Electrical certification for imported goods

[harry]

Lennier wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:29:27 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

- and have never claimed such ownership.

You have however pig ignorantly claimed to own the
copyright to that particular certificate with your name on it.

You dont, legally.

I DO!

You were not a party to the agreement between me and the Polytechnic.

Post it !!!! LIAR

 

[Richard Hector]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:17:07 +1300, Lennier wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:27:37 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:

You can legally copy the Linux kernel, or any other GPL software. That in
no way means you own the copyright.

You seem to be saying that having the "right to copy" something is not the
same as having the "copy right."

We've been talking about "copyright"; all one word. If you keep changing
the terminology, it's no wonder the definitions get muddled.

Having said that, if you replace "copy right" with "copyright" in your
sentence above, then yes that is what I am saying. Copyright is a specific
legal term.

Well - I was speaking of the exclusive right to copy my certificate.

The _exclusive_ right to copy is different again. If that exists, it
would rest with the copyright holder. However the copyright holder can
also grant permission to copy to others - as Linus T. did with the Linux
kernel. He still retains the copyright (well, to bits of it anyway).

That is the oldest interpretation of the term "copyright".

Now you've gone back to the single word, which you hadn't discussed
previously in this post ...

Richard

 

[Richard Hector]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:40:34 +0100, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

FFS CHANGE THE BLOODY SUBJECT LINE!

Like you failed to do for your reply 3 minutes before this one, right?

Richard

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.01.20.07.48.32.799432@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:39:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

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

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

The Polytechnic WAS the copyright owner. *I* am now the copyright owner.

No, you are at best, a copyright licensee.

I
alone possess the right to make copies of my own certificate. Let's face
it - nobody else CAN make copies without getting the original from me
first.

The Polytech can always make another original

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

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.01.20.09.52.38.276074@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:27:13 +1300, harry wrote:

However, with respect to my certificate, I alone have the right to
reproduce my certificate. I alone have the RIGHT to COPY it - the
copy-right.

No, you just have permission to copy it, you do not have the copyright.
Copyright has a formal definition, you don't get to decide.
The polytech can make another one if they want to

Funny that, but the right to copy a document is a copyright.

Nope, you can have a copyright license

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

 

[Lennier]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:30:23 +1100, Craig Hart wrote:

But the Publisher didn't write the article. The Article even has the
Journalist's name in the byline.

See "works for hire" - if you're paid by others to create it as an employee,
others own it when you're done.

And how is that any different from the work for hire that I purchased when
I payed-for, attended, completed and passed the course?

The certificate is, in a manner of speaking, the receipt indicating that I
have received the education that I paid for.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Lennier]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:14:32 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

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.

But the Publisher didn't write the article.

The publisher employs the journo, stupid.

Just like that polytech employed/paid someone to
design that certificate that they retain copyright to
even after they have written your name on one copy.

And I employed the polytechnic to teach me. The certificate is the proof
that I have received from the Polytechnic what I claim I have received.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Lennier]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:14:32 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, permission to do that has been granted by
the polytech. They however retain the copyright.

You simply do not know what was the agreement between myself and the
Polytechnic - as you are not a party to the agreement.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:26:10 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

A full copyright holder has the right to ALTER a work - and sell the
altered versions.

Um... The certificate would be useless if I changed it into something else.

There is no point to be gained by changing it.


Lennier

--
The above reply is in response to a person who can be only described as a
knuckle-dragger.

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.21.10.43.26.2903@TRACKER...

Craig Hart wrote

But the Publisher didn't write the article. The Article
even has the Journalist's name in the byline.

See "works for hire" - if you're paid by others to create
it as an employee, others own it when you're done.

And how is that any different from the work for hire that I purchased
when I payed-for, attended, completed and passed the course?

Completely off with the fairys now.

Has no relevance what so ever on who owns the copyright to the
certificate you received with your name on it. Read the legislation, child.

The certificate is, in a manner of speaking, the receipt
indicating that I have received the education that I paid for.

Wrong again. Those who pay for the course but dont
pass dont get one, so it aint anything like a receipt.

It is JUST evidence that you PASSED.

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.21.10.49.31.846920@TRACKER...

Rod Speed wrote

Yes, permission to do that has been granted by
the polytech. They however retain the copyright.

You simply do not know what was the
agreement between myself and the Polytechnic

Has no relevance what so ever to who owns
the copyright to that certificate you received.

Read the legislation, child.

- as you are not a party to the agreement.

Even someone as stupid as you obviously are should be
able to grasp that it aint only those who are a party to a
particular agreement that know what has been agreed, legally.

Unless you have a document that demonstrates that you have
purchased the copyright to that certificate with your name on
it, and you dont, legally the polytech retains the copyright.

Read the legislation, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.21.10.47.59.47561@TRACKER...

Rod Speed wrote

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.

But the Publisher didn't write the article.

The publisher employs the journo, stupid.

Just like that polytech employed/paid someone to
design that certificate that they retain copyright to
even after they have written your name on one copy.

And I employed the polytechnic to teach me.

Separate issue entirely. With no relevance
what so ever to copyright of that certificate.

The certificate is the proof that I have received
from the Polytechnic what I claim I have received.

It is indeed, and no relevance what so
ever to copyright of that certificate.

Read the legislation, child.

 

[Don Hills]

In article <buc584$fulkj$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.17.08.55.37.182020@TRACKER...
In my they've all been screwed.

I'm not silly enough to go there.

Why the change? It's never stopped you before.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

 

[Don Hills]

In article <c9ff005rvgjtest67igq0bjcdqdnr8ehsc@4ax.com>,

Its just the Sick and Jealous that have all the problems here, seems like NZ
has become a Very sick country, with just all the rejects left..?

You certainly like talking about yourself, Roger.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

 

[Rod Speed]

Don Hills <dmhills@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0OyDAtgaXO7I092yn@attglobal.net...

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote

In my they've all been screwed.

I'm not silly enough to go there.

Why the change?

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed sheep raper fantasys.

It's never stopped you before.

Wrong. As always.

 

[Don Hills]

In article <buno2r$jun5r$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed sheep raper fantasys.

Uh huh.

Wrong. As always.

I'm never wrong where you're concerned, Rod. Your failure to realise it
is just another of your problems.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand

 

[Rob Singers]

Don Hills startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

I'm never wrong where you're concerned, Rod. Your failure to realise it
is just another of your problems.

Rod's name was mentioned in another NG recently. Apparently he's a well
known dickhead, is roddles.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply

 

[Don Hills]

In article <Xns9478E58D09C60rsingers@IP-Hidden>,
Rob Singers <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:

Rod's name was mentioned in another NG recently. Apparently he's a well
known dickhead, is roddles.

Apparently? Google will give you all the evidence you need to be certain.
He's a legend in his own lunchtime. Drop him in the same bit bucket as Roger
and Redbaiter and move on, there's nothing to see (or learn) here.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

 

[Lennier]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:40:46 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:

Well - I was speaking of the exclusive right to copy my certificate.

The _exclusive_ right to copy is different again. If that exists, it
would rest with the copyright holder. However the copyright holder can
also grant permission to copy to others - as Linus T. did with the Linux
kernel. He still retains the copyright (well, to bits of it anyway).

I possess the original of my certificate. Only I CAN copy it.

The Polytechnic would have to issue another original - and no I'm not
talking of the template that the Polytechnic uses.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.22.17.30.36.707160@TRACKER...

Richard Hector wrote

Well - I was speaking of the exclusive right to copy my certificate.

The _exclusive_ right to copy is different again. If that exists, it
would rest with the copyright holder. However the copyright holder
can also grant permission to copy to others - as Linus T. did with the
Linux kernel. He still retains the copyright (well, to bits of it anyway).

I possess the original of my certificate. Only I CAN copy it.

Completely irrelevant to who owns the copyright.

Copyright is NOT the same thing as who can physically do that.

Read the legislation, child.