theinsiders.com/foregonst...cID=8036.topic

Did you have express permission to post that site?

What the hell. I did not copy the material, and it is probably not
copyrighted anyway. Links are legal. Stupid idiot. Ask you 5 year old son
to explain it to you.

You dumb twit, YOU are the one who claims that "using" a website is
against copyright violations.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Did you have express permission to post that site?

Posting a link, or even an accredited excerpt, is not a copyright violation.

And copying a post isn't either. I've giving the actualy paragraph of
the Copyright Act of 1988 that proves that.

The paragraph you are referring is concerning copying a post made in
Usenet, not copying a news article published by a news agency online and in
a newspaper. You ignore the other 293 pages of the law.

Since I doubt any of the news agencies would waste their time in prosecuting
the people who prefer to cut and paste articles instead of using their own
intellectual abilities, if you prefer to ignore the law, you have a very low
probability of being convicted.



"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Gould 0738) wrote in message
...
Did you have express permission to post that site?

Posting a link, or even an accredited excerpt, is not a copyright
violation.

And copying a post isn't either. I've giving the actualy paragraph of
the Copyright Act of 1988 that proves that.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:VoLSc.293172$XM6.82882@attbi_s53...
The paragraph you are referring is concerning copying a post made in
Usenet, not copying a news article published by a news agency online and in
a newspaper. You ignore the other 293 pages of the law.

Since I doubt any of the news agencies would waste their time in prosecuting
the people who prefer to cut and paste articles instead of using their own
intellectual abilities, if you prefer to ignore the law, you have a very low
probability of being convicted.


No, I've not "ignored" anything. I keep asking you, and I'll ask
again, specifically WHAT copyright law have I broken? And again, I
don't want someone's speculation, I want to know the law that I've
broken. If you can't provide it, the your case is moot.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...


http://mb1.theinsiders.com/foregonst...cID=8036.topic

Did you have express permission to post that site?

What the hell. I did not copy the material, and it is probably not
copyrighted anyway. Links are legal. Stupid idiot. Ask you 5 year old
son
to explain it to you.

You dumb twit, YOU are the one who claims that "using" a website is
against copyright violations.

You are the twit. Where did I copy the material? I gave a link. And most
websites love links to their site. I guess you never copyrighted anything.

I sent you a link with the all 293 pages of the copyright law you broken. I
copy you on the specific section of the law you have broken. I am not
certain if you have the ability to understand them, or if you are just
pretending not to understand them. Either way, I am bored with you.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:VoLSc.293172$XM6.82882@attbi_s53...
The paragraph you are referring is concerning copying a post made in
Usenet, not copying a news article published by a news agency online and
in
a newspaper. You ignore the other 293 pages of the law.

Since I doubt any of the news agencies would waste their time in
prosecuting
the people who prefer to cut and paste articles instead of using their
own
intellectual abilities, if you prefer to ignore the law, you have a very
low
probability of being convicted.


No, I've not "ignored" anything. I keep asking you, and I'll ask
again, specifically WHAT copyright law have I broken? And again, I
don't want someone's speculation, I want to know the law that I've
broken. If you can't provide it, the your case is moot.