Greg Hanson says "Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most slowly kill the patient."

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:47:33 GMT (Zulu), "0:-"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

Michael, stop displaying your stupidity. The post I now write, because
it is fully attributed with other people's commentary would constitute
copyright infringement by me. Do YOU wish to charge with such?

I wish not to do so, nor do I believe it would constitute a violation of
DMCA since this is the way this medium (Usenet) functions i.e. I expect to
be quoted here and receive answers for ease of reading the thread.

Copying your writings from here and publishing elsewhere, since I am not
the author, would be copyright infringement according to the DMCA. Read
up on copyright and the DMCA. Someone authors something, it is their
copyrighted material. No need for a copyright symbol which is just a
reminder/notice.

All one has to do is claim something as theirs and it is copyright if they
created the thing.

The author has five (5) years from unauthorized publishing to claim
copyright infringement.

You want papers on your writings? $30 USD will get them from the US
Copyright office. It isn't required though to make your work officially
copyrighted.

Now, stupid, educate yourself if you want to argue something. I didn't
create copyright nor have a hand in writing the DMCA, but the fact is, if
something is your work, it is protected.


You are making noise and little sense...something you do a lot of.

Sorry to inform you Kane, but the SNR of my post is very high.



Kane

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !





--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:21:16 GMT (Zulu), "0:-"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

Court cases please, for newsgroup and other casual conversation
exchanges on The Web.

Thanks in advance. 0:-


I wasn't discussing Usenet or exchanges such as e-mail which stays in that
medium. I was discussing Dan's cut and paste of others writings from one
place to another. They are not his and the author may not be very happy
with his work being published elsewhere.

Stealing something from one site to place on another if you lack
permission or you are not the author of the work is no different than
copying an article from a book or magazine and republishing it. It is a
violation of the owners copyright. You should heed the little notices next
time you copy entire news articles here instead of linking to them.





--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !




--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:21:14 GMT (Zulu), "0:-" put
the following graffiti on the walls of alt.support.child-protective-
services:

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?

Dan Sullivan wrote
I didn't violate anything, Greg.
Or steal anything either.

Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?

Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!

Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!

I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.

Faking the IP,

There is no such thing as a fake IP. It's called a "proxy." It's legal.

Accuracy, Kane. It is legal if it is an open public proxy or a private
proxy that you have permission to use.

....


--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

Michael© wrote:
......' I'm the guy that "copyrights" my name with a symbol that is not
in universal use known to actually indicate copyright. I'm also the guy
that doesn't even know you don't "copyrigth" names, you register them.
'

In other words, to be technically correct one would write their name,
if they wished to register it, as "Michael®"

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
.... Titles, NAMES, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or
designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents ...
(emphasis mine on NAMES).

You could register "Michael®" as a trademark, or business name, if you
wished. But copyrighting a single word is simply not done.

Now as to this bull**** of yours about two things. My use of news
articles.

One, you may use such articles if you are going to comment, criticize
or otherwise use it for literary use including satire.

What you may NOT do is use the work in a form that makes it appear as
YOUR product.

In fact, Dan did exactly as I've said above. He identified the source
clearly. He made various comments and observations about the
content...as have I.

One of the best minds I know on this issue is Brad Templeton, at:

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

His clarification is as follows, and note that I ATTRIBUTE THIS TO HIM
AND LINK TO IT, 0:-

What you will find is that Fair Use is not that simple a concept:

....The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to
allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to
express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other
people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New
York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of
the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own
story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York
Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably
aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
(One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in
the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another
reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously,
copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a
magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very
newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he
pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for
commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original
posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair
use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to
comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case.
There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above,
but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair
use. ...

If Dan had NOT identified source and author and why would he do THAT,
for **** sake, given the stupidity of the material content, he would be
in violation of copyright. He posted it explicitly to critique the
content and source, just as if it had been printed in the NY Times.

You once again manage to step on your dick.

I have avoided ever going this far into this issue as in another
newsgroup there was a wonder running ongoing exchange over this very
issue, and I had delighted in watching the idiots there make it up as
they go.

But now I'm willing to end their suffering. One of them did indeed
attempt to prints someone else's material as their own product, with no
clear identification of the author. SHE had to intervene with the twit,
as he had done it twice and was insisting it wasn't enfringement,
though had NOT met any of the criteria mentioned by Templeton above, in
one of them, and obscured the author's name by posting it below a blank
page under the original posting of her work. Very sly. Few of us think
to bring up anything past a blank page.

Talk about deliberate deception.

Dan in no way attempted to usurp the work, but in fact fully accredited
the author, and the website the limited extraction came from...a clear
fair use compliance.

It IS fair use to quote for the purpose of criticism.

Show in the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" where it says otherwise.
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
[[ Now I offer a few choice quotes ]]

....This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have
the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work
may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act
of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the
fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to
a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is
prohibited. ...

[[[ And note, unless it's shown otherwise ... and I've been to the
site, there was NO technological device blocking copying -- it's an
open site to the public as well. ]]]

And the DMCA does NOT define "Fair Use" but simply mentions it in
deferral to the already existing fair use doctrine of various
countries...and this one.

If you know of any such mention, please point us directly to it in the
document on line that I have provided (and you didn't you clever little
imp you) above.

So, you were blowing hard yet AGAIN, Michael...whatever your silly mark
is.

And demonstrate for us how Dan violated fair use. Please.

And demonstrate how I do reprinting single articles from the media with
full attribution and a link to the site...something I always do
deliberately.

If I was to criticize Dan I'd have to admonish him for lazily NOT
providing a link every time...but he certainly identified the source by
name.

He did NOT attempt to pass a damn thing off as his own, except where
they WERE his own words.

Have a really wonderful evening, you legal expert you.

R R R R R R


On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:47:33 GMT (Zulu), "0:-"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

Michael, stop displaying your stupidity. The post I now write, because
it is fully attributed with other people's commentary would constitute
copyright infringement by me. Do YOU wish to charge with such?

I wish not to do so, nor do I believe it would constitute a violation of
DMCA since this is the way this medium (Usenet) functions i.e. I expect to
be quoted here and receive answers for ease of reading the thread.

Copying your writings from here and publishing elsewhere, since I am not
the author, would be copyright infringement according to the DMCA. Read
up on copyright and the DMCA. Someone authors something, it is their
copyrighted material. No need for a copyright symbol which is just a
reminder/notice.

All one has to do is claim something as theirs and it is copyright if they
created the thing.

The author has five (5) years from unauthorized publishing to claim
copyright infringement.

You want papers on your writings? $30 USD will get them from the US
Copyright office. It isn't required though to make your work officially
copyrighted.

Now, stupid, educate yourself if you want to argue something. I didn't
create copyright nor have a hand in writing the DMCA, but the fact is, if
something is your work, it is protected.


You are making noise and little sense...something you do a lot of.

Sorry to inform you Kane, but the SNR of my post is very high.



Kane

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !





--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:21:14 GMT (Zulu), "0:-" put
the following graffiti on the walls of alt.support.child-protective-
services:

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?

Dan Sullivan wrote
I didn't violate anything, Greg.
Or steal anything either.

Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?

Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!

Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!

I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.

Faking the IP,

There is no such thing as a fake IP. It's called a "proxy." It's legal.

Accuracy, Kane. It is legal if it is an open public proxy or a private
proxy that you have permission to use.

Mere expansion on what I said. There was no reason to go into legal or
not. The question was this...."Faking the IP."

The claim of the other nitwit.

So, I might point out, Michael with the ridiculous copyright mark
behind his name...or is it a fake one....R R R R R .... THAT YES,
"accuracy, Kane."

Mine was, yours was not.

0:-



...


--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Wrong. It's "fair use" to copy and print and use for certain purposes,
which Dan did. He was well within Fair Use guidelines. He was
critiquing.

You are talking to a published author, oh brilliant legal scholar, who
has sued for copyright enfringement and won settlement.

I KNOW what fair use is and is not. Concealing the source constitutes
one type of violation.

Did Dan conceal the source?

Those that stole my work changed bits and pieces (but not the code word
scattered about that I periodically search) of my work, and did NOT
mention source, and printed under their own authorship. Nailed them.

I KNOW copyright. YOU KNOW ****.

What covers us in this medium is NOT expectation, bright boy. It's that
we attribute clearly without concealing source, and we republish each
others commentary to critique and otherwise FAIRLY USE the other's
work.

When you post something I wrote, Michael of silly name addition, and
DON'T acknowledge me, expect a visit from my attorney. I'm very very
strict on this.

And don't bother to ask for proof of publishing. None of you idiots
will ever know the name I published under.

You think you know who I am, and I let you for my own purposes.

You know ****.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

If they steal the work, reprint it as their own, it's a violation.

If the reprint with citations cleary and use the work to critique it it
is fair use.

Wake up.

Go actually read your referrence. It does NOT address "copyright"
direction by defers to the US copyright office and laws of other
countries.

Nor does it address fair use in any but that way as well.

Then go to the copy right office page I provided you in another post on
this subject, and look up "fair use" and you'll find that Templeton has
it right, and the copyright office certainly does.

There is no "felony" involved in Dan's reprinting. That's total Greg
the Weasel trying to get out from under his vicious attack on a poster
to the support group by encouraging her to break the law in the middle
of a CPS case.

And you are abbetting him by coming to his rescue with this bull****.

0:-



Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

Greegor wrote:
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

You have as yet to prove he did so.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail was broken into?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

They were broken into?


The HTTPS argument is a red herring.


Show how this is so.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
had.

Provide proof please.

I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
poster there. Think about it.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.

Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
imagination.

There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Is there?

Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.

No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.

If you wish it to be, then request it.

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

None occurred.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.

It's a FELONY.

You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
wrong.

Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
times now.

There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.


Provide the statute.

Hop to it, kid.

Chop chop.

Pronto.

No delay.

GO!

Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
recordings.

You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
judgement, Greg.

It's just that simple.

And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
actually exist.

Grow up, child. Grow up.

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?

I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
(which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
without an actual working IP number).

Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
someone else to do it for him.

Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."

Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.

Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.

0:-

Why are people surprised that psychotropics actually shorten life
expectancy?

Dan of all people, having had a Bipolar Manic Depressive wife once,
should have known this.

Too busy griping about Greg Hanson, or diverting from
actual issues?

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

You have as yet to prove he did so.

This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.


Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail was broken into?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

They were broken into?

No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
https remark.



The HTTPS argument is a red herring.


Show how this is so.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
had.

Provide proof please.

Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.


I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
poster there. Think about it.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.

Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
imagination.

Sounds like a plausable defense.

Good luck with that. lol.


There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Is there?

Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.

No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.

If you wish it to be, then request it.

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

None occurred.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.

It's a FELONY.

You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
wrong.

Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
times now.

There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.


Provide the statute.

Hop to it, kid.

Chop chop.

Pronto.

No delay.

GO!

Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
recordings.

You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
judgement, Greg.

It's just that simple.

And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
actually exist.

Grow up, child. Grow up.

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?

I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
(which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
without an actual working IP number).

Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
someone else to do it for him.

Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."

Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.

Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.

0:-