Re: copyright violation
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d48e14d-92ea-4313...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>> > > Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> This is about an online newspaper and their use of
copyright on what
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a
patent
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is
given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT
MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little
heasd. WHOOOOSH!
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
copyright owner.
Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
>> articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is
>> given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
>> weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
>> Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
>> electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT
>> MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little
>> heasd. WHOOOOSH!
>
> Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
>copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
>copyright owner.
>
> Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
By Pangborn's own standards, he must.
>
> Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
>can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
>possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
>entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
>
> The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
>material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
>and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
I already proved that. Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
current copyright law is bound by case law from the early 80's.
Yes, Pangborn is really that INCOMPETENT when it comes to matters
of law.
Is there any wonder why his CONsulting business is in the tank?
Pangborn does far more damage to his business than anything David's
TRUTH site (http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) could ever hope to do.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Deadrat
news:4af74031$0$4944$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Neither attribution nor selling something as your own is a factor.
Remember the acronym PANE:
(P)urpose of use
(A)mount of use
(N)ature of the work used
(E)ffect on the market for the work.
It's fairly easy to tell when something is definitely fair use. For
example, if a teacher copies a paragraph of a book for her students, then
that's fair use. The purpose is educational, the amount used is small in
comparison to the whole, the work is a book (which is easily excerpted in
part), and the effect on the commercial potential of the book is
negligible.
The more that gets copies, the harder it is to tell definitely whether
the copying is fair use. Copying something in whole will almost always
be problematical unless you can find another exception (back-ups,
personal use off-the-air video, etc.)
<snip/>
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdlef59scnvihjuhm...@4ax.com...
Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration date. It only changes when the
COURT (and not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent Wills says so) changes its
ruling in a new case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it ATTORNEY WILLS?
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
Kent, I think you've been watching too much
fantasy on TV but I eagerly await your dissertation
on the revision of FAIR USE law since the 1980's.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KBW > Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
>KBW > current copyright law is bound by
>KBW > case law from the early 80's.
>
>KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
>KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
>KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
>KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
>KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
>KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
>
>Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
That's not the claim I made, so no.
>
>Kent, I think you've been watching too much
>fantasy on TV but I eagerly await your dissertation
>on the revision of FAIR USE law since the 1980's.
I've already linked to current copyright law. It PROVED you
violated the law. But then, you PROVE that you hold the delusion
you're exempt from any and all laws.
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 Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
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 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."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... 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 <gree...@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
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:975eb2df-d999-404d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> KBW > Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
> KBW > current copyright law is bound by
> KBW > case law from the early 80's.
>
> KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
> KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
> KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
> KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
> KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
> KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
>
> Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
> from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they "EXPIRED." He actually believes
that Supreme Court Decisions are good ON THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
other Polish people as "stupid Polacks" JUST HIM! It is an apt description
of the IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that Supreme Court decisions from 20
years ago no longer apply, that's in his vast JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
hold himself out as having such great legal knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO
idea what Shepherd's Digest is or what the hell it is for. He thinks' it is
a math book or list of astrological information on planetary movement.
Although Wills has a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he constantly makes a fool
of himself.
NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
decision, mandates limited application; see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
LAW of the land unless the Court and Not some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
WILLS changes them. There is NO expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
outside the limited parameters I just mentioned. There are 200 year old
decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:975eb2df-d999-404d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>> KBW > Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
>> KBW > current copyright law is bound by
>> KBW > case law from the early 80's.
>>
>> KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
>> KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
>> KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
>> KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
>> KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
>> KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
>>
>> Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>> from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>
>
> No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they "EXPIRED." He actually believes
>that Supreme Court Decisions are good ON THAT DAY ONLY!
Only within the confines of your drunken delusions.
>And he wonders why I
>call *HIM* a stupid Polack.
Everyone is aware you're a bigot.
If, by some chance, this absolute TRUTH has slipped by anyone,
they can see a very small sample of the PROOF, consisting of your own
writings, at http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>Let me disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
>other Polish people as "stupid Polacks" JUST HIM!
The URL above PROVES you're lying.
>It is an apt description
>of the IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that Supreme Court decisions from 20
>years ago no longer apply,
Current law can, and in this case does, nullify case law.
>that's in his vast JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise.
That's just common sense. Something you consistently prove you
lack.
>He
>hold himself out as having such great legal knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO
>idea what Shepherd's Digest is or what the hell it is for. He thinks' it is
>a math book or list of astrological information on planetary movement.
Unless you're offering more proof that you post while drunk, post
the MID and/or Google link to just one post where I've presented such.
Just one is all I ask.
>Although Wills has a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he constantly makes a fool
>of himself.
Yet I consistently PROVE I know more than you. Not that this is
saying a great deal.
>
>NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme Court decisions do NOT expire
Outside of your continued PROOF that you post while drunk, I've
never claimed they do.
>(unless the
>decision, mandates limited application; see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>LAW of the land unless the Court and Not some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>WILLS changes them.
If a law is enacted that nullifies case law, said case law is
nullified.
Deal with it.
>There is NO expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>outside the limited parameters I just mentioned. There are 200 year old
>decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Wow. Six k's. Are you doubly racist today?
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
KRP > No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they
KRP > "EXPIRED." He actually believes that
KRP > Supreme Court Decisions are good ON
KRP > THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
KRP > call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me
KRP > disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
KRP > other Polish people as "stupid Polacks"
KRP > JUST HIM! It is an apt description of the
KRP > IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that
KRP > Supreme Court decisions from 20 years
KRP > ago no longer apply, that's in his vast
KRP > JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
KRP > hold himself out as having such great legal
KRP > knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO idea
KRP > what Shepherd's Digest is or what the
KRP > hell it is for. He thinks' it is a math book
KRP > or list of astrological information on
KRP > planetary movement. Although Wills has
KRP > a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he
KRP > constantly makes a fool of himself.
KRP >
KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme
KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>
>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
Why do you lie?
>
>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>
>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
haven't? Be specific.
krp
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:36:18 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>
>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>
> Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>
>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>
> I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
> haven't? Be specific.
Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
use doctrine. The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
screaming. AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED the
U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mo0lf51mtf18rlgi0...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:36:18 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>>
>>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>>
>> Why do you lie?
>>
>>>
>>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>>
>>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>>
>> I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
>> haven't? Be specific.
>
> Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
>use doctrine.
That's not the claim I made.
>The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
>dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
>screaming.
You've never asked. I linked to current copyright law without
anyone asking.
>AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
>Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED the
>U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
I've already done so. You whined about it.
Once again, you've lost.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
>>>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>>>
>>>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>>>
>>> Why do you lie?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>>>
>>>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>>>
>>> I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
>>> haven't? Be specific.
>>
>> Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
>>use doctrine.
>
> That's not the claim I made.
Sure yolu did. That's the EXCUSE you gave for saying that the fair use
doctine and the Supreme Court's decision is NO LONGER VALID! What's the
matter Polack, can't find the LAWS yopu say changed???
>>The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
>>dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
>>screaming.
> You've never asked. I linked to current copyright law without
> anyone asking.
Yes I have. Several times and I am askign again.
>>AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
>>Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED
>>the
>>U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
> I've already done so. You whined about it. Once again, you've
> lost.
Tell me dipshit - HOW do you manage to make posts in disappearing ink?
NOBODY has seen your PROOF of such laws. Like the retarded POLACK you are,
you think this BULLSHIT of yours (I already posted it 54 times) is going to
work?? And you WONDER why I refer to you as a "STUPID POLACK!"
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cvjnf514fh1jkmbr7...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>>>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>>>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>>>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>>>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>>>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>>>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>>>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>>>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>>>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>>>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>>>>
>>>>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>>>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>>>>
>>>>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>>>>
>>>> I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
>>>> haven't? Be specific.
>>>
>>> Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
>>>use doctrine.
>>
>> That's not the claim I made.
>
>Sure yolu did.
Prove it, unless you're lying.
>That's the EXCUSE you gave for saying that the fair use
>doctine and the Supreme Court's decision is NO LONGER VALID! What's the
>matter Polack, can't find the LAWS yopu say changed???
I linked to current copyright law.
>
>>>The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
>>>dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
>>>screaming.
>
>> You've never asked. I linked to current copyright law without
>> anyone asking.
>
> Yes I have. Several times and I am askign again.
Do you think the link to the copyright office's web site will
change?
>
>>>AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
>>>Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED
>>>the
>>>U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
>
>> I've already done so. You whined about it. Once again, you've
>> lost.
>
> Tell me dipshit - HOW do you manage to make posts in disappearing ink?
I didn't.
>NOBODY has seen your PROOF of such laws.
You whined about it.
>Like the retarded POLACK you are,
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>you think this BULLSHIT of yours (I already posted it 54 times) is going to
>work?? And you WONDER why I refer to you as a "STUPID POLACK!"
>
>
You're PROUD of your bigotry.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
ah
ooooh, BITCH!
--
a 'http://soma.fm/' h