Electronic "Taggent" To Keep Subscribers From Reposting Arti

[Bret Cahill]

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.


Bret Cahill

 

[Greegor]

On Sep 17, 8:10 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

 

[Bret Cahill]

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.


Bret Cahill

 

[kevin]

On Sep 17, 10:45 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf

http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

(note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
stuff, you'll probably have to pay).

 

[kevin]

On Sep 17, 11:14 pm, kevin <kevinjmc...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Sep 17, 10:45 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:





They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf

http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

(note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
stuff, you'll probably have to pay).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post. What I was going to
say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
think. A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
copyright conviction for any good lawyer. When Iasked about the 'non-
commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
someone a college education?

Kevin McGee

 

[Bret Cahill]

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf

http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

(note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
stuff, you'll probably have to pay).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post.  What I was going to
say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
think.  A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
copyright conviction for any good lawyer.  When Iasked about the 'non-
commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
someone a college education?

Regardless of the law it could still be at least technically possible
to make subscriptions available with the stipulation that the articles
not be re posted.

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

Not that _I_ would have thought of it either but it's surprising
someone with 20-20 foresight -- these people exist -- didn't say,
"maybe we ought to consider including an option to help protect
copyrighted material. If we do it now it won't be necessary to redo
everything later on . . ."


Bret Cahill

 

[Greegor]

On Sep 17, 11:41 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.

Was that a joke about NYT's issues a few years back
with writers with fraudulent credentials?

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I didn't even look at those.
I can tell you that legal opinions on this vary WILDLY,
probably because of gutless overcaution or
just plain ignorance. Get OVER your pretense
that any attorney actually has a definitive answer.

You could hire 6 different attorneys and get
6 different answers. Ask them if they
consulted Shepherds Digest to sheperdize the case law.

(note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
stuff, you'll probably have to pay).

The FAIR USE exception was supposedly designed
specifically so that it could NOT be obfuscated behind
legal technicality or require hiring a member of the
lawyers GUILD to interpret the exceptions.

kevin wrote

Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post.  What I was going to
say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
think.

Then you went on to describe a copyright
violation that is BLATANTLY not covered by
the FAIR USE exceptions. Whole books.

kevin wrote

 A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
copyright conviction for any good lawyer.  When Iasked about the 'non-
commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
someone a college education?

Whole books would be a violation on RSS or usenet as well.

FAIR USE does not exempt whole books from copyright.

Regardless of the law it could still be at least technically possible
to make subscriptions available with the stipulation that the articles
not be re posted.

NYT seems to have already tried that sort of protectionism.
At that point it would become a contract violation and
not a copyright violation where FAIR USE offers an exception.

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

You wrote that from the perspective of authors and
publishers and seem to be trying to minimize
the FAIR USE exceptions to copyright law.

At the same time you seem to concede the
exceptions when you suggest more restrictive
subscription to access content with contractual
stipulation OUTSIDE of the law.
(Then enforceable by terminating subscription or
through tort action for contract violation but NOT
for copyright law violation..)

I have posted THOUSANDS of complete news articles
to usenet with links and I have never even been asked
by any publisher to cease, not that I would.

I loved the part where one of you tried to instill the
fear of booga booga and suggest that this simple
issue needs a paid professional legal consultation.

The FAIR USE exceptions were designed specifically
to NOT require the expense of an attorney to interpret.

Writers and publishers HATE the FAIR USE exceptions.
Most would like to deny that they exist at all.

Do any of the stern legal warnings that publishers
put at the bottom even mention FAIR USE exceptions?

Not that _I_ would have thought of it either but it's surprising
someone with 20-20 foresight -- these people exist -- didn't say,
"maybe we ought to consider including an option to help protect
copyrighted material.  If we do it now it won't be necessary to redo
everything later on . . ."

Bret Cahill

Was that a joke about the Steamboat Willie thing?

 

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 17, 8:10 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.

Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the work for, among other
reasons, discussion. It does not allow for posting of the full
article.

A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):

Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT

"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead

Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."

"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser

" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson

Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services

With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."

"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.

--a true story

As of Sunday, August 15, 2010:

SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT

JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.

Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Regardless of the law it could still be at least technically possible
to make subscriptions available with the stipulation that the articles
not be re posted.

NYT seems to have already tried that sort of protectionism.

How were they trying to determine which subscribers were the sources
of which reposted material?

At that point it would become a contract violation and
not a copyright violation where FAIR USE offers an exception.

That may be difficult to enforce even if they knew and that alone may
kill the idea.

Supposing hundreds or thousands of subscriber - violators started to
sue in small claims court to get their subscriptions back?

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

You wrote that from the perspective of authors and
publishers and seem to be trying to minimize
the FAIR USE exceptions to copyright law.

Hardly. The reason for protecting the IP of writers employed by the
"popular press" isn't all that lofty. It's just not very smart to
have a lot of talented writers in the same economic situation as
underpaid New Orleans cops.

They're going to get money from somewhere.

The real question is, if their readers aren't paying them, who is?

At the same time you seem to concede the
exceptions when you suggest more restrictive
subscription to access content with contractual
stipulation OUTSIDE of the law.
(Then enforceable by terminating subscription or
through tort action for contract violation but NOT
for copyright law violation..)

I have posted THOUSANDS of complete news articles
to usenet with links and I have never even been asked
by any publisher to cease, not that I would.

There may be a reason for that other than just the infeasibility of
taking thousands to court. After all, they could always prosecute a
few to set as examples.

The real reason is the media are mostly funded by corp. and other
monied interests who exercise a whole lot more editorial control over
the content of the "independent" media than what publishers would have
you believe.

This "soft power" editorial control is worth a whole lot more to the
monied interests than any increase in revenue Saks Fifth Avenue ever
realizes from 7 day / week $80K / full page ads.

That's why they aren't going to prosecute anyone. You are just
unwittingly helping them spread their propaganda around.

That's another good reason to comply with the spirit of the copyright
laws.

You can repost the specific truths they do put out, omit the link if
you want -- the lazy and ignorant will not google -- and then later
point out how the _Times_ would have everyone believe Pat Robertson
came over on the Mayflower, the top tax rate under JFK was 20% and
that Revolutionary era American political engagement wasn't any more
sophisticated than "taxing rum and subduing Indians."

Just read _Democracy In America_ (1833) and you'll immediately see the
heavy duty historical revisionism and understand how soft power
editorial control works.


Bret Cahill

 

[Mark]

The real reason is the media are mostly funded by corp. and other
monied interests who exercise a whole lot more editorial control over
the content of the "independent" media than what publishers would have
you believe.

This "soft power" editorial control is worth a whole lot more to the
monied interests than any increase in revenue Saks Fifth Avenue ever
realizes from 7 day / week $80K / full page ads.

then why are some newspapers actually going out of biz?

if the "soft power" were so valuable...the "monied interests" (your
term) would keep them funded just to maintain the "soft power"

Mark

 

[Greegor]

BC > Regardless of the law it could still be at least
BC > technically possible to make subscriptions
BC > available with the stipulation that the articles
BC > not be re posted.

G > At that point it would become a contract
G > violation and not a copyright violation
G > where FAIR USE offers an exception.

BC > That may be difficult to enforce even if
BC > they knew and that alone may kill the idea.

Awww..

BC > Supposing hundreds or thousands of
BC > subscriber - violators started to sue in
BC > small claims court to get their
BC > subscriptions back?

Would you actually PAY to subscribe to NYT online?

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

For the publishers, writers or readers?

You wrote that from the perspective of authors and
publishers and seem to be trying to minimize
the FAIR USE exceptions to copyright law.

Hardly.  The reason for protecting the IP of writers employed by the
"popular press" isn't all that lofty.

You post as if it's a top priority government imperative.

 It's just not very smart to have a lot of talented
writers in the same economic situation as
underpaid New Orleans cops.

Could you please diagram you logic here?
It's starting to sound like you're hinting at
entitlement or elevating the importance of
writers to compare to law enforcement.

They're going to get money from somewhere.

Or what?

The real question is, if their readers aren't paying them, who is?

Advertisers?

At the same time you seem to concede the
exceptions when you suggest more restrictive
subscription to access content with contractual
stipulation OUTSIDE of the law.
(Then enforceable by terminating subscription or
through tort action for contract violation but NOT
for copyright law violation..)
I have posted THOUSANDS of complete news articles
to usenet with links and I have never even been asked
by any publisher to cease, not that I would.

There may be a reason for that other than just the infeasibility of
taking thousands to court.  After all, they could always prosecute a
few to set as examples.

The real reason is the media are mostly funded by corp. and other
monied interests who exercise a whole lot more editorial control over
the content of the "independent" media than what publishers would have
you believe.

Are you pretending they are all biased in the same direction?

This "soft power" editorial control is worth a whole lot more to the
monied interests than any increase in revenue Saks Fifth Avenue ever
realizes from 7 day / week $80K / full page ads.

That's why they aren't going to prosecute anyone.  You are just
unwittingly helping them spread their propaganda around.

That's another good reason to comply with the spirit of the copyright
laws.

Pretzel logic.

You can repost the specific truths they do put out, omit the link if
you want -- the lazy and ignorant will not google -- and then later
point out how the _Times_ would have everyone believe Pat Robertson
came over on the Mayflower, the top tax rate under JFK was 20% and
that Revolutionary era American political engagement wasn't any more
sophisticated than "taxing rum and subduing Indians."

Just read _Democracy In America_ (1833) and you'll immediately see the
heavy duty historical revisionism and understand how soft power
editorial control works.

Bret Cahill

Like Soros?


KBW > Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the
KBW > work for, among other reasons, discussion.
KBW > It does not allow for posting of the full article.

Please post caselaw supporting your assertions, Kent.

Make it better than your garage burglary appeal!

 

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

KBW > Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the
KBW > work for, among other reasons, discussion.
KBW > It does not allow for posting of the full article.

Interesting. Nowhere in the post to which you replied does my
comments appear.
Do you really think your post edits are a winning strategy?

Please post caselaw supporting your assertions, Kent.

Your tacit admission, by YOUR standards, that I was and am
correct is accepted.

Make it better than your garage burglary appeal!

I've offered no such appeal. Since, as you accidentally admitted,
I have no conviction for such, an appeal would be really dumb.

A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):

Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT

"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead

Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."

"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser

" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson

Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services

With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."

"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.

--a true story

As of Sunday, August 15, 2010:

SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT

JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.

Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.

 

[Greegor]

On Sep 18, 5:38 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

BC > Regardless of the law it could still be at least
BC > technically possible to make subscriptions
BC > available with the stipulation that the articles
BC > not be re posted.

G > At that point it would become a contract
G > violation and not a copyright violation
G > where FAIR USE offers an exception.

BC > That may be difficult to enforce even if
BC > they knew and that alone may kill the idea.

Awww..

BC > Supposing hundreds or thousands of
BC > subscriber - violators started to sue in
BC > small claims court to get their
BC > subscriptions back?

Would you actually PAY to subscribe to NYT online?

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

For the publishers, writers or readers?

You wrote that from the perspective of authors and
publishers and seem to be trying to minimize
the FAIR USE exceptions to copyright law.
Hardly.  The reason for protecting the IP of writers employed by the
"popular press" isn't all that lofty.

You post as if it's a top priority government imperative.

 It's just not very smart to have a lot of talented
writers in the same economic situation as
underpaid New Orleans cops.

Could you please diagram you logic here?
It's starting to sound like you're hinting at
entitlement or elevating the importance of
writers to compare to law enforcement.

They're going to get money from somewhere.

Or what?

The real question is, if their readers aren't paying them, who is?

Advertisers?





At the same time you seem to concede the
exceptions when you suggest more restrictive
subscription to access content with contractual
stipulation OUTSIDE of the law.
(Then enforceable by terminating subscription or
through tort action for contract violation but NOT
for copyright law violation..)
I have posted THOUSANDS of complete news articles
to usenet with links and I have never even been asked
by any publisher to cease, not that I would.
There may be a reason for that other than just the infeasibility of
taking thousands to court.  After all, they could always prosecute a
few to set as examples.
The real reason is the media are mostly funded by corp. and other
monied interests who exercise a whole lot more editorial control over
the content of the "independent" media than what publishers would have
you believe.

Are you pretending they are all biased in the same direction?

This "soft power" editorial control is worth a whole lot more to the
monied interests than any increase in revenue Saks Fifth Avenue ever
realizes from 7 day / week $80K / full page ads.

That's why they aren't going to prosecute anyone.  You are just
unwittingly helping them spread their propaganda around.

That's another good reason to comply with the spirit of the copyright
laws.

Pretzel logic.

You can repost the specific truths they do put out, omit the link if
you want -- the lazy and ignorant will not google -- and then later
point out how the _Times_ would have everyone believe Pat Robertson
came over on the Mayflower, the top tax rate under JFK was 20% and
that Revolutionary era American political engagement wasn't any more
sophisticated than "taxing rum and subduing Indians."

Just read _Democracy In America_ (1833) and you'll immediately see the
heavy duty historical revisionism and understand how soft power
editorial control works.

Bret Cahill

Like Soros?

KBW > Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the
KBW > work for, among other reasons, discussion.
KBW > It does not allow for posting of the full article.

Please post caselaw supporting your assertions, Kent.

Make it better than your garage burglary appeal!

LOL

 

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott
Hanson) Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/981d9dc989356179?hl=en&dmode=source

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!
feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.dsp,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Electronic "Taggent" To Keep Subscribers From Reposting
Articles
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:28:18 -0500
Organization: The Kult of Kane. You may already be a member.
Lines: 123
Sender: compu...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <k2c996t2uvi8akio7eteell283t5vf39uu@4ax.com
References: <04db189a-eed7-4e98-9c82-
d4ad6ab85aea@u5g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <b8c31d21-
c30e-4bb3-9db9-1992dbbc3f5b@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
Reply-To: compu...@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.datemas.de qSbE5DprhL8BmCY2Q8gmCSPMb
+IH2mk2jW0ymN5HrFovCTAtu+gackxJ+Z7Y8Pe9lpFWsXr
+sPbza5qbYTY3CWfItzZQ4jU2jZKKJmJbZIyPwPvlYZ9RbTgTs2rCYndcznYHjUweaS3vJzI/
XibBpiKB5W2p9oVzOgoWRil7Txo=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@datemas.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:28:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100917-0, 09/17/2010), Outbound message
[...]
KBW > Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the
KBW > work for, among other reasons, discussion.
KBW > It does not allow for posting of the full article.
[...]
-------------------------------------------

Wow. Another post edit, and you offer the means to PROVE it.
You really are as mentally retarded as you present. How do you
function in the real world?

KBW > Interesting.  Nowhere in the post to which
KBW > you replied does my comments appear.

You don't want to post any caselaw do you?

I wasn't aware there exists any case law on post edits.
Not that such case law would have any bearing on the TRUTH that
you are compelled to post edit, further proving that unless you
believe being honest will promote one or more of your lies, you are
psychologically UNABLE to be honest intentionally.
No additional proof of the TRUTH was needed, but it's always nice
that you're so willing to offer it.

KBW > Do you really think your post edits are a winning strategy?

G > Please post caselaw supporting your assertions, Kent.

KBW > Your tacit admission, by YOUR standards,
KBW > that I was and am correct is accepted.

Caselaw?

I've already accepted your admission, by YOUR standards, that I
was and am correct. You don't NEED to keep admitting I was and am
correct.
It's nice that you want to, but know that I do not require it.
Now, let's return to the topic at hand: Your NEED to post edit to
alter the context of the conversation, and how you ALWAYS get caught
when you use this act of deception.

G > Make it better than your garage burglary appeal!

KBW > I've offered no such appeal. Since, as you
KBW > accidentally admitted, I have no conviction
KBW > for such, an appeal would be really dumb.

At least you agree, by YOUR standards, to file an appeal without
first being convicted would be really dumb.
It would also be dumb given that I've not even been charged with
the crime. You've not actually admitted this truth, by any standard,
but you do know this is the case.

A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):

Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT

"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead

Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."

"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser

" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson

Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services

With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."

"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.

--a true story

As of Sunday, August 15, 2010:

SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT

JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.

Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.

 

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/981d9dc989356179?hl=en&dmode=source

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!
feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.dsp,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Electronic "Taggent" To Keep Subscribers From Reposting
Articles
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:28:18 -0500
Organization: The Kult of Kane. You may already be a member.
Lines: 123
Sender: compu...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <k2c996t2uvi8akio7eteell283t5vf39uu@4ax.com>
References: <04db189a-eed7-4e98-9c82-
d4ad6ab85aea@u5g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <b8c31d21-
c30e-4bb3-9db9-1992dbbc3f5b@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: compu...@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.datemas.de qSbE5DprhL8BmCY2Q8gmCSPMb
+IH2mk2jW0ymN5HrFovCTAtu+gackxJ+Z7Y8Pe9lpFWsXr
+sPbza5qbYTY3CWfItzZQ4jU2jZKKJmJbZIyPwPvlYZ9RbTgTs2rCYndcznYHjUweaS3vJzI/
XibBpiKB5W2p9oVzOgoWRil7TxoX-Complaints-To: abuse@datemas.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:28:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100917-0, 09/17/2010), Outbound message
[...]
KBW > Fair use permits the quoting of PART of the
KBW > work for, among other reasons, discussion.
KBW > It does not allow for posting of the full article.
[...]
-------------------------------------------


KBW > Interesting.  Nowhere in the post to which
KBW > you replied does my comments appear.

You don't want to post any caselaw do you?

KBW > Do you really think your post edits are a winning strategy?

G > Please post caselaw supporting your assertions, Kent.

KBW > Your tacit admission, by YOUR standards,
KBW > that I was and am correct is accepted.

Caselaw?

G > Make it better than your garage burglary appeal!

KBW > I've offered no such appeal. Since, as you
KBW > accidentally admitted, I have no conviction
KBW > for such, an appeal would be really dumb.

 

[Bret Cahill]

The real reason is the media are mostly funded by corp. and other
monied interests who exercise a whole lot more editorial control over
the content of the "independent" media than what publishers would have
you believe.

This "soft power" editorial control is worth a whole lot more to the
monied interests than any increase in revenue Saks Fifth Avenue ever
realizes from 7 day / week $80K / full page ads.

then why are some newspapers actually going out of biz?

They obviously weren't influential enough to be worth the money.

The number of papers peaked out in 1913 and have decreased ever since.

The difference now is everyone is an editorialist.

if the "soft power" were so valuable...the "monied interests" (your
term) would keep them funded just to maintain the "soft power"

Everything is subject to cost-benefit risk analysis, whether they
admit it or not.

In the long run they'll lose.

As Tocqueville pointed out, "the increase of equality of conditions
is, therefore, a providential fact. It has all the chief
characteristic of a law of nature. It universal and enduring . . .
all men and all events contribute to equality's progress."


Bret Cahill