z wrote:

No one is surprised. You've already admitted to stealing
intellectual property.

You can't steal intellectual property. (*)

You *can* violate copyright agreements (with legal consequences).

Someone who uploads (or makes available) copyrighted works is breaching
a copyright agreement.

Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not* violating any
copyright agreements.

----------

(*) intellectual property is patentable. Creative works (books, movies,
music, art) are copyright-able and not patent-able.

You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a patent)
but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent (which usually
means profiting from it) because you didn't license it.

On 11/27/2012 3:03 PM, Charlie wrote:
We left there simply shaking our heads over what they are selling.

It is pretty outrageous. It really makes you wonder about human nature.
Given the right circumstances you can get almost anyone to follow almost
anything. Mormonism is a good example of human gullibility on a mass
scale. I hate to bring up Hitler, but look what he was able to accomplish.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:01:13 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

wrote:

No one is surprised. You've already admitted to stealing
intellectual property.

You can't steal intellectual property. (*)

That just shows how stupid you really are, HomoGay.

You *can* violate copyright agreements (with legal consequences).

That is theft, HomoGay.

Someone who uploads (or makes available) copyrighted works is breaching
a copyright agreement.

So are you, by copying it.

Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not* violating any
copyright agreements.

You really are stupid, HomoGay.

----------

(*) intellectual property is patentable. Creative works (books, movies,
music, art) are copyright-able and not patent-able.


You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a patent)
but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent (which usually
means profiting from it) because you didn't license it.

Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomoGay.

I feel sad, that morality issues like copyrights are
being ignored so much, now days.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
news On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:01:13 -0500, Home Guy wrote:


Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not* violating any
copyright agreements.

You really are stupid, HomoGay.

You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a patent)
but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent (which usually
means profiting from it) because you didn't license it.

Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomoGay.

KR Williams ) wrote:

You can't steal intellectual property. (*)

That just shows how stupid you really are, HomeGuy.

You can't be charged in the law for theft unless the item being stolen
is real property (physical, tangible).

Intellectual and creative property is not real property.

You *can* violate copyright agreements (with legal consequences).

That is theft, HomeGuy.

Violating a copyright agreement is violating a copyright agreement - not
theft.

Theft has criminal consequences.

Violating copyright agreements have civil consequences.

Have you ever heard of copyright law? It exists because copyrights are
agreements between parties that exchange creative works for some form of
compensation via a contract.

Someone who uploads (or makes available) copyrighted works is
breaching a copyright agreement.

So are you, by copying it.

You have the right to make a copy of a creative work that you have a
license to possess under the concept of fair use.

Someone who downloads a creative work via torrent is violating the
copyright agreement for that work only because during the download they
are also simultaneously making the work available for others (ie - they
are uploading while they are downloading).

Someone who downloads the work from a file-locker or from a binary
usenet group can't be charged with copyright infringement. Note that
when the file locker MegaUpload was taken down and raided by
authorities, that NO USERS (no downloaders) who downloaded from
Megaupload were identified or charged, even though the server logs would
have identified them.

Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not*
violating any copyright agreements.

You really are stupid, HomeGuy.

If that is your way of saying that I'm wrong, why don't you provide a
cogent explanation as to why? Are you incapable of such discourse?

You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a
patent) but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent
(which usually means profiting from it) because you didn't license
it.

Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomeGuy.

And we've come to expect that you are simply an argumentative buffoon,
with no intellectual capacity or reasoning behind your bombastic,
juvenile outbursts spewed in this thread.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:40:24 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

You can't steal intellectual property. (*)

That just shows how stupid you really are, HomeGuy.

You can't be charged in the law for theft unless the item being stolen
is real property (physical, tangible).

Intellectual and creative property is not real property.

Has anyone told you, yet today, that you're an idiot? Consider
yourself told.

You *can* violate copyright agreements (with legal consequences).

That is theft, HomeGuy.

Violating a copyright agreement is violating a copyright agreement - not
theft.

Wrong, as usual. It certainly *can* be a criminal offense. It *IS*
theft.

Theft has criminal consequences.

So can copyright violations, moron.

Violating copyright agreements have civil consequences.

Have you ever heard of copyright law? It exists because copyrights are
agreements between parties that exchange creative works for some form of
compensation via a contract.

One again you prove how utterly stupid you are.

Someone who uploads (or makes available) copyrighted works is
breaching a copyright agreement.

So are you, by copying it.

You have the right to make a copy of a creative work that you have a
license to possess under the concept of fair use.

Totally clueless.

Someone who downloads a creative work via torrent is violating the
copyright agreement for that work only because during the download they
are also simultaneously making the work available for others (ie - they
are uploading while they are downloading).

Wrong, as usual. Good Lord, you're one dumb *******.

Someone who downloads the work from a file-locker or from a binary
usenet group can't be charged with copyright infringement. Note that
when the file locker MegaUpload was taken down and raided by
authorities, that NO USERS (no downloaders) who downloaded from
Megaupload were identified or charged, even though the server logs would
have identified them.

Geez, what a moron!

Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not*
violating any copyright agreements.

You really are stupid, HomeGuy.

If that is your way of saying that I'm wrong, why don't you provide a
cogent explanation as to why? Are you incapable of such discourse?

You *ARE* wrong, in every way! You are one reprehensible toad.

You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a
patent) but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent
(which usually means profiting from it) because you didn't license
it.

Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomeGuy.

And we've come to expect that you are simply an argumentative buffoon,
with no intellectual capacity or reasoning behind your bombastic,
juvenile outbursts spewed in this thread.

You are just a common thief, and one of the dumbest assholes on the
Usenet. Fact.

On 11-28-2012 08:40, Home Guy wrote:
Have you ever heard of copyright law? It exists because copyrights are
agreements between parties that exchange creative works for some form of
compensation via a contract.

Nonsense. If I create it, I have the rights to decide what is done with
it. There is no "agreement" with someone else unless I later decide to
make one.

--
Wes Groleau

€œIt is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it
goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the
world.€�
€” Thomas Jefferson

KR Williams ) wrote:

You can't be charged in the law for theft unless the item being
stolen is real property (physical, tangible).

Intellectual and creative property is not real property.

Yes, I'm sorry, I've been so stupid here in this thread.
Your explanations make sense - certainly more sence then I've been
making.

I must apologize to everyone reading this thread (and pretty much
everything that I've ever written here) that I've been the real
idiot around here.

Apology accepted.

I feel pleasantly satisfied, having some
interesting service calls, the last few days.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 11-28-2012 08:40, Home Guy wrote:
Have you ever heard of copyright law? It exists because copyrights are
agreements between parties that exchange creative works for some form of
compensation via a contract.

Nonsense. If I create it, I have the rights to decide what is done with
it. There is no "agreement" with someone else unless I later decide to
make one.

--
Wes Groleau

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it
goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the
world."
- Thomas Jefferson

wrote:

However that doesn't mean that duplicating and selling a copy of the
OS isn't a crime (in the US a federal crime) which can result in
long prison terms. Just ask Megaupload about it.

There is no money changing hands when something is torrented.

Megaupload was raided because they failed to obey DMCA take-down
notices.

You have the right to make a copy of a creative work that you have
a license to possess under the concept of fair use.

Fair use is unlikely to extend to a full copy for sale.

I brought up the argument of Fair Use because KR-Jerk said that copying
was illegal.

And again, when it comes to "downloading", no money needs to change
hands to accomplish it - be it downloading via torrent, file-locker or
usenet.

The fact that no users were charged is meaningless or at least
means that the justice department has better things to do than
prosecute millions of downloaders in the US and probably hundreds
of millions worldwide.

Again, Megaupload was raided and shut-down because they failed to obey
DMCA takedown notices.

File-lockers like Megaupload are given "safe harbor" provisions under
DMCA - until they receive notice from a rights-holder that some material
that THEY ARE MAKING AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD is not their property and
they must cease and take-down that material immediately.

There is no provision under DMCA to find fault or responsibility with
those that download material - only with those that MAKE THE MATERIAL
*AVAILABLE* FOR DOWNLOAD.

For someone to be able to download copyrighted material, there must
first be someone that makes the material available for download. If you
download from a file-locker, you are not making the material available.
If you obtain material via torrent, then you ARE part of a collective
that is making the material available.

Especially as the prosecutions if criminal

Criminal charges are RARELY applied to copyright matters.

Only when a money is involved can criminal considerations take place.
The most common example of that being when some back-room
disk-duplication business is raided by police.

z wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:40:24 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

You can't steal intellectual property. (*)

That just shows how stupid you really are, HomeGuy.

You can't be charged in the law for theft unless the item being
stolen is real property (physical, tangible).

Intellectual and creative property is not real property.

Has anyone told you, yet today, that you're an idiot? Consider
yourself told.

You *can* violate copyright agreements (with legal consequences).

That is theft, HomeGuy.

Violating a copyright agreement is violating a copyright agreement -
not theft.

Wrong, as usual. It certainly *can* be a criminal offense. It *IS*
theft.

Theft has criminal consequences.

So can copyright violations, moron.

Violating copyright agreements have civil consequences.

Have you ever heard of copyright law? It exists because copyrights
are agreements between parties that exchange creative works for some
form of compensation via a contract.

One again you prove how utterly stupid you are.

Someone who uploads (or makes available) copyrighted works is
breaching a copyright agreement.

So are you, by copying it.

You have the right to make a copy of a creative work that you have a
license to possess under the concept of fair use.

Totally clueless.

Someone who downloads a creative work via torrent is violating the
copyright agreement for that work only because during the download
they are also simultaneously making the work available for others
(ie - they are uploading while they are downloading).

Wrong, as usual. Good Lord, you're one dumb *******.

Someone who downloads the work from a file-locker or from a binary
usenet group can't be charged with copyright infringement. Note that
when the file locker MegaUpload was taken down and raided by
authorities, that NO USERS (no downloaders) who downloaded from
Megaupload were identified or charged, even though the server logs
would have identified them.

Geez, what a moron!

Anyone who obtains copyrighted works from others *is not*
violating any copyright agreements.

You really are stupid, HomeGuy.

If that is your way of saying that I'm wrong, why don't you provide a
cogent explanation as to why? Are you incapable of such discourse?

You *ARE* wrong, in every way! You are one reprehensible toad.

You can't steal intellectual property (ie - you can't steal a
patent) but you can be sued for practicing the claims of patent
(which usually means profiting from it) because you didn't license
it.

Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomeGuy.

And we've come to expect that you are simply an argumentative
buffoon, with no intellectual capacity or reasoning behind your
bombastic, juvenile outbursts spewed in this thread.

You are just a common thief, and one of the dumbest assholes on the
Usenet. Fact.

You may not like him but he is correct in the points above which you attempt
to refute so unpleasantly. IOW, it is *YOU* that is wrong.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Sad that my thread has turned into name
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
z wrote:

Totally clueless.


Wrong, as usual. Good Lord, you're one dumb *******.


Geez, what a moron!

You really are stupid, HomeGuy.


You *ARE* wrong, in every way! You are one reprehensible toad.


Utter nonsense, but we've come to expect that from you, HomeGuy.


You are just a common thief, and one of the dumbest assholes on the
Usenet. Fact.

You may not like him but he is correct in the points above which you attempt
to refute so unpleasantly. IOW, it is *YOU* that is wrong.

dadiOH

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:19:19 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sad that my thread has turned into name
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

Impolite to HomoGay? You're funny, Stormin'!

On Nov 24, 7:41*pm, wrote:
I wonder how Stormin Mormon feels,

As always, like continually top posting isn't evidence he's a moron.

Christians + evidence = null.
-----

- gpsman

Hmm. Well, maybe you can tell me what
I meant to write? (Grin here, and apologies
to Mike, who we are teasing.)

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:19:19 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sad that my thread has turned into name
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

Impolite to HomoGay? You're funny, Stormin'!

On 11/29/2012 8:23 AM, z wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:19:19 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sad that my thread has turned into name
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

Impolite to HomoGay? You're funny, Stormin'!


Now if Homo Gay would just start top posting..... ^_^

TDD

Oh, that would cause earth quakes and
tsunamis!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Now if Homo Gay would just start
top posting..... ^_^

TDD

On Nov 29, 6:47*am, gpsman wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:41*pm, wrote:

I wonder how Stormin Mormon feels,

As always, like continually top posting isn't evidence he's a moron.

Christians + evidence = null.
*-----

- gpsman

And an anti-social one at that due to his obstinate refusal to correct
his behavior.

Harry K

On 11-29-2012 08:19, Stormin Mormon wrote:
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

or polite imposters.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

Maybe the polite imposters are call namers?

I feel a sense of absurdity about this.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 11-29-2012 08:19, Stormin Mormon wrote:
calling. I think all you name callers are
impolite posters; so there!

or polite imposters.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

On 11/28/2012 9:14 PM, Home Guy wrote:
KR Williams ) wrote:

You can't be charged in the law for theft unless the item being
stolen is real property (physical, tangible).

Intellectual and creative property is not real property.

Yes, I'm sorry, I've been so stupid here in this thread.
Your explanations make sense - certainly more sence then I've been
making.

I must apologize to everyone reading this thread (and pretty much
everything that I've ever written here) that I've been the real
idiot around here.

Apology accepted.


FYI

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34109.pdf

"If the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution (including
by electronic means)
during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies of one or more
copyrighted works, which have a
total retail value of more than $2,500, an imprisonment sentence of not
more than 5 years, or a
fine in the amount of up to $250,000, or both" etc....

Interesting article. The word "imprisonment" and "criminal" appear
several times.

Because when Shariian law is passed, you won't have a choice.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Haven't seen a single advertisement inviting me to join the Muslims.

On Friday, November 30, 2012 2:56:28 PM UTC-6, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Because when Shariian law is passed, you won't have a choice.



Christopher A. Young

Learn more about Jesus

www.lds.org

.



wrote in message

...



Haven't seen a single advertisement inviting me to join the Muslims.

You didn't answer his question...you only made an idiotic statement based on NOTHING! WTF! Who funking killed Bin Laden asshole!

Mormons, right?

Bunch of white boy teens in white shirts?

"Brother Bin Laden, we have an important
message......."
sound of head exploding

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...

Haven't seen a single advertisement
inviting me to join the Muslims.

You didn't answer his question...you only
made an idiotic statement based on NOTHING!
WTF! Who funking killed Bin Laden asshole!