Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Technically, owners are not responsible for anything. There's no
law that compels copyright owners to do any specific thing.

Of course they are.

Laws generally *don't* describe or define things that you *must* do.

The generally describe or define things you can be criminally charged
for (ie - things you *shouldn't* do). Laws can also define your rights.

Copyright law defines certain rights. It does not define or describe
obligations that the copyright holder is "burdened" with.

It is their responsibility to protect their copyright.

It is their *right* to protect their copyright. Nothing in law gives
them any responsibility to do anything.

If they allow you to violate their copyright, they may in fact
forfeit their copyright.

I don't know if you can ever "forfeit" your copyright rights through
non-action, but the courts can never know when a copyright holder knows
that their copyrights are being violated. Your theory here sounds very
implausible.

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it.

but you are violating the copyright by not paying to acquire and/or
view it

Copyright law defines only "distribution" and "reproduction" rights.
Not viewing or consumption or storage or possession.

Technically, whoever did the recording and then made it available
for download is the one who violated any applicable copyright
agreement or law.

and you knowingly acquiring a copy of this material, no matter
what the media, makes you an accessory to that crime

Copyright laws define civil rights with regard to some forms of
intellectual property. These are not criminal laws. You don't do any
jail time for copyright infringement. So there is no concept of being
an "accessory".

I wouldn't have gone to see this in a movie theater anyways.

The fact that you acquired this movie puts the lie to this
statement

No it doesn't.

I download movies that were shown in movies years ago but no longer
are. I did not go to see those movies at the time when they were being
shown in theaters. According to your logic, if I don't download any
given movie, then I must have seen or will see it in a theater.

I'm sure there are many people that only see a given movie when it's
eventually broadcast by a TV network many months or years after the
movie was released. They made no special effort to see the movie when
it was shown in theaters, or to buy the VHS tape or DVD disk when (or
if) such a product became available.

I haven't stolen it.

It's a product that someone spent time and money to produce.

They have the original film. They have the legal right to sell it in
the form of a DVD, or to a network to broadcast, or to a toy or game
company to make a toy or game based on the movie or the characters in
the movie. I can do none of those things.

You have it with neither the permission of the copyright
holder or its assignee, therefore you have possession of
stolen property

It is not physical property (also known as "real" property).

Copyright owners do not call the police to report a "theft" of their
"intellectual property" when I download their movie from a file locker
server. There is no "stolen property".

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent.

but there are laws about receiving stolen property

A copy of a movie that's sitting on my hard drive is not "property".

Look up fair use or personal use.

See also:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_downloa...n_this_i ssue

===================
Downloading or uploading is neither legal or illegal, it all depends on
what it was downloaded for. There are limitation to liability in the
DMCA that is if it was intended for a promotional use instead of
non-commercial, personal use, then that person is violating the DMCA.
This was addressed as The Supreme Court stated in MGM vs. Grokster in
2005 that one who distribute the device to promote it's use to infringe
copyright is liable. However, the DMCA does not completely outlaw
redistribution of materials in anyway whether in person, or through
Torrent or p2p clients or elsewhere online. And once a distribution is
made, the Artists has no control of them. You owns what you possess and
it's your right to do whatever you want to with it.

As long as the materials were distributed or released under agreement of
the authors or inventors, you do not need the authorization to
redistribute them to another person or make many copies as you want.
This is exempted from the DMCA notice.

File sharing does not by itself infringe copyright and so therefore it's
not illegal to download or upload anything as long as they are intended
for personal use.
===================


Note also this wording:

===============
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the
permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an
online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings,
to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make
the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In
doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of
reproduction and distribution.
===============


No mention at all of "stolen property". As in - "The defendant is in
possession of stolen property".

Home Guy wrote:
Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent.

but there are laws about receiving stolen property

A copy of a movie that's sitting on my hard drive is not "property".

Look up fair use or personal use.


Look up Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:40:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent.

but there are laws about receiving stolen property

A copy of a movie that's sitting on my hard drive is not "property".

Look up fair use or personal use.


Look up Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


"...A federal judge has lowered a file sharing verdict to $54,000 from
$1.5 million, ruling Friday that the jury’s award “for stealing 24
songs for personal use is appalling.”

The decision by U.S. District Judge Michael Davis follows the third
trial in the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuit
against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first file sharer to take an RIAA
lawsuit to a jury trial. Under the case’s latest iteration, a
Minnesota jury dinged her in November $62,500 for each of 22 songs she
pilfered on Kazaa"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/kazaa-verdict-slashed/

Oren wrote:

"...A federal judge has lowered a file sharing verdict to $54,000
from $1.5 million, ruling Friday that the jury’s award “for stealing
24 songs for personal use is appalling.”

The decision by U.S. District Judge Michael Davis follows the third
trial in the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuit
against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first file sharer to take an RIAA
lawsuit to a jury trial. Under the case’s latest iteration, a
Minnesota jury dinged her in November $62,500 for each of 22 songs
she pilfered on Kazaa"

"Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against
individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
The RIAA has said it has ceased its 5-year campaign of suing
individual file sharers and, with the Motion Picture
Association of America, have convinced internet service providers
to take punitive action against copyright scofflaws, including
terminating service."

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent.

but there are laws about receiving stolen property

A copy of a movie that's sitting on my hard drive is not "property".

Look up fair use or personal use.

See also:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_downloa...ot_upload_ an
ything._Where_in_the_DMCA_does_it_mention_this_iss ue




As long as the materials were distributed or released under agreement of
the authors or inventors, you do not need the authorization to
redistribute them to another person or make many copies as you want.
This is exempted from the DMCA notice.

Did you have the agreement of the author(s) of the movie? If not you are
violating the copyright, either directly or indirectly

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it.

but you are violating the copyright by not paying to acquire and/or
view it

Copyright law defines only "distribution" and "reproduction" rights.
Not viewing or consumption or storage or possession.

do you have reproduction rights?



Copyright laws define civil rights with regard to some forms of
intellectual property. These are not criminal laws. You don't do any
jail time for copyright infringement. So there is no concept of being
an "accessory".

You have violated those defined civil rights



I wouldn't have gone to see this in a movie theater anyways.

The fact that you acquired this movie puts the lie to this statement

No it doesn't.

sure it does



I download movies that were shown in movies years ago but no longer
are. I did not go to see those movies at the time when they were being
shown in theaters. According to your logic, if I don't download any
given movie, then I must have seen or will see it in a theater.

what you would have watched/paid for in a theater is irrelevant. It in no way
invalidates the legal copyright that you are so willing to violate



I'm sure there are many people that only see a given movie when it's
eventually broadcast by a TV network many months or years after the
movie was released. They made no special effort to see the movie when
it was shown in theaters, or to buy the VHS tape or DVD disk when (or
if) such a product became available.

and they made no attempt to acquire the movie via an illegal act



I haven't stolen it.

It's a product that someone spent time and money to produce.

They have the original film. They have the legal right to sell it in
the form of a DVD, or to a network to broadcast, or to a toy or game
company to make a toy or game based on the movie or the characters in
the movie. I can do none of those things.

Exactly, THEY have that legal right, not the person who uploaded it for you to
download. You acquired it from someone who has no legal right to its distribution




You have it with neither the permission of the copyright
holder or its assignee, therefore you have possession of
stolen property

It is not physical property (also known as "real" property).

Of course it's physical property. It's on your hard drive and that is real
property. In any event the form of the item is irrelevant to the copyright



Copyright owners do not call the police to report a "theft" of their
"intellectual property" when I download their movie from a file locker
server. There is no "stolen property".

That's not strictly true. The warning at the beginning of most/all DVDs makes it
clear that the FBI consider such crimes reason for their involvement

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:51:59 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

"...A federal judge has lowered a file sharing verdict to $54,000
from $1.5 million, ruling Friday that the jury’s award “for stealing
24 songs for personal use is appalling.”

The decision by U.S. District Judge Michael Davis follows the third
trial in the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuit
against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first file sharer to take an RIAA
lawsuit to a jury trial. Under the case’s latest iteration, a
Minnesota jury dinged her in November $62,500 for each of 22 songs
she pilfered on Kazaa"

"Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against
individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
The RIAA has said it has ceased its 5-year campaign of suing
individual file sharers and, with the Motion Picture
Association of America, have convinced internet service providers
to take punitive action against copyright scofflaws, including
terminating service."

....but it's perfectly legal, eh?

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:



As long as the materials were distributed or released under
agreement of the authors or inventors, you do not need the
authorization to redistribute them to another person or make many
copies as you want. This is exempted from the DMCA notice.

Did you have the agreement of the author(s) of the movie? If not you
are violating the copyright, either directly or indirectly

Violation of a mere copyright involves the possibility of civil liability
and monetary damages.

Violation of DMCA exposes the violator to a possible prison term.

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

do you have reproduction rights?

I have fair-use rights.

and they made no attempt to acquire the movie via an illegal act

Contravening a copyright is not an illegality. It is not a criminal
transgression.

You acquired it from someone who has no legal right to its
distribution

But I wasn't the one doing the distribution.

It is not physical property (also known as "real" property).

Of course it's physical property. It's on your hard drive and
that is real property.

Information is not property.

If I read a book, or listen to music, or watch a movie, are those things
now considered as property inside my head?

Copyright owners do not call the police to report a "theft" of
their "intellectual property" when I download their movie from
a file locker server. There is no "stolen property".

That's not strictly true. The warning at the beginning of most/all
DVDs makes it clear that the FBI consider such crimes reason for
their involvement

Only when there is a profit motive behind the copyright violation -
which almost always means that bootlegged copies of CD's or DVD's are
being made and sold. Otherwise, the FBI does not involve itself with
movie and music file-sharing on the internet by way of trying to
prosecute uploaders or downloaders.

(rest of latin garbage deleted)

" wrote:

"Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against
individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
The RIAA has said it has ceased its 5-year campaign of suing
individual file sharers and, with the Motion Picture
Association of America, have convinced internet service providers
to take punitive action against copyright scofflaws, including
terminating service."

...but it's perfectly legal, eh?

In terms of copyright, you've got to look at where the actual violation
is. What specific action was done to violate the copyright of the item
in question. That almost always means some form of duplication or
transmission.

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the violation is the
making available of a copy of the item. Parties who access that copy
for their own personal use are not violating copyright law, but the
point is that the copy they're accessing should not exist in the first
place.

But once a copy of the item is available, then it's fair game to
download.

DMCA provides a "safe harbor" provision, which means that if the hoster
is notified by the copyright holder to take-down the item, then there
are no legal consequences for the hoster.

Most everyone here has been downloader of copyright material at one time
or another, probably without even knowing it. Anyone who has ever
viewed a you-tube video of people singing "happy birthday" at a birthday
party was in effect illegally downloading copyrighted material.

Anyone who sings "happy birthday" (especially staff in a commercial
establishment such as a restaurant) is violating copyright law.

HeyBub wrote:

Violation of a mere copyright involves the possibility of civil
liability and monetary damages.

Violation of DMCA exposes the violator to a possible prison term.

Only if there is a financial motive involved. IE - when someone tries
to profit from the copyright violation by, for example, selling copies.

On Jul 31, 10:19*am, "harryagain" wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote in message

news




In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

Google must be taking one of its naps. *Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

In Psych 101 they teach that if you put a reward in a maze, a mouse will
learn the maze and find the reward. If you then stop putting the reward
at the end of the maze, the mouse will soon stop running the maze. The
difference between humans and mice is that humans will run the maze
forever, years after the reward is gone.

IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet?

The Google thing is more user friendly.
The threads are easier to follow.
It's not working in the UK this last three days either..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep. I tried several different news readers. All the bells and
whistles get in the way of what I want to do, i.e., just read the damn
posts.

Harry K

On Jul 31, 12:58*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harryagain wrote:

The Google thing is more user friendly.
The threads are easier to follow.
It's not working in the UK this last three days either..

User friendly with posts running days behind? I don't think so.

Your point about threads being easier to follow is a good one. I use Outlook
Express augmented by "OE-QuoteFix." The later civilizes and colorizes the
threads.

Over the years the times when posts are not being updated are
extremely rare. This year seems to be an anomaly as it has happened
several times.

Harry K

On Jul 30, 2:26*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. *Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

I do appreciate the many (civil) replies suggesting various free or
paid newsreaders. I had even begun to do some on-line investigating
between 7/29 and 8/1, but hadn't arrived at a choice when Google
suddenly sprang back to life.

Please don't think I'm a rat in a maze, or whatever the unkind
suggestion was: I can make a perfectly rational decision if I am
motivated to do so. However, most of the users of "regular"
newsreaders who have shared their experience seem to use their
newsreaders far, far more than I do, and for downloading exotica that
are beyond my ken.

I visit only a very few NGs, and get my news from the radio and from
on-line newspapers and other sources of my choice. So I have limited
motivation to get a dedicated newsreader. During the many years when
my email client was the fabulous Agent and its NG component, all was
copacetic (my, that goes back a way!).

For some reason - I think connected with traveling a lot ?-- I needed
an email client that I could access via the Web, so that's when I
signed up for Verizon (tfui, tfui) and subsequently Gmail in order to
diversify; now I have several other email accounts.

Although I find it annoying when Google Groups takes a long nap, I
don't at this point have the motivation to buy a newsreader. However,
I will gratefully consider all free, or economical and ETHICAL
newsreader suggestions.

TIA

HB

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

Yep. I tried several different news readers. All the bells and
whistles get in the way of what I want to do, i.e., just read the damn
posts.

Pure nonsense. Utter nonsense. Complete nonsense. Reading NEWSgroups
with a NEWSreader is at least one order of magnitude simpler, easier,
and more intuitive than the god-awful www-based google portal.

Here's my analogy for today: Crayons and typewriters are both useful.
Trying to type with a crayon is idiotic.

Higgs Boson wrote in news:864f0369-acfd-4faa-b348-
:

On Jul 30, 2:26*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. *Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

I do appreciate the many (civil) replies suggesting various free or
paid newsreaders. I had even begun to do some on-line investigating
between 7/29 and 8/1, but hadn't arrived at a choice when Google
suddenly sprang back to life.

Please don't think I'm a rat in a maze, or whatever the unkind
suggestion was: I can make a perfectly rational decision if I am
motivated to do so. However, most of the users of "regular"
newsreaders who have shared their experience seem to use their
newsreaders far, far more than I do, and for downloading exotica that
are beyond my ken.

I visit only a very few NGs, and get my news from the radio and from
on-line newspapers and other sources of my choice. So I have limited
motivation to get a dedicated newsreader. During the many years when
my email client was the fabulous Agent and its NG component, all was
copacetic (my, that goes back a way!).

For some reason - I think connected with traveling a lot ?-- I needed
an email client that I could access via the Web, so that's when I
signed up for Verizon (tfui, tfui) and subsequently Gmail in order to
diversify; now I have several other email accounts.

Although I find it annoying when Google Groups takes a long nap, I
don't at this point have the motivation to buy a newsreader. However,
I will gratefully consider all free, or economical and ETHICAL
newsreader suggestions.

TIA

HB

Try Xnews. Just a download, no installation nonsense necessary. Use
this link to the original site and do download the latest test version.
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:26 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

I do appreciate the many (civil) replies suggesting various free or
paid newsreaders. I had even begun to do some on-line investigating
between 7/29 and 8/1, but hadn't arrived at a choice when Google
suddenly sprang back to life.

Please don't think I'm a rat in a maze, or whatever the unkind
suggestion was: I can make a perfectly rational decision if I am
motivated to do so. However, most of the users of "regular"
newsreaders who have shared their experience seem to use their
newsreaders far, far more than I do, and for downloading exotica that
are beyond my ken.

I visit only a very few NGs, and get my news from the radio and from
on-line newspapers and other sources of my choice. So I have limited
motivation to get a dedicated newsreader. During the many years when
my email client was the fabulous Agent and its NG component, all was
copacetic (my, that goes back a way!).

For some reason - I think connected with traveling a lot ?-- I needed
an email client that I could access via the Web, so that's when I
signed up for Verizon (tfui, tfui) and subsequently Gmail in order to
diversify; now I have several other email accounts.

Although I find it annoying when Google Groups takes a long nap, I
don't at this point have the motivation to buy a newsreader. However,
I will gratefully consider all free, or economical and ETHICAL
newsreader suggestions.


You don't have to "get" a newreader. One came with your operating system.

People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with Captcha,
and encryption, and copy protection, and all that annoying crap.

A law enforcement officer I know has copied every DVD he/she has ever gotten
from NetFlix. Kind of an odd ethical situation.

I guess that copy protection works pretty good, eh?

Steve

--


Heart surgery pending?
www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com
Heart Surgery Survival Guide
Now on facebook, too.

On Jul 30, 4:26*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. *Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

Same here. My Google Groups connection has dozed for 2-4 days at a
time, several times, during the past month or so.

Higgs Boson wrote:

I do appreciate the many (civil) replies suggesting various free
or paid newsreaders.

Paid newsreaders?

What usenet client software is not free?

I don't at this point have the motivation to buy a newsreader.

I wasn't reading this entire thread. What usenet client software was
mentioned in this thread as having a cost associated with it?

However, I will gratefully consider all free, or economical
and ETHICAL newsreader suggestions.

What would a non-ethical newsreader suggestion look like?

I use Netscape Communicator 4.79 for reading news.

It's one of Netscape's old e-mail/usenet client programs. When paired
with Netscape Navigator, it was Netscape's complete internet "suite" for
home and soho users back in (and prior to) 2001.

It can be downloaded from he

http://downloads.5star-network.com/I...t/cc32d478.exe

Here's what the user-interface looks like:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/.../navigator.gif

Very fast and efficient and organized way to read and post to usenet. I
dare anyone to show me something better.

Google groups is an utter joke for reading and posting to usenet.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:27:35 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Although I find it annoying when Google Groups takes a long nap, I
don't at this point have the motivation to buy a newsreader. However,
I will gratefully consider all free, or economical and ETHICAL
newsreader suggestions.


You don't have to "get" a newreader. One came with your operating system.

This horse was beaten well last month. At least I thought so. Maybe we
can go again next month and do it on a monthly basis.

OP asked:

Straight question.


What is the purpose of paying for a newsreader? Is it to access news
groups? For that purpose, is Google really so awful? Esp, for
people who visit only a few NGs?


(Note: I had one of the BEST email clients for years -- Forte Agent.
Swift, powerful, sophisticated.
But when they discontinued NG access, I went to a Web-based email
client. I guess I could still use Agent just for email, but now I'm
sot in me ways.


Or do people pay for a newsreader to follow the news, period. If the
latter, why not just go to news sources on-line?


Have been puzzling about this for some time.


Enlightenment, anyone?


HB

Department of Redundancy Department

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:52 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

What would a non-ethical newsreader suggestion look like?

One you STEAL from a file server that violates the license agreement.

You know like movies, music, etc.

Why do I have to think of everything?

Oren wrote:

What would a non-ethical newsreader suggestion look like?

One you STEAL from a file server that violates the license
agreement.

No - really.

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-shareware
usenet client.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:12:07 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

"Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against
individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
The RIAA has said it has ceased its 5-year campaign of suing
individual file sharers and, with the Motion Picture
Association of America, have convinced internet service providers
to take punitive action against copyright scofflaws, including
terminating service."

...but it's perfectly legal, eh?

In terms of copyright, you've got to look at where the actual violation
is. What specific action was done to violate the copyright of the item
in question. That almost always means some form of duplication or
transmission.

You pride yourself on your ignorance.

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the violation is the
making available of a copy of the item. Parties who access that copy
for their own personal use are not violating copyright law, but the
point is that the copy they're accessing should not exist in the first
place.

Wrong again.

But once a copy of the item is available, then it's fair game to
download.

....and dumber than a box of rocks.

DMCA provides a "safe harbor" provision, which means that if the hoster
is notified by the copyright holder to take-down the item, then there
are no legal consequences for the hoster.

Most everyone here has been downloader of copyright material at one time
or another, probably without even knowing it. Anyone who has ever
viewed a you-tube video of people singing "happy birthday" at a birthday
party was in effect illegally downloading copyrighted material.

Anyone who sings "happy birthday" (especially staff in a commercial
establishment such as a restaurant) is violating copyright law.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:27:56 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

What would a non-ethical newsreader suggestion look like?

One you STEAL from a file server that violates the license
agreement.

No - really.

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-shareware
usenet client.

Agent.

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:57:57 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:27:56 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

What would a non-ethical newsreader suggestion look like?

One you STEAL from a file server that violates the license
agreement.

No - really.

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-shareware
usenet client.

Agent.

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php

Exactly. The OP has owned Agent and has had a proper key. He could
contact Forte and update the version.

Agent can be used as Trialware for 30 days. After that muskrats take
over the HDD.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:52 -0400, Home Guy wrote:


I use Netscape Communicator 4.79 for reading news.

That must really suck on the Win98 box you have.

Come forth into the age of enlightenment.

Is it like running 32 bit software on an 8 bit platform, written by a
2 bit outfit?

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:54:49 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:52 -0400, Home Guy wrote:


I use Netscape Communicator 4.79 for reading news.

That must really suck on the Win98 box you have.

Come forth into the age of enlightenment.

Is it like running 32 bit software on an 8 bit platform, written by a
2 bit outfit?

....who can't stand 1 bit of competition.

" wrote:

In terms of copyright, you've got to look at where the actual
violation is. What specific action was done to violate the
copyright of the item in question. That almost always means
some form of duplication or transmission.

You pride yourself on your ignorance.

And you pride yourself on your bombast.

If I'm wrong, then spell it out. Otherwise - you're the one that's
ignorant.

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the violation
is the making available of a copy of the item. Parties who
access that copy for their own personal use are not violating
copyright law, but the point is that the copy they're accessing
should not exist in the first place.

Wrong again.

But you won't stick your neck out and explain why.

And everyone reading this is thinking the same thing. You're too much
of a coward to explain why I'm wrong. You just like to hear yourself
say it. Nice bluff. You call that an argument?

What kind of stupid-ass way is that to argue? Constantly saying "your
wrong" does not make for a coherent argument, dumb ass.

" wrote:

No - really.

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-
shareware usenet client.

Agent.

Only version 4 and later. Version 3.3 and older is free.

And all you people reading this: Regarding this issue over paid or free
usenet client software, there's something to consider here.

All the paid usenet software is targeted at and optimized for binary
downloading - not for reading and posting in the text newsgroups.

So unless you're into binary downloading, there's no point in trying to
obtain any of the paid usenet software.

Oren wrote:

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-
shareware usenet client.

Agent.

Exactly. The OP has owned Agent and has had a proper key. He could
contact Forte and update the version.

Forte Agent version 3.3 and older is free.

Why would anyone that's not downloading binary files from usenet want or
need a paid news-reader just to read and post to text groups?

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:30:22 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

In terms of copyright, you've got to look at where the actual
violation is. What specific action was done to violate the
copyright of the item in question. That almost always means
some form of duplication or transmission.

You pride yourself on your ignorance.

And you pride yourself on your bombast.

More blind ignorance.

If I'm wrong, then spell it out. Otherwise - you're the one that's
ignorant.

You admitted to it yourself, dumbass.

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the violation
is the making available of a copy of the item. Parties who
access that copy for their own personal use are not violating
copyright law, but the point is that the copy they're accessing
should not exist in the first place.

Wrong again.

But you won't stick your neck out and explain why.

Have people had their asses sued off for no more than downloading (stealing)
music? Huh, dummy?

And everyone reading this is thinking the same thing. You're too much
of a coward to explain why I'm wrong. You just like to hear yourself
say it. Nice bluff. You call that an argument?

No, actually, everyone here knows you're too stupid to breathe on your own.

What kind of stupid-ass way is that to argue? Constantly saying "your
wrong" does not make for a coherent argument, dumb ass.

You're so wrong it's hard to know where to start. Stupid is that way,
sometimes.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:45:09 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-
shareware usenet client.

Agent.

Exactly. The OP has owned Agent and has had a proper key. He could
contact Forte and update the version.

Forte Agent version 3.3 and older is free.

Why would anyone that's not downloading binary files from usenet want or
need a paid news-reader just to read and post to text groups?

More evidence of your "intelligence".

Oren wrote:

I use Netscape Communicator 4.79 for reading news.

That must really suck on the Win98 box you have.

Netscape Communicator 4.79 runs on XP. Don't know about Vista or 7.

Come forth into the age of enlightenment.

You mean - come forth into the age of malware infection, botnet control,
and Microsoft Genuine disAdvantage.

Sorry. I like my Win32 OS with a nice big helping of root access for
the operator.

KernelEx API layer allows me to run a wide variety of supposedly XP-only
software.

My win-98 systems have 1.5 gb ram and several TB worth of SATA drives, 2
and 3 Ghz Pentium and Core2 CPU's, universal USB mass storage drivers.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:40:39 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

No - really.

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-
shareware usenet client.

Agent.

Only version 4 and later.

Wrong.

Version 3.3 and older is free.

Earlier versions had a "Free Agent" subset. The full Agent license always had
a price on it.

And all you people reading this: Regarding this issue over paid or free
usenet client software, there's something to consider here.

Nothing you have to say is worth considering, but do drivel on...

All the paid usenet software is targeted at and optimized for binary
downloading - not for reading and posting in the text newsgroups.

You're good at being wrong. I don't even use Agent for binaries (Gravity is
better).

So unless you're into binary downloading, there's no point in trying to
obtain any of the paid usenet software.

You can repeat lies all night long, but it doesn't make it any more right,
dumbass.

Anyway, you admit that you're full of ****. That's a start.

" wrote:

In terms of internet availability and downloading, the
violation is the making available of a copy of the item.

Have people had their asses sued off for no more than downloading
(stealing)music? Huh, dummy?

You're the freaking dummy.

Those people used bit torrent to obtain the music. And if you had more
than 2 brain cells, you'd know that when you use bit torrent, you become
both an UPLOADER as well as a DOWNLOADER.

And when you bother to READ the letters sent out to those dumb shmucks
by the RIAA, you'll see that they're being nailed for MAKING THOSE MUSIC
FILES AVAILABLE for other people to download by virtue of BEING A
SERVER.

Now stop making a total fool of yourself and do some research on these
subjects of which you know nothing about before you post your foot in
your mouth.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:45:09 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Oren wrote:

I want to know if there is such a thing as a non-free, non-
shareware usenet client.

Agent.

Exactly. The OP has owned Agent and has had a proper key. He could
contact Forte and update the version.

Forte Agent version 3.3 and older is free.


Um, The only version that was free from Forte was Free Agent. v. 2.x
and up requires an activation key. Same with my v. 3.0.x I'm running
now.

Why would anyone that's not downloading binary files from usenet want or
need a paid news-reader just to read and post to text groups?

Stability, simplicity and portability. Agent (mine) can be made
portable by copying the install directory anyplace you like, Requires
no further install and is not tied to the OS with octopus tentacles. I
don't do binaries, so I have no need for the advanced binary features
used these days.

On Jul 30, 4:26*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. *Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days.

Anybody else?

HB

So noted here.
Newsreaders might work now, but were a superfluous layer when Google
was awake. This message will likely not be seen by anyone using
Google. For the wealthy newsreader users, send me an eMail if this is
visible. Tried some newsreaders before, nothing but chaos.

Joe