Electrical certification for imported goods

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.19.10.49.18.494810@TRACKER...

Rod Speed wrote

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

Crap. There is an implied permission to copy the certificate,

If that is not a copyright then what is?

Its actually an implied license/permission from the actual copyright owner,
just like you have when quoting material from my posts in your replys.

Bullshit!

Fraid so. Read the legislation. And weep.

It is *my* certificate to do what I like with.

Correct. But you are NOT the copyright owner. The polytech is.

What I cannot do, and what I do not own are the logos and
various images that were used to construct my certificate.

You are not the owner of the copyright either.

You only have the permission of the
copyright owner to copy your particular copy.

I cannot use those in some other document for some other purpose.

Even thats comprehensively mangled.

You're welcome to paper your walls with it if you want.

Or wipe your arse on it too.

But my certificate - I can do what I like with it - I can do anything I
please with it, and I do not need anyone else's permission to do so.

Correct. Just like with say a paperback you have bought.

But you are NOT the copyright owner.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Rod Speed wrote:

Did it and are permitted to do it are two different things. However,
using the same logic of needing a permit because 240V is involved (and let's
face it, you shouldn't be able to come into contact with the mains in a
modern PC), would I need a permit to open up a vacuum cleaner and change the
bag?

Corse you do in sheep-raper-land, stupid.

man, australia is so backward... having to have a permit to change a
vacuum cleaner bag.

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Lennier wrote:

*I* can assign that right to whomsoever I choose.

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate does
not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my certificate
- including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another medium,
you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not mean
the right to copy... well, not exactly.

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 

[harry]

T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

Lennier wrote:
*I* can assign that right to whomsoever I choose.

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate
does not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my
certificate - including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another
medium, you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not
mean the right to copy... well, not exactly.

The copyright holder may permit the copying with conditions ie the copy may
not be further reproduced or all the attached copyright notices must be
preserved, or the copies are not for publication.
Lennier is the owner of the original not the copyright holder.
Lennier owns the paper and ink, the copyright holder retains a property
right to the information.
Otherwise the certification authority has no control over its certificate
being issued with altered names for the purpose of counterfeiting.

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.01.19.09.29.22.347129@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:39:26 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

Crap. There is an implied permission to copy the certificate,

If that is not a copyright then what is?

Ever heard of copyright licensing?

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

 

[Rod Speed]

"harry" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message news:hJXOb.18018$ws.2244317@news02.tsnz.net...

T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
Lennier wrote:
*I* can assign that right to whomsoever I choose.

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my certificate
does not mean that I have not been granted the full ownership of my
certificate - including the right to copy it - the copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another
medium, you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not
mean the right to copy... well, not exactly.

The copyright holder may permit the copying with conditions ie the copy may
not be further reproduced or all the attached copyright notices must be
preserved, or the copies are not for publication.

And the legislation specifys that some copys dont infringe copyright too.

Lennier is the owner of the original not the copyright holder.
Lennier owns the paper and ink, the copyright holder retains a property
right to the information.
Otherwise the certification authority has no control over its certificate
being issued with altered names for the purpose of counterfeiting.

That protection doesnt come from copyright law.

 

[harry]

Rod Speed wrote:

"harry" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:hJXOb.18018$ws.2244317@news02.tsnz.net...
T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
Lennier wrote:
*I* can assign that right to whomsoever I choose.

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my
certificate does not mean that I have not been granted the full
ownership of my certificate - including the right to copy it - the
copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another
medium, you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not
mean the right to copy... well, not exactly.

The copyright holder may permit the copying with conditions ie the
copy may not be further reproduced or all the attached copyright
notices must be preserved, or the copies are not for publication.

And the legislation specifys that some copys dont infringe copyright
too.

Lennier is the owner of the original not the copyright holder.
Lennier owns the paper and ink, the copyright holder retains a
property right to the information.
Otherwise the certification authority has no control over its
certificate being issued with altered names for the purpose of
counterfeiting.

That protection doesnt come from copyright law.

Thats true, thats forgery, but manufacturing blank certificates derived from
a legit cert. and selling them for others to fill in could be prevented by
using copyright law.

 

[Rod Speed]

"harry" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message news:snYOb.18023$ws.2246182@news02.tsnz.net...

Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:hJXOb.18018$ws.2244317@news02.tsnz.net...
T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
Lennier wrote:
*I* can assign that right to whomsoever I choose.

Nope, you have no copyright to assign to anyone because
you are not the author or designer of that certificate.

Merely because I wasn't the author or the designer of my
certificate does not mean that I have not been granted the full
ownership of my certificate - including the right to copy it - the
copyRIGHT.

In the USA, although you have the right to copy music to another
medium, you most certainly have no copyright over the music.

I think your aguement is flawed here lennier, a copyright does not
mean the right to copy... well, not exactly.

The copyright holder may permit the copying with conditions ie the
copy may not be further reproduced or all the attached copyright
notices must be preserved, or the copies are not for publication.

And the legislation specifys that some copys dont infringe copyright
too.

Lennier is the owner of the original not the copyright holder.
Lennier owns the paper and ink, the copyright holder retains a
property right to the information.
Otherwise the certification authority has no control over its
certificate being issued with altered names for the purpose of
counterfeiting.

That protection doesnt come from copyright law.

Thats true, thats forgery, but manufacturing blank
certificates derived from a legit cert. and selling them for
others to fill in could be prevented by using copyright law.

Certainly is.

 

[Rob]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Lennier"

The idea that I cannot duplicate my own certificate to demonstrate what I
have attained is absurd.

** Showing that silly scrap of paper around in Australia would only
provoke fits of laughter.

I suggest you keep it well hidden.

.......... Phil

I suppose it would, how many Ozzies have ever seen a certificate,
yet still, even own one?

Rob

 

[Rob]

Lennier wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:51:03 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

I do own the copyright over my certificate.

Nope, you aint the author or creator of it.

I have the right to make as many copies of my certificate as I please.

I have the COPY-RIGHT - the RIGHT to COPY my certificate. I possess the
rights to copy that certificate any way I please. In fact nobody else can
copy that certificate.

The fact that I am not the author of the certificate is immaterial - the
ownership of the copyright to that particular certificate has been granted
to me, along with ownership of the certificate itself.

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

Lennier

The polytech ceded the copyright to you when they
put your name on it.

The point of certificates in the main, is that the
"named" is able in gain a pecuniary advantage because
the qualification reached and recognized by the award
of the certificate.

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

Rob

 

[Phil Allison]

"Rob" <rmarshall@mail.com

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

** You are a moron Rob.



........... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

"Rob" <rmarshall@mail.com> wrote in message news:400CA5DA.DF1FDBD3@mail.com...

Lennier wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:51:03 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

I do own the copyright over my certificate.

Nope, you aint the author or creator of it.

I have the right to make as many copies of my certificate as I please.

I have the COPY-RIGHT - the RIGHT to COPY my certificate. I possess the
rights to copy that certificate any way I please. In fact nobody else can
copy that certificate.

The fact that I am not the author of the certificate is immaterial - the
ownership of the copyright to that particular certificate has been granted
to me, along with ownership of the certificate itself.

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

The polytech ceded the copyright to
you when they put your name on it.

Wrong.

The point of certificates in the main, is that the "named" is
able in gain a pecuniary advantage because the qualification
reached and recognized by the award of the certificate.

Irrelevant to who owns the copyright.

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

Not a clue. There are plenty of situations in which
something that is copyrighted can be used to gain
a financial benefit without that infringing the copyright.

 

[Rob]

Rod Speed wrote:

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.19.10.34.09.660417@TRACKER...
Rod Speed wrote

You aint the author or creator of it.

Didn't say I was!

If you aint, you aint the copyright owner.

No - just means I wasn't the ORIGINAL copyright owner.

You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally.

Read the legislation.

Rubbish, who owns the copyright to all the Beatles music?
Who owns the copyright on a newspaper article?

 

[Rob]

Rod Speed wrote:

"Rob" <rmarshall@mail.com> wrote in message news:400CA5DA.DF1FDBD3@mail.com...
Lennier wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:51:03 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

I do own the copyright over my certificate.

Nope, you aint the author or creator of it.

I have the right to make as many copies of my certificate as I please.

I have the COPY-RIGHT - the RIGHT to COPY my certificate. I possess the
rights to copy that certificate any way I please. In fact nobody else can
copy that certificate.

The fact that I am not the author of the certificate is immaterial - the
ownership of the copyright to that particular certificate has been granted
to me, along with ownership of the certificate itself.

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

The polytech ceded the copyright to
you when they put your name on it.

Wrong.

The point of certificates in the main, is that the "named" is
able in gain a pecuniary advantage because the qualification
reached and recognized by the award of the certificate.

Irrelevant to who owns the copyright.

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

Not a clue. There are plenty of situations in which
something that is copyrighted can be used to gain
a financial benefit without that infringing the copyright.

I've not got a clue? You can't even work out that the
certificate has a name on for one specific reason!
That is solely & wholly to benefit the named individual
on the certificate!
You keep rabbiting on about legislation, pull your
fucking ignorant head out of your ass and cite where
it specifically states that "named" certificates are
copyright to the issuer!

"Irrelevant to who owns the copyright" You stupid fuckwit,
in a previous post you said:
"You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally."

Make up you tiny mind!

 

[Rob]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Rob" <rmarshall@mail.com

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

** You are a moron Rob.

.......... Phil

Of course that rates me 10 levels above an australian....

 

[harry]

Rob wrote:

The polytech ceded the copyright to you when they
put your name on it.

No they didn't, but they may have given you conditional rights via a
copyright licence to copy it, or you may have fair use rights conferred by
the copyright legislation.
That is not the same as owning the copyright.

The point of certificates in the main, is that the
"named" is able in gain a pecuniary advantage because
the qualification reached and recognized by the award
of the certificate.

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

Rob

Thats just not relevant as to who holds the copyright.
The financial benefit does not come from the certificate, it comes from the
qualification.
The form which a degree or vocational certification is written on is
generally copyrighted to the issuing authority.
You can buy a book newspaper CD or whatever, that does not mean you have
purchased the copyright.
The copyright holder can assign you the copyright as an agent, or sell you
the copyright, it is a civil property right to information.

 

[Terry Collins]

pete wrote:

No you're not. All modern PCs have the 230 V enclosed within a sealed
earthed metal case called the power supply. You only require electrical
registration if you open the case, and that case is usually riveted shut
and can't practically be opened anyway.

Never seen a rivetted PC power supply case yet - usually 4 countersunk
philips or pozidrive screws. I have opened many to replace fans (or to
salvage the fans out of dead PSUs)

About 1 in 100 of really old stuff (yum cha), or many special built
brand name PC power supplies (which I rarely access).

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob <rmarshall@mail.com> wrote in message
news:400CA907.48F55E6@mail.com...

Rod Speed wrote:
Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You aint the author or creator of it.

Didn't say I was!

If you aint, you aint the copyright owner.

No - just means I wasn't the ORIGINAL copyright owner.

You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally.

Read the legislation.

Rubbish,

We'll see.

who owns the copyright to all the Beatles music?

Those involved in creating it, or who they sold it to.

Who owns the copyright on a newspaper article?

Normally the newspaper that publishes it.

Neither has any relevance what so ever to whether he has copyright
of the particular certificate with his name on. He doesnt. Because he
was never involved in creating it. He just has his name on it.

Read the legislation.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob <rmarshall@mail.com> wrote in message
news:400CAD4D.49A97D71@mail.com...

Rod Speed wrote
Rob <rmarshall@mail.com> wrote
Lennier wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

I do own the copyright over my certificate.

Nope, you aint the author or creator of it.

I have the right to make as many copies of my certificate as I please.

I have the COPY-RIGHT - the RIGHT to COPY my certificate.
I possess the rights to copy that certificate any way I please.
In fact nobody else can copy that certificate.

The fact that I am not the author of the certificate is immaterial
- the ownership of the copyright to that particular certificate has
been granted to me, along with ownership of the certificate itself.

If this were not so then I would not legally be able to duplicate it.

The polytech ceded the copyright to
you when they put your name on it.

Wrong.

The point of certificates in the main, is that the "named" is
able in gain a pecuniary advantage because the qualification
reached and recognized by the award of the certificate.

Irrelevant to who owns the copyright.

To follow some people's arguments to their logical
conclusion, using a certificate to qualify for a job
could be construed as gaining a financial benefit.
That is a no no unless you are the copyright holder..

Not a clue. There are plenty of situations in which
something that is copyrighted can be used to gain
a financial benefit without that infringing the copyright.

I've not got a clue?

Precisely. Not one, zero, nada, ziltch.

You can't even work out that the certificate
has a name on for one specific reason!

Completely and utterly irrelevant to who retains the copyright.

That is solely & wholly to benefit the
named individual on the certificate!

Completely and utterly irrelevant to who retains the copyright.

You keep rabbiting on about legislation, pull your
fucking ignorant head out of your ass and cite where
it specifically states that "named" certificates are
copyright to the issuer!

The polytech obviously created that certificate, and
even someone as stupid as you should be able to
see where the legislation says that its the creator/
author etc that has the copyright of what they produce.
They can permit copying or can flog the copyright.

Absolutely NOTHING to do with whether financial advantage
is gained by the USE of the certificate that he OWNS.

"Irrelevant to who owns the copyright"
You stupid fuckwit, in a previous post you said:
"You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally."

Make up you tiny mind!

There is no conflict between those two you pig ignorant sheep raper.

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:25:26 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

No - just means I wasn't the ORIGINAL copyright owner.

You aint the author/designer. You have NO copyright legally.

<yawn>

I own the copyright to my certificate - that right was assigned to me
when I was given the certificate upon completion of the course that I had
paid for; and you're spouting shite.

I paid for what I learned, and the certificate merely proves that I have
received the education that I have paid for. It is, in *every* respect,
MY certificate.


Lennier

--
"When dealing with the Religious Right one should remember that 'truth'
is not a part of the rules of their game."