Re: Writers sharing ideas
The Starmaker
>
> Yes, I know there are only so many original plot ideas to go around,
> but the last couple of weeks seems to be recycling them at an
> increased rate. In just two weeks:
>
> Human Target goes undercover to a martial arts contest.
> NCIS: LA goes undercover to a martial arts contest.
>
> In Plain Sight shows the origins of the Mary/Marshall team.
> The very next night, Bones shows the origins of the Bones/Booth team.
>
> Are the writers sitting around sharing story ideas?
It's called 'stealing', not sharing...
Writers *steal* ideas..in Hollywood that is..
they steal because they don't have 'creative talent'.
So they steal from others...but nobody shares ideas.
There is no such thing as "sharing story ideas" in Hollywood.
They even steal...TV titles from ther others...
they steal...anything they can get their hands on.
Sometimes they 'steal' for a rainy day..
But it's all good because it's just thieves stealing from other thieves.
They're Gonifs..it's considered an honor to be a gonif in Hollywood.
The Starmaker
Extravagan
> inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Are the writers sitting around sharing story ideas?
> It's called 'stealing', not sharing...
Hey idiot, you can't steal ideas, only copy them. To steal it you'd have
to deprive the other guy of his copy somehow. That'd mean shooting him
in the head or something, but then it isn't "theft", it's "murder" anyway.
You can, of course, plagiarize, but that's not the same thing.
And you can collaborate, which is different yet again.
The Starmaker
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >> Are the writers sitting around sharing story ideas?
> > It's called 'stealing', not sharing...
>
> Hey idiot, you can't steal ideas, only copy them. To steal it you'd have
> to deprive the other guy of his copy somehow.
Definitions of steal on the Web:
* take without the owner's consent;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13050005/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/13051757#13051757
New Filing -- Eddie Murphy
Patrick brothers v. Murphy. Pair of scriptwriters say their script was
the basis of hit film, "The Nutty Professor." New Filing CD California.
Full Story -- New Filing November 1996
Backdraft Ruling
Burns, Zoll v. Imagine Films, MCA, Universal. Two Buffalo firefighters
who say significant parts of their screenplays wound up in "Backdraft"
appear to have won a default judgment on liability based on defendants'
"willful bad faith" and failure to produce documents. Ruling WD New
York. Full Story Art New Filing August 1996
Golan Says Wrongly Fired From Film Co.
Producer says he was wrongly fired, manhandled from office, defamed and
bilked of credit and fee; says deft.'s lawyer then refused to draft
settlement unless hired to produce Golan's next film Full Story Film
New Filing – “Clockstoppers”
Santa Fe Entertainment v. Paramount Pictures. The owners of a motion
picture screenplay “It’s About Time” claim that Paramount Pictures
copied without authorization all aspects of their script in its creation
of the film “Clockstoppers.” New Filing CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing June 2003
New Filing – “Freakshow”
Nick Griffin, Mike Ferrucci v. Miramax Film Corp. The authors of a
horror film screenplay entitled “Freakshow” claim that Miramax’s 2002
film, “Halloween Resurrection” copied without authorization creative
elements from the screenplay. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing May 2003
New Filing – “Gang of Roses”
Lite Stone Entertainment v. DEJ Productions, Roses and Guns Productions,
et al. The owner of the motion picture screenplay “Jessie’s Girl” claims
the producers of the movie “Gang of Roses” copied the plot and
characters of the screenplay to create their movie. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing - “Ota Benga” Rights
Roland Films v. Schwab. Indie film company seeks to enforce option on
screenplay “Ota Benga” after disagreement with writer about whether the
option expired or was extended. New Filing SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing January 2002
New Filing – “The Quest”
Dux v. Van Damme. Martial arts expert says action star didn’t pay agreed
fee for consulting, creating the story for “The Quest.” New Filing LA
Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – “The Red Door”
Saffron v. Praxis. Producer says he has not been paid his fee or given
his credit for film based on the screenplay “The Red Door.” New Filing
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing February 2002
New Filing – “X-Men” Book
David Hayter v. Twentieth Century Fox, Newmarket Press. Screenwriter
claims Twentieth Century Fox and Newmarket Press failed to ensure that
he received credit for his contributions to the motion picture “X-Men 2”
in a book published about the film. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing June 2003
New Filing – Agent 008
Carlos Jackson v. Various Universal execs. Man claims he dropped earlier
lawsuit against Universal based on promises by execs to help his career,
develop his "Agent 008" script, but execs allegedly reneged. New Filing
LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing August 2000
New Filing – Air Bud
Mendelson, Tamasy v. Malvan Productions, Keystone Entertainment. Writers
of “Air Bud” and its sequel allege they have not received the “net
profits” they were promised and have been cut out of third “Air Bud”
film. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April 2001
New Filing – Air Bud
Barry Perelman Enterprises v. Keystone. Producer says film company dealt
him out of deal to make "Air Bud." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story
Film New Filing January 1998
New Filing – Alpha Dog
Initial Entertainment v. Nicholas Cassavetes. Film company says writer
hired to help with movie “Alpha Dog” has asserted ownership interest in
the screenplay. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
December 2004
New Filing – Artist Management
Alcon v. AMG. Film production company wants refund of money it spent on
rights to inspiring true story of integrated 1955 Alabama Little League
team after learning that the story was not true. New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing June 2002
New Filing – Asylum
Schwartz v. Sealskin. Scriptwriter says his former partner took a
jointly written screenplay for “Asylum” and sold it as his own. New
Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing December 1996
New Filing – Barbershop
MGM v. Mark Brown, Beauty Shop LLC. Lawsuit filed over “Beauty Shop,”
allegedly an unauthorized spin-off from the “Barbershop franchise.” New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing – Castle Rock
Morris, Richert v. Castle Rock, Sorkin, WGA. Two writers who say their
treatment was the basis of “The American President” and who sought
writer credits allege that the Writers Guild fouled up their challenge
and wrongly waived their rights. New Filing SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing November 2001
New Filing – Clive Cussler
Clive Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment. Author says production company
has failed to recognize his contractually-required approval rights over
screenplay adaptation of one of his novels, and anyway is taking too
long about it. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
February 2004
New Filing -- Crimson Tide
Waid v. Disney. Former USN sub captain says his script was the basis for
Crimson Tide. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing
September 1996
New Filing – Dadon
David Dadon v. Avi Lerner, et al. Producers says he helped get "The
Replicant" off the ground, but didn't get his $150,000 or producer
credit. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Dante’s Peak
Hines, Jones v. Universal. Two writers say the script for “Dante’s Peak
“ was copied from a script they submitted in 1995. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing March 1997
New Filing – Don Juan Demarco
Laskay v. New Line, American Zoetrope. Writer who bought English
language rights to "Man Facing Southeast" says studios stole concept and
script. New Filing LA Superior. Removal CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing May 1997
New Filing – Drumline
Darryl Lassiter v. Fox. Writer says “Drumline” was copied from his
movie, “Pay the Price,” about Black college marching bands. New Filing
SD New York. Full Story
New Filing – Drumline
Darryl D. Lassiter, 2 Believers Productions, et al. v. Twentieth Century
Fox Films, Fox Entertainment Group. Screenwriter claims that studios
copied several elements from his screenplay and movie “Pay the Price” to
create the motion picture “Drumline.” New Filing SD New York. Full
Story Film New Filing September 2004
New Filing – End Game
Sean Connery v. Peter Guber, Mandalay Pictures. Actor alleges production
company promised him $17 million to be in film “End Game” and kept
stringing him along even when they could not finance the film in order
to maintain the appearance of viability. New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing October 2002
New Filing -- Exit Zero
Butler v. Wimmer. Writer sues collaborator who allegedly took
unfinished, co-written script, reworked it and sold it for own benefit.
New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing November 1996
New Filing – Film Script
Michael Fry v. Estate of Sagan. Writer says he pitched script to son of
Carl Sagan, who sold similar script to 20th Century Fox. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – Frequency
Selby v. New Line, Emmerich. Writer claims film "Frequency" is
substantially similar to his screenplay "Doubletime." New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 2000
New Filing – Harry Shearer
Bernhard/Robson v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman. Producer files malpractice
case saying firm botched negotiations and then arbitration with Harry
Shearer over comedy script. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film
New Filing July 1998
New Filing – Have Gun Will Travel
Paladin V. Time Warner. Producers allege Warner reneged on deal to do
"Have Gun Will Travel" movie. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film
New Filing April 1999
New Filing – Hearsay
Hearsay v. World International. Defendant may have had right to take
over production of film “Hearsay,” but has so changed the content as to
have infringed on the copyright, suit alleges. New Filing CD California.
Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
New Filing – Howard Hughes
Charles Evans v. New Line Cinema. Producer says he worked years on movie
about billionaire Howard Hughes, only to get cut out of the deal. New
Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing February 2001
New Filing – Jackson Pollack
Ruth Kligman v. Pollack Film, Ed Harris, et al. Artist and lover of the
late Jackson Pollack alleges that makers of the movie "Pollack" stole
from her memoir/screenplay. New Filing SD New York. Full Story Film
New Filing October 2000
New Filing -- Kushner Locke
Chapin v. Kushner-Locke. Writer says KL fraudulently induced him to sign
away his rights to a script called "Cutthroat." New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing September 1996
New filing – Lancit
AsIs, Lancit v. Prospero Entertainment. Plaintiffs was declaration that
they, not defendant, are owners of exclusive screenplay and film rights
to the Lois Lowry book “The Giver.” New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2001
New Filing – League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Martin Poll, Larry Cohen v. Fox. Producer and writer claim $100 million
in damages after studio allegedly copies their screenplay to create the
2003 film, “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing November 2003
New Filing – Man Facing Southeast
Jason Laskay v. MCA/Universal. Screenwriter claims “K-Pax” was copied
from screenplay he owns, “Man Facing Southeast.” New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 2002
New Filing – Maximum Risk
Bloom v. Ferguson. Screenwriter accuses writer of “Maximum Risk” of
plagiarising from his script, “Chain Reaction.” New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing April 1997
New Filing – McKenzie
Margaret McKenzie v. Paramount et al. The film “Lucky Numbers” infringes
on the plaintiff’s screenplay “Money Trouble,” suit alleges. New Filing
SD Florida. Full Story Film New Filing April 2001
New Filing – Mike Myers
Universal v. Mike Myers. Studio says actor agreed to do film based on
his comic character "Dieter," demanded more money and points after the
success of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," spent millions, then decided
against doing the movie. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing June 2000
New Filing - Mimic
Glenn Willis v. Disney. Among other similarities, three-year gestation
period for giant cockroaches is evidence Disney copied script submitted
with internship application in making "Mimic," writer alleges. Full
Story Film New Filing December 1999
New Filing -- Money Train
Masters v. Sony. A writer says the movie "Money Train" is based on the
screenplay Sony optioned from him in 1988. New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing October 1996
New Filing - My Best Friend's Wedding
Barbara Friedkin v. The Cartel Group. Woman says she wrote first draft
of "My Best Friend's Wedding," in part because she had agreed to marry a
college sweetheart if not married by 40, but was dumped from project.
Full Story Film New Filing December 1999
New Filing -- New Line "Easy Woman"
Worth v. New Line. Producer sues New Line for allegedly reneging on deal
to pay him to make the film "Easy Woman." New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing September 1996
New Filing – Northern Ireland
O’Connor v. DreamWorks. Producer says comedy “An Everlasting Piece” was
smothered by studio, at the behest of the British government, “in
indirect support of that government’s military and political occupation
of the North of Ireland.” New Filing CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing May 2001
New Filing – Notting Hill
Nick Villiers v. Eric Fellner et al. Writer says long-time friend and
producer used his ideas for a movie to be called "Cheeks" as part of the
hit "Notting Hill." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing October 2000
New Filing – Open Range
Howard Dratch v. Craig Storper, Kevin Costner, Buena Vista Pictures.
Producer says he worked for two years on the film “Open Range,” but was
cut out of his promised role once the project got going. New Filing LA
Superior. Full Story Film New Filing October 2002
New Filing – Organ Donor
Katz, Brooks v. Schneider, Schneider. Writers allege actor and his
brother promised to market their script “The Organ Donor” but marketed a
different, but similar project. New Filing LA Superior Court. Full Story
New Filing -- Pearl Harbor
Gary Compton v. Disney, Bruckheimer, Bay et al. Author says “Pearl
Harbor” infringes on his romantic screenplay “Pearl Harbor Love.” New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing June 2004
New Filing – Personals
Carol Gun v. Michael Sargent. Woman says man brought her in to make
contacts and raise money for film project "Personals" but never paid her
or gave her a role in the project as promised. New Filing NY Supreme.
Full Story Film New Filing February 1999
New Filing – Pink Panther
Richlin v. MGM. The heirs of a co-creator of “The Pink Panther” are
seeking to establish ownership rights to half the copyright upon the
film, its story, and characters. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing November 2004
New Filing – Pinocchio
Pinocchio II Productions v. Sneller. Defendant's campaign of letters
claiming rescission of rights to "New Adventure of Pinocchio" screenplay
is interfering with exploitation of film. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Ransom
Ann Morgan v. Touchstone, Disney. Writer says the film "Ransom" is based
on her screenplays. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New
Filing December 1998
New Filing - RKO
RKO v. Beatrice Welles. RKO says Orson Welles' daughter is objecting to
remake of "The Magnificent Ambersons"; seeks declaration that RKO has
all rights. Full Story Film New Filing October 1999
New Filing – Robert Downey Jr. & Sr.
Richard Finney, Terence Michael v. Robert Downey, Jr., Robert Downey,
Sr. Actor and director were paid $250,000 to deliver screenplay within
four months, but never delivered, suit alleges. New Filing LA Superior.
Full Story Film New Filing July 2000
New Filing – Shade
Jennifer Silver v. RKO Pictures, Card Mechanics Productions. Producer
claims studios failed to provide her with credit or compensation after
releasing the movie “Shade” based on her screenplay. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing August 2004
New Filing - Shakespeare in Love
Faye Kellerman v. Miramax, Universal. Bestselling author alleges
"Shakespeare in Love" is based on her 1989 novel "The Quality of Mercy."
New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing March 1999
New Filing – Signs
Trilenium v. Disney. Coincidences between movie “Signs” and plaintiffs’
script “Lord of the Barrens: The Jersey Devil” were too numerous to be
mere coincidence, suit alleges. New Filing CD California. Full Story
Film New Filing September 2003
New Filing – Spider-Man
Newsom v. Columbia Pictures. Author of 1985 “Spider-Man” script says his
material was used in hit 2002 “Spider-Man” movie without credit or
payment. New Filing LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing April
2003
New Filing – Star Trek
N. Barry Carver v. Paramount. Writer says the similarities of "Star
Trek: First Contact" to the script "A Stitch in Time," which he
submitted to Paramount in 1991, are "bizarrely striking." New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 1999
New Filing - Tarantino Script
Craig Hamann, Expletive Entertainment v. Quentin Tarantino. Writer says
Tarantino is trying to stop him from exploiting decade-old script the
two co-wrote. New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing
August 1996
New Filing – Tartikoff
Millennium v. Markowitz. Plaintiff says it prepaid defendant $187,500
for screenplay about Brandon Tartikoff; failure to deliver showed not
only breach, but fraud, suit says. New Filing LA Superior; Removal CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing April 2000
New Filing – The Cell
Mattson v. Protosevich, New Line. Writer says his idea and screenplay
for a movie about a female therapist entering the mind of a comatose
patient were used to make "The Cell." New Filing LA Superior. Full
Story Film New Filing September 2000
New Filing – The Deskman
Estrella v. Neo Motion Pictures et al. Author of screenplay "The
Deskman" says TV movie "Suckers" infringes on his work. New Filing CD
California.ntlawdigest.com Full Story Film New Filing September 2000
New Filing – The Last Samurai
Michael Alan Eddy v. Radar Pictures, Interscope, Warner Bros., WGA.
Writer who says he was first of six to work on “The Last Samurai” claims
the film’s producers and the WGA prevented him from receiving the proper
credit due to him the other early writers for their work on the project.
New Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing February 2004
New Filing -- The Long Ride
Martin Ransohoff v. Paramount. Producer says studio chief refused to
approve anyone to direct "The Long Ride" except her husband. New Filing
LA Superior. Full Story Film New Filing December 2004
New Filing – The Truman Show
Mowry v. Scott Rudin, Viacom. Writer alleges that the movie “The Truman
Show” is so similar to the screenplay he submitted to the defendants
that it must have been copied. New Filing SD New York. Full Story Film
New Filing May 2003
New Filing – The Whole Shebang
Jeff Rothberg v. Big W Pruductions et al. Plaintiff seeks enforcement of
arbitration award saying defendant filmmakers have no rights to story
“The Whole Shebang” until they pay Rothberg under option agreement. New
Filing CD California. Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
New Filing – Tomorrow Never Dies
Howard, Beutler, Schlossberg-Cohen v. Danjaq et al. Baltimore
scriptwriters claim latest Bond flick copied their script "Currency of
Fear." We print description of similarities in full. New Filing CD
California. Full Story Film New Filing January 1998
New Filing - Travolta
Liteoffer, Mandalay v. John Travolta. Liteoffer and Mandalay sue
Travolta, saying the actor walked away from a role in the film "Double,"
"because his ego had been bruised." New Filing LA Superior. Full Story
Film New Filing August 1996
New Filing - Ulterior Motive
Production company says Fox broke deal to return rights to screenplay
for "Ulterior Motives" after deciding not to make film. Full Story
Film New Filing September 1999
New Filing – Van Daalen
Van Daalen v. Paramount, Resnick. Playwright wants his share of payoff
from film "Lucky Numbers," about a 1980 Pennsylvania lottery scam,
saying it infringes on his play "Trust Me." Full Story Film New
Filing November 2000
New Filing – Walking Across Egypt
Vicky Rocco v. Tamasy, Bell. Writer says her script was ripped off for
the new movie, "Walking Across Egypt." New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing May 1999
Area Type Issue
New Filing – Wedding Planner
Ballard v. Sony. Writer says 2001 comedy “The Wedding Planner” is
strikingly similar to his 1995 script “In the Palm of my Hand.” New
Filing ED Virginia. Full Story Film New Filing January 2004
New Filing – White Man’s Burden
Elena Mareno v. Miramax et al. New York woman alleges "White Man's
Burden" is based on her treatment and screenplay. New Filing SD New
York. Full Story Film New Filing January 1999
New Filing – Zappa’s 200 Motels
Zappa Family v. MGM. Heirs to late musician Frank Zappa allege that his
1971 movie “200 Motels” was not a “work for hire” and that the copyright
and renewal term have reverted to them. New Filing CD California. Full
Story Film New Filing July 2001
New Filing – Ziobro
Ziobro v. Skulls Productions. The movie “The Skulls” is allegedly nearly
identical to a story written by the plaintiff, suit claims. New Filing
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing March 2002
Ruling – “Like Water For Chocolate”
Esquivel v. Arau. Judge boots “Like Water for Chocolate” author’s suit
v. filmmaker, saying Mexico is better forum. Ruling NY Supreme Court.
Full Story Film New Filing January 1997
Ruling – Anaconda
Douglas v. Sony. Judge sanctions plaintiff counsel for seeking TRO in
copying case over "Anaconda" without asking for or seeing script. Ruling
CD California. Full Story Film New Filing May 1997
Ruling – Briarpatch
Briarpatch et al v. Phoenix et al. Federal court jurisdiction
appropriate in “Thin Red Line” case. Ruling 2nd Circuit. Full Story
Film Ruling August 2004
Ruling – Coming to America
Folke, Atnafu v. Paramount, Eddie Murphy. In short summary judgment
order, judge rules no reasonable trier of fact could find plaintiffs'
script similar to "Coming to America"; tosses case. Ruling SD New York.
Full Story Film New Filing February 1998
Ruling – Dante’s Peak
Hines, Jones v. Universal. Judges grants summary judgment for Universal
finding that "Dante's Peak" bore little resemblance to plaintiffs'
volcano script "Fire and Ice." Ruling CD California. Full Story Film
New Filing January 1998
Ruling – Godfather III
Nick Marino v. Kenoff & Machtinger. Upholding judgment for the defense
in malpractice case, appeals court deals yet another blow to long
unsuccessful litigant who claims he should have received screen credit
on “Godfather III.” Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film
New Filing December 2001
Ruling - Horrors
Shoptalk v. Concorde. Release of a film constitutes publications of
whatever portions of the underlying screenplay were used, the 2nd
Circuit says, following reasoning of 9th Circuit decision. Ruling 2nd
Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing April 1999
Ruling – Impact Pictures
May-Zur v. Dadon. Oral testimony, if credible, is sufficient to prove a
wire transfer was made, court says in decision over aborted $35,000
movie deal. Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New
Filing October 2003
Ruling – James Bond
Danjaq v. Sony. In last gasp of James Bond litigation, court says laches
bars copyright claim for newly released DVDs of Bond films since
allegedly infringing material on DVD is the same as the original film.
Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing August 2001
Ruling – Jingle All The Way
Murray Hill v. Fox. Jury verdict awarding damages for alleged copying of
another screenplay in film “Jingle All The Way” not supportable given
ruling that original treatment for “Jingle” could not have been copied.
Ruling 6th Circuit. Full Story Film Ruling April 2004
Ruling - Lone Star
Herzog v. Sayles. Circuit agrees with district court that attending film
festival at same time as someone else is not a strong link in a chain of
access; upholds dismissal of "Lone Star" infringement suit. Full Story
Film New Filing November 1999
Ruling - Malcolm X
Aalmuhammed v. Lee, Warner Bros. Dispute over consultant's claim of
co-authorship of movie "Malcolm X," prompts discussion of who exactly is
the "author" of a movie; consultant loses copyright claim. Full Story
Film New Filing February 2000
Ruling – McClintock
Batjac v. Goodtimes, Register of Copyrights. Circuit gives thumbs down
to movie co.'s attempt to resurrect unrenewed copyright in "McClintock!"
by registering two intermediate drafts of screenplay and suing for
infringement of them. Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New Filing
January 1999
Ruling – Pan and Scan
Batjac v. UAV. In case of first impression, Los Angeles judge finds that
the "pan-and-scan" reduction of the film "McClintock" from wide-screen
to video format is sufficiently original to warrant copyright
protection. Ruling CD California. Full Story Film New Filing June
2000
Ruling – Polydoros
Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox. Non-celebrity whose name and
likeness were used in a fictional movie about sandlot baseball has no
invasion of privacy, negligence or defamation claim. Ruling California
Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New Filing October 1997
Ruling – Regarding Henry
Joan and John Cox v. Paramount. Indiana couple lose claim that
"Regarding Henry" was based on wife's unpublished manuscript of book
about husband's motorcycle accident. Ruling SD New York. Full Story
Film New Filing July 1997
Ruling – Rounders
Grosso v. Miramax. Screenwriter’s claim that the ideas for “Rounders”
were stolen from his screenplay, “The Shell Game,” survive as breach of
implied contract claim, though not as copyright claim. Ruling 9th
Circuit. Full Story Film Ruling October 2004
Ruling – Set it Off
Christopher Robinson v. New Line Cinema. Circuit overturns summary
judgment for defense over alleged copying of script for "Set It Off,"
saying theory of access and claim of similarity were not so far-fetched
as to permit dismissal. Ruling 4th Circuit. Full Story Film New
Filing June 2000
Ruling – Stepmom
Silvers v. Sony. In case of first impression, court in “Stepmom”
plagiarism suit says assignment of copyright cause of action without
underlying copyright is valid. Ruling 9th Circuit. Full Story Film New
Filing July 2003
Ruling – Streetscenes
Streetscenes et al. v. ITC Entertainment, Inc. et al. Citing speculative
value of unmade entertainment products, court reverses part of damage
award in case where production company was found liable for behavior of
individual producer; does not reverse punitive award, however, saying
remand would only “kill more trees” confirming defendants’ bad behavior.
Ruling California Court of Appeal. Full Story Film New Filing January
2003
Ruling – Stromback
Stromback v. New Line. Plaintiff’s dark and humorless screenplay
adaptation of his own poem is not substantially similar to defendants’
Adam Sandler-starring comedy “Little Nicky.” Ruling 6th Circuit. Full
Story
Ruling – The Catcher
Bencich, Friedman v. Hoffman. Authorship of treatment vests writer with
co-authorship of resulting script and, absent other arrangements,
separate right to license script to be made into film. Ruling DC
Arizona. Full Story Film New Filing June 2000
Ruling – The Negotiator
Sam Bailey v. New Regency, et al. Plaintiff who said "The Negotiator"
infringed on his script failed to present sufficient evidence that date
on defendant's pre-existing script was false. Ruling 4th Circuit. Full
Story Film New Filing October 2000
Ruling – There’s Something About Mary
Vince Offer v. Peter Farrely, 20th Century Fox. Plaintiff can't show
"There's Something About Mary" was based on his "sick, not funny" skits,
judge says; alleged conduit didn't see Mary script until months after it
was finished. Ruling CD California. Full Story Film New Filing April
2000
Ruling – Welles Oscar
Beatrice Welles v. AMPAS. Daughter of the late Orson Welles wins the
right to sell her father’s 1942 Academy Award because Academy botched
the agreement that would have prevented her from doing so. Ruling CD
California. Full Story Film Ruling April 2004
Ruling – Wellman
Wellman v. Writer's Guild. Circuit upholds Guild arbitration denying
screenwriter credit on the film "Fair Game." Ruling 9th US Circuit. Full
Story Film New Filing July 1998
Ruling – WGA Arbitration
New Line v. WGA. Dispute over whether writers had oral contract covering
their work on cancelled Michael Richards movie project is covered by
terms of WGA agreement and arbitrator must decide if it is arbitrable.
Ruling CD California. Full Story Film New Filing October 1997
the list is endless....http://tinyurl.com/99nll
The Starmaker
the embed
> The Starmaker wrote:
Pardon moi, but.....define "steal."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
"to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or
acknowledgment."
Yuh-huh.
The Starmaker
he's probably editing wiki/dictionary as I speak...
steal/ A metsieh far a ganef!!!!
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> Hey idiot, you can't steal ideas, only copy them. To steal it you'd have
>> to deprive the other guy of his copy somehow.
> Definitions of steal on the Web:
> * take without the owner's consent;
Yes, take, as in deprive of, as in they don't have it anymore.
Extravagan
> "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or
> acknowledgment."
A colloquial use that bears no relation to the legal definition.
Extravagan
> the embed wrote:
>> "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or
>> acknowledgment."
A colloqual definition with no relation to the meaning of the word in
legalese.
> [false accusation of dishonesty deleted]
No, you're the liar.
the embed
Cite the legal definition.
the embed
I'll do it for you:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm
"the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit
either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or
carrying away is required. "
Now, how does this apply to intellectual property law?
Extravagan
> "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> someone else with intent to deprive
And copying does not deprive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
the embed
Didn't watch it.
Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive. If you
print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
earnings. If you copy a video or a recording, you have deprived the
[big bad evil] corporation of their earnings.
Professor Bubba
<365ca3c7-6a06-451b...@i12g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > the embed wrote:
> > > "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> > > someone else with intent to deprive
> >
> > And copying does not deprive.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
>
> Didn't watch it.
>
> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad. Whether a
sale would have happened is another matter entirely. There's no
guarantee that someone who downloads i.p. would have bought it
otherwise, and there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to the
contrary.
> If you
> print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> earnings.
Bad example, as you don't make any money posting here. (If you do,
please tell us how we can hook up wid dat.)
> If you copy a video or a recording, you have deprived the
> [big bad evil] corporation of their earnings.
That's true if you were going to buy it and if it's not a copy for
personal use of something you bought. I have every right to make a
copy for personal use, or for archival purposes, of something I own.
There are forces trying to change that.
the embed
> In article
> <365ca3c7-6a06-451b-aae9-c616195ec...@i12g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > > the embed wrote:
> > > > "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> > > > someone else with intent to deprive
>
> > > And copying does not deprive.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
>
> > Didn't watch it.
>
> > Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>
> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
That's the point of my example. Whether or not people actually make
money from a post isn't.
>Whether a
> sale would have happened is another matter entirely. There's no
> guarantee that someone who downloads i.p. would have bought it
> otherwise, and there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> > If you
> > print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> > earnings.
>
> Bad example, as you don't make any money posting here. (If you do,
> please tell us how we can hook up wid dat.)
>
> > If you copy a video or a recording, you have deprived the
> > [big bad evil] corporation of their earnings.
>
> That's true if you were going to buy it and if it's not a copy for
> personal use of something you bought.
My point.
>I have every right to make a
> copy for personal use, or for archival purposes, of something I own.
> There are forces trying to change that.
Then the argument becomes "Can you steal something you own."
the embed
> In article
> <365ca3c7-6a06-451b-aae9-c616195ec...@i12g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > > the embed wrote:
> > > > "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> > > > someone else with intent to deprive
>
> > > And copying does not deprive.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
>
> > Didn't watch it.
>
> > Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>
> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad. Whether a
> sale would have happened is another matter entirely. There's no
> guarantee that someone who downloads i.p. would have bought it
> otherwise, and there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> > If you
> > print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> > earnings.
>
> Bad example, as you don't make any money posting here. (If you do,
> please tell us how we can hook up wid dat.)
I'm going to amend this. I think if you make money off my posting,
it's irrelevant whether or not I do. You'd still be making money off
my product.
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
No? Yes? No?
Professor Bubba
<962663b3-c5d7-485b...@f20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thing is, I was agreeing with you throughout, but now you've managed to
confuse me. The only thing I can add is that jewelry has monetary
value, even as mere raw material; a post here has none.
the embed
wrote:
> In article
> <962663b3-c5d7-485b-83ee-f193d51f8...@f20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
One qualifies as intellectual property, the other qualifies as real
property.
If Person A authored a poem and posted it online, and Person B
reprinted it and profitted from it, a commercial value would thus be
established for the content. Therefore, creative intellectual property
would have been stolen for profit.
Extravagan
> On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
> Didn't watch it.
Idiot.
> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
No, it isn't.
> If you print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> earnings.
If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
yours, I have deprived you of earnings. It's called "competition".
There is no entitlement to future sales -- there cannot be, since if
there were the consequences would clearly be insane.
Extravagan
> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>
> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
Extravagan
>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
> That's the point of my example.
Ludicrous. Any competition in the marketplace potentially deprives
businesses of sales they otherwise might have made. So either you have
to be a communist or you have to accept that there's nothing inherently
wrong with "denying them income from a sale", assuming it was a
potential future sale.
Extravagan
> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Ludicrous. There's no entitlement to future sales. Else I'd be "bad" if
I decided I didn't like Julie and Julia and therefore would not buy it
on DVD, or whatever.
> I'm going to amend this. I think if you make money off my posting,
> it's irrelevant whether or not I do. You'd still be making money off
> my product.
And Microsoft makes money off the products of IBM, HP, Dell, etc. by
selling software for their computers. So do Electronic Arts, Adobe, and
other companies.
Google and Amazon make money off Comcast, Verizon, and other internet
providers by selling services you can access over their internet
connections.
For that matter, Comcast, Verizon, and others make money off Google and
Amazon by selling services you can use to access Google and Amazon.
Businesses make money off other businesses' products and services all
the time, often without actually paying those other businesses. As with
the latter example, businesses in a space sometimes even make each
others' services more valuable.
In the real world, economics and business are not zero-sum games, and
"using" something without paying for it (where the thing "used" is not
actually consumed by this "use" -- else there could be a "tragedy of the
commons") should be perfectly acceptable.
Extravagan
> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Nonsense. There is no entitlement to potential future sales.
> No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
> intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
>
> No? Yes? No?
Yes, different. In the latter case you no longer have the piece of
jewelry. If your usenet post is printed and sold by someone, you still
have your copy, and Google's archive still has its, etc.
Extravagan
> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as entitlement to potential future sales.
>> No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
>> intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
> Thing is, I was agreeing with you throughout, but now you've managed to
> confuse me.
That's what happens when you try to make sense of so-called
"intellectual property". Because it goes against the basic laws of
economics.
> The only thing I can add is that jewelry has monetary
> value, even as mere raw material; a post here has none.
The big thing you keep missing is that if jewelry is taken, it
disappears; you no longer have it. If information is copied you both do.
Perhaps you should watch that fucking video link I posted?
What if he didn't steal your piece of jewelry, but instead got his own
raw materials (e.g. diamonds, gold) and tools and used them to make an
exact replica and sold that?
That's different, isn't it, because you still have yours. Clearly there
can be no property rights violation here too, since he didn't take
anything of yours and presumably paid for his own tools and raw materials.
Arguably there could be a privacy invasion if he had to spy on you to
copy your jewelry. If you displayed it publicly at some point though, no
privacy invasion inherent in duplicating its appearance.
Now how is it different if you replace jewelry with "a disc with a
particular pattern of bumps on its surface" and gold and diamonds with
plastic, and used different tools?
Doesn't seem different to me.
Extravagan
> On Apr 11, 11:11 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
> wrote:
>> the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Ridiculous. There can be no entitlement to potential future sales.
> If Person A authored a poem and posted it online, and Person B
> reprinted it and profitted from it, a commercial value would thus be
> established for the content. Therefore, creative intellectual property
> would have been stolen for profit.
Nonsense. Where's the theft here? Where's there something missing? What
did person A have before that they lack now?
All this moaning about "intellectual property theft" these days looks an
awful lot like a case of people counting their chickens (sales) before
they've hatched, and then going postal when they get fewer than they
expected, to me.
the embed
> the embed wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:11 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
> >>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>
> Ridiculous. There can be no entitlement to potential future sales.
Are you certain about that? Can you whip up a cite?
>
> > If Person A authored a poem and posted it online, and Person B
> > reprinted it and profitted from it, a commercial value would thus be
> > established for the content. Therefore, creative intellectual property
> > would have been stolen for profit.
>
> Nonsense. Where's the theft here? Where's there something missing? What
> did person A have before that they lack now?
[He said "nonsense," didn't he?]
A saleable, albeit intangible, product of which you've deprived
someone of their exclusive rights to profit.
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Copyright/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Anything here support your position?
>
> All this moaning about "intellectual property theft" these days looks an
> awful lot like a case of people counting their chickens (sales) before
> they've hatched, and then going postal when they get fewer than they
> expected, to me.
Huh?
The Starmaker
>
> In article
> <365ca3c7-6a06-451b...@i12g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > > the embed wrote:
> > > > "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> > > > someone else with intent to deprive
> > >
> > > And copying does not deprive.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
> >
> > Didn't watch it.
> >
> > Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>
> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad. Whether a
> sale would have happened is another matter entirely. There's no
> guarantee that someone who downloads i.p. would have bought it
> otherwise, and there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> > If you
> > print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> > earnings.
>
> Bad example, as you don't make any money posting here. (If you do,
> please tell us how we can hook up wid dat.)
If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
'automatically' copies all your postings from here and....you can place ads around the postings..
http://leequerv.blogspot.com/2010/04/altgossipcelebrities-12-new-messages-in.html
http://smfinance4.blogspot.com/2010/04/altgossipcelebrities-25-new-messages-in_04.html
The Starmaker
I can take *everything* you say
put it on T-shirt
and sell it.
The Starmaker
i wanna put "No? Yes? No?" on a t-shirt.
Don't tell me it belongs to you...
just keep it coming..
You know, Donald Trump had to trademark "You're Fired" to keep other TV people from using
those two words...
The Starmaker
Are you kidding, the stuff she writes is Gold!
The Starmaker
Then why are lawyers gettin into
http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/
to teach Hollywood studios How To Steal...
The Starmaker
In fact, ...anyone can make money from your posting by simply placing an ad here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/topics?hl=en&lnk
Sponcered Links..
the embed
> Professor Bubba wrote:
>
> > In article
> > the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 10:47 am, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > > > the embed wrote:
> > > > > "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to
> > > > > someone else with intent to deprive
>
> > > > And copying does not deprive.
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
>
> > > Didn't watch it.
>
> > > Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>
> > It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad. Whether a
> > sale would have happened is another matter entirely. There's no
> > guarantee that someone who downloads i.p. would have bought it
> > otherwise, and there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to the
> > contrary.
>
> > > If you
> > > print my post and sell it as your own, you have deprived me of
> > > earnings.
>
> > Bad example, as you don't make any money posting here. (If you do,
> > please tell us how we can hook up wid dat.)
>
> If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone is blogging posts?
The Starmaker
>
> Someone is blogging posts?
Bloggers have a need for 'content'...
instead of writing their own
they use applications/programs
that archive Usenet postings
and automatically gets published
on their blogs..
then they place ads around it.
So they get paid for your postings...
But google gets paid too..
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
Guess that makes him wrong.
ROTF.
Professor Bubba
<1906ae0c-a1ed-49d8...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, the
embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Guess that makes him wrong.
I'm wrong only if you're doing all that bullshit about the blogging,
etc. Otherwise, not.
the embed
> In article
> <1906ae0c-a1ed-49d8-b071-a5ee8dc38...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, the
>
> embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Guess that makes him wrong.
>
> I'm wrong only if you're doing all that bullshit about the blogging,
> etc. Otherwise, not.
And I'm right if you are.
Isn't that a lovely compromise?
Extravagan
> On Apr 12, 12:14 pm, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> There can be no entitlement to potential future sales.
> Are you certain about that? Can you whip up a cite?
I don't need a cite, since I proved it by basic reasoning.
Since that reasoning obviously flew right over your head, I'll repeat it
for you:
If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
yours, I have deprived you of potential future sales. This is called
"competition".
There is no entitlement to future sales -- there cannot be, since if
there were the consequences would clearly be insane.
>> Nonsense. Where's the theft here? Where's there something missing? What
>> did person A have before that they lack now?
> A saleable, albeit intangible, product
That they still have.
>> All this moaning about "intellectual property theft" these days looks an
>> awful lot like a case of people counting their chickens (sales) before
>> they've hatched, and then going postal when they get fewer than they
>> expected, to me.
> Huh?
I guess that's the best we can expect from someone of your low IQ.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> All this moaning about "intellectual property theft" these days looks an
>> awful lot like a case of people counting their chickens (sales) before
>> they've hatched, and then going postal when they get fewer than they
>> expected, to me.
> Then why are lawyers gettin into
Doesn't make it theft. It just means corporate lobbyists and lawyers are
running the show instead of we the people.
Extravagan
> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as entitlement to potential future sales.
>>> No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
>>> intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
>> Thing is, I was agreeing with you throughout, but now you've managed to
>> confuse me.
That's what happens when you try to make sense of so-called
"intellectual property". Because it goes against the basic laws of
economics.
> Are you kidding, the stuff she writes is Gold!
The big thing you keep missing is that if jewelry is taken, it
Extravagan
> the embed wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Nonsense. There is no entitlement to potential future sales.
>> No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
>> intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
>>
>> No? Yes? No?
Yes, different. In the latter case you no longer have the piece of
jewelry. If your usenet post is printed and sold by someone, you still
have your copy, and Google's archive still has its, etc.
> i wanna put "No? Yes? No?" on a t-shirt.
>
> Don't tell me it belongs to you...
It doesn't. Logically, it can't.
Extravagan
> the embed wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Ludicrous. There's no entitlement to future sales. Else I'd be "bad" if
I decided I didn't like Julie and Julia and therefore would not buy it
on DVD, or whatever.
>> I'm going to amend this. I think if you make money off my posting,
>> it's irrelevant whether or not I do. You'd still be making money off
>> my product.
And Microsoft makes money off the products of IBM, HP, Dell, etc. by
selling software for their computers. So do Electronic Arts, Adobe, and
other companies.
Google and Amazon make money off Comcast, Verizon, and other internet
providers by selling services you can access over their internet
connections.
For that matter, Comcast, Verizon, and others make money off Google and
Amazon by selling services you can use to access Google and Amazon.
Businesses make money off other businesses' products and services all
the time, often without actually paying those other businesses. As with
the latter example, businesses in a space sometimes even make each
others' services more valuable.
In the real world, economics and business are not zero-sum games, and
"using" something without paying for it (where the thing "used" is not
actually consumed by this "use" -- else there could be a "tragedy of the
commons") should be perfectly acceptable.
> I can take *everything* you say
> put it on T-shirt
> and sell it.
Indeed.
Extravagan
>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
> If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
> 'automatically' copies all your postings from here and....you can place ads around the postings..
> http://leequerv.blogspot.com/2010/04/altgossipcelebrities-12-new-messages-in.html
> http://smfinance4.blogspot.com/2010/04/altgossipcelebrities-25-new-messages-in_04.html
Good one, Starwacko, tell them how to spam google with splogs! Like
their cluttering up this newsgroup with nonsense arguments wasn't bad
enough.
Extravagan
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
> In fact, ...anyone can make money from your posting by simply placing an ad here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/topics?hl=en&lnk
> Sponcered Links..
Spam, spam, spam, spam, green eggs and spam...
Extravagan
> On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
>> If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
>> 'automatically' copies all your postings from here and....you can place ads
>> around the postings..
> Someone is blogging posts?
Spammers are.
Extravagan
> the embed wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
>>> If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
>>> 'automatically' copies all your postings from here and.... - Show quoted text -
>> Someone is blogging posts?
> Bloggers have a need for 'content'...
Sploggers have a need for 'content'.
Extravagan
> On Apr 12, 2:52 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> the embed wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 1:45 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
What are you two, communists or something?
>>>> If you want to get paid for posting here, you need to set up a website/blog that
>>>> 'automatically' copies all your postings from here and....
>>> Someone is blogging posts?
>> Bloggers have a need for 'content'...
> Guess [insult deleted]
Wrong!
What Starwacko is describing is called "splogging": spammy blogging.
It's typically plagiarism as well as spamming.
You'd better not let me catch either of you doing it.
Professor Bubba
<extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Professor Bubba wrote:
> >> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
> >> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>
> Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
> for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
It would behoove you to stop rattling on like a demented parrot with
this "there can be no entitlement to future sales" stuff. Nobody is
talking about guaranteeing sales. What is guaranteed is the right to
profit from one's own work. If it sells, fine.
My point -- if you would care to re-read all of this, which I wouldn't
-- is that you cannot be deprived of income if the people doing the
copying wouldn't have bought your stuff in the first place.
> What are you two, communists or something?
Not me. Can't speak for the other guy.
Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
acknowledgement?
the embed
wrote:
> In article <hq25d1$ds...@speranza.aioe.org>, Extravagan
> > >>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
> > >> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>
> > Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
> > for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
>
> It would behoove you to stop rattling on like a demented parrot with
> this "there can be no entitlement to future sales" stuff. Nobody is
> talking about guaranteeing sales. What is guaranteed is the right to
> profit from one's own work. If it sells, fine.
>
> My point -- if you would care to re-read all of this, which I wouldn't
> -- is that you cannot be deprived of income if the people doing the
> copying wouldn't have bought your stuff in the first place.
And my additional point is that if the creator cannot sell it, but the
person copying it subsequently sells it, the person copying the work
has established a commercial value for and profitted from someone
else's product.
>
> > What are you two, communists or something?
>
> Not me. Can't speak for the other guy.
>
> Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
> acknowledgement?
Heh.
The Starmaker
and you also don't know the definition of "spam", ...where did you get your GED from, state prison?
the embed
> Extravagan wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >> Professor Bubba wrote:
> > >>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
> > >>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>
> > Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
> > for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
>
> > What are you two, communists or something?
>
> > > In fact, ...anyone can make money from your posting by simply placing an ad here:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/topics?hl=en&lnk
> > > Sponcered Links..
>
> > Spam, spam, spam, spam, green eggs and spam...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does one spam their own blog, anyway?!
The Starmaker
That's what they teach at Hamburger U.
The Starmaker
>
> the embed wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 12:14 pm, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> >> There can be no entitlement to potential future sales.
> > Are you certain about that? Can you whip up a cite?
>
> I don't need a cite, since I proved it by basic reasoning.
>
> Since that reasoning obviously flew right over your head, I'll repeat it
> for you:
>
> If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
> yours, I have deprived you of potential future sales. This is called
> "competition".
I like to see you open up a pizza resturant across the street from me,
next day I just burn it down. This is called "competition".
The Starmaker
McDonalds does not allow another McDonalds to open one across the street.
The Starmaker
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Professor Bubba wrote:
> >> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
> >>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>
> Nonsense. There is no such thing as entitlement to potential future sales.
>
> >>> No different than if I created a wonderful piece of jewelry I had no
> >>> intention of selling, and you subsequently stole it and sold it.
> >> Thing is, I was agreeing with you throughout, but now you've managed to
> >> confuse me.
>
> That's what happens when you try to make sense of so-called
> "intellectual property". Because it goes against the basic laws of
> economics.
>
> > Are you kidding, the stuff she writes is Gold!
>
> The big thing you keep missing is that if jewelry is taken, it
> disappears; you no longer have it. If information is copied you both do.
You don't have the copy that was stolen and sold...dummy. Only one person has
the sold copy.
If information is copied with the intent to sell to the studios, and they buy it,
you cannot sell it anymore, it's STOLEN!!! He has the stoled copy that can be sold and
resold, and you have the copy you cannot sell.
How can Reed Martin sell his copy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13050005/
There is something missing in that little head of yours...or someting is loose.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
Universal Studios should sue Reed Martin with running around with an unauthorized copy of their script!
the embed
> Extravagan wrote:
>
> > the embed wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 12:14 pm, Extravagan <extrava...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > >> There can be no entitlement to potential future sales.
> > > Are you certain about that? Can you whip up a cite?
>
> > I don't need a cite, since I proved it by basic reasoning.
Yummy.
>
> > Since that reasoning obviously flew right over your head, I'll repeat it
> > for you:
This entire section of your post flew right by me. Missed it,
entirely. Let's see what we have here:
>
> > If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
> > yours, I have deprived you of potential future sales. This is called
> > "competition".
Yes, however, you have not deprived me of potential future sales by
selling my goods out from under me. One is competition. The other is
theft.
Extravagan
>> If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
>> yours, I have deprived you of potential future sales. This is called
>> "competition".
> I like to see you open up a pizza resturant across the street from me,
> next day I just burn it down. This is called "competition".
No, that is called "arson" and you'd go to jail for it, dummkopf.
Extravagan
>>> Since that reasoning obviously flew right over your head, I'll repeat it
>>> for you:
> This entire section of your post flew right by me. Missed it,
> entirely.
Then shut up, go back, and reread it, and keep rereading it until your
intellect is able to actually grasp its meaning. (Shouldn't take more
than oh, say, forty years or so, given your apparent levels of mental
prowess.)
>>> If you open a pizza restaurant and I open my own across the street from
>>> yours, I have deprived you of potential future sales. This is called
>>> "competition".
> Yes, however, you have not deprived me of potential future sales by
> selling my goods out from under me.
If my pizzas are exact replicas of yours (same ingredients, made the
same way)?
Then it's the same as if my DVDs are exact replicas of yours (same data,
made the same way).
Replicas, though, rather than my having actually raided your inventory
and stolen from it.
Extravagan
>> The big thing you keep missing is that if jewelry is taken, it
>> disappears; you no longer have it. If information is copied you both do.
> has the sold copy.
You're not making any sense. No copy was stolen; in this scenario,
someone sees my jewelry, then gets their own diamonds (or whatever) and
tools and makes their own replica. There's no theft here; the raw
materials were their own property, and they transformed them with their
own labor, so the result is their own property to keep or sell as they
see fit, just as mine is my property.
> If information is copied with the intent to sell to the studios, and they buy it,
> you cannot sell it anymore, it's STOLEN!!!
This isn't making sense. You can't steal information. The closest you
can come is one of these:
* Delete information from someone else's storage media without their
permission. (Vandalism, not theft.)
* Delete it and also keep a copy. This comes closest to taking a
physical item without permission. (Vandalism, not theft.)
* Steal media with a copy of the information on it. (Theft of a disc,
not of "information").
* Take credit for someone else's output. (Plagiarism, not theft.)
> There is [vicious insult deleted]
There is not.
Go to hell.
Extravagan
>>> The big thing you keep missing is that if jewelry is taken, it
>>> disappears; you no longer have it. If information is copied you both do.
>> has the sold copy.
You're not making any sense. No copy was stolen; in this scenario,
someone sees my jewelry, then gets their own diamonds (or whatever) and
tools and makes their own replica. There's no theft here; the raw
materials were their own property, and they transformed them with their
own labor, so the result is their own property to keep or sell as they
see fit, just as mine is my property.
>> If information is copied with the intent to sell to the studios, and they buy it,
>> you cannot sell it anymore, it's STOLEN!!!
This isn't making sense. You can't steal information. The closest you
can come is one of these:
* Delete information from someone else's storage media without their
permission. (Vandalism, not theft.)
* Delete it and also keep a copy. This comes closest to taking a
physical item without permission. (Vandalism, not theft.)
* Steal media with a copy of the information on it. (Theft of a disc,
not of "information").
* Take credit for someone else's output. (Plagiarism, not theft.)
> Universal Studios should sue Reed Martin with running around with an unauthorized copy of their script!
Bollocks.
Extravagan
>>> In fact, ...anyone can make money from your posting by simply placing an ad here:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/topics?hl=en&lnk
>>> Sponcered Links..
>> Spam, spam, spam, spam, green eggs and spam...
Fuck you, spammer.
Extravagan
>>>> In fact, ...anyone can make money from your posting by simply placing an ad here:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/topics?hl=en&lnk
>>>> Sponcered Links..
>>> Spam, spam, spam, spam, green eggs and spam...
> How does one spam their own blog, anyway?!
If the whole blog itself is spam, intended to pollute Google's search
results, that's how, dummkopf.
Extravagan
> <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>>> the embed <gilsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Copying intellectual property without permission is to deprive.
>>>> It is if it denies them income from a sale, and that's bad.
>> Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
>> for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
>
Go fuck yourself.
> What is guaranteed is the right to profit from one's own work.
There is no "right to profit". If there were, then all businesses would
be entitled to succeed; all investments would be entitled to bear fruit;
etc.
Translation: every struggling business, every stock gone down, every
gamble lost, would be eligible for a fucking bailout.
That sort of entitlement culture has already gone way, way too far. Just
look at the trillions recently blown on big banks that behaved badly. If
you were correct, then this entitlement would extend to every Tom, Dick,
and Harry. I could go start Extravagan Donuts and be entitled to turn a
profit simply because I operated a business! If nobody wanted to buy the
donuts, presumably in your world I could go crying to the gov't for a
bailout and expect to receive one!
Fortunately, here in the real world I'd have to file Chapter 11.
There is no entitlement to profit from a business venture or anything
else in particular.
The only entitlement is that you can make something and try to sell it
in the market; the market may buy it or not, and competitors may enter
the market and maybe they will be able to manufacture and sell something
similar at a lower price. If so, them's the breaks. That's called
"capitalism" and if you don't like it I hear the weather's nice in North
Korea this time of the year.
> Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
> acknowledgement?
Because mine is supposed to be the last word on the topic. Why the fuck
didn't you respect that followup-to?
Extravagan
>>> Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
>>> for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
Go fuck yourself.
>> What is guaranteed is the right to profit from one's own work.
There is no "right to profit". If there were, then all businesses would
be entitled to succeed; all investments would be entitled to bear fruit;
etc.
Translation: every struggling business, every stock gone down, every
gamble lost, would be eligible for a fucking bailout.
That sort of entitlement culture has already gone way, way too far. Just
look at the trillions recently blown on big banks that behaved badly. If
you were correct, then this entitlement would extend to every Tom, Dick,
and Harry. I could go start Extravagan Donuts and be entitled to turn a
profit simply because I operated a business! If nobody wanted to buy the
donuts, presumably in your world I could go crying to the gov't for a
bailout and expect to receive one!
Fortunately, here in the real world I'd have to file Chapter 11.
There is no entitlement to profit from a business venture or anything
else in particular.
The only entitlement is that you can make something and try to sell it
in the market; the market may buy it or not, and competitors may enter
the market and maybe they will be able to manufacture and sell something
similar at a lower price. If so, them's the breaks. That's called
"capitalism" and if you don't like it I hear the weather's nice in North
Korea this time of the year.
> And my additional point is that if the creator cannot sell it, but the
> person copying it subsequently sells it, the person copying the work
> has established a commercial value for and profitted from someone
> else's product.
No, they established a commercial value for and profited (note: one 't')
from their own product, which happens to be a knockoff of someone else's
product. Why did theirs succeed while the other failed? Any number of
reasons. The knockoff's price tag perhaps is lower. Or the knockoff is
actually of superior packaging or quality. Perhaps just marketing.
This is how capitalism works. If you come up with something but don't
succeed, others may well figure out how to make it work and succeed in
your stead. Them's the breaks.
Extravagan
>>> Pure and utter nonsense. There can be no entitlement to future sales,
>>> for if there were it would mean no competition allowed in business.
Go fuck yourself.
>> What is guaranteed is the right to profit from one's own work.
There is no "right to profit". If there were, then all businesses would
be entitled to succeed; all investments would be entitled to bear fruit;
etc.
Translation: every struggling business, every stock gone down, every
gamble lost, would be eligible for a fucking bailout.
That sort of entitlement culture has already gone way, way too far. Just
look at the trillions recently blown on big banks that behaved badly. If
you were correct, then this entitlement would extend to every Tom, Dick,
and Harry. I could go start Extravagan Donuts and be entitled to turn a
profit simply because I operated a business! If nobody wanted to buy the
donuts, presumably in your world I could go crying to the gov't for a
bailout and expect to receive one!
Fortunately, here in the real world I'd have to file Chapter 11.
There is no entitlement to profit from a business venture or anything
else in particular.
The only entitlement is that you can make something and try to sell it
in the market; the market may buy it or not, and competitors may enter
the market and maybe they will be able to manufacture and sell something
similar at a lower price. If so, them's the breaks. That's called
"capitalism" and if you don't like it I hear the weather's nice in North
Korea this time of the year.
>> Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
>> acknowledgement?
> [insult deleted]
Because mine is supposed to be the last word on the topic. Why the fuck
didn't you respect that followup-to, dummkopf?
Professor Bubba
<extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
> > acknowledgement?
>
> Because mine is supposed to be the last word on the topic. Why the fuck
> didn't you respect that followup-to?
That doesn't even come close to making the cut. Plonk.
BTW, you can have your followup back now.
The Starmaker
A "knock off (two words, not one bimbo) is an 'unauthorized copy'.
How many times did you take the GED test?
The Starmaker
Anything to keep you from openning a pizza across the street from me is called 'standard business practices'.
Go ahead, open a pizza place accross the street from me...see what happens to you.
First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
Then I sell your wife on Sunset Blvd.
Go ahead, make my day...bimbo.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
You actually post in rec.arts.tv?
I just came in to rec.arts.tv to clean up the place, but I didn't know that there was garbage like you in here...
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
What kind of medication are people taking nowadays?
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
More times than he took the LSAT, apparently.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> I like to see you open up a pizza resturant across the street from me,
>>> next day I just burn it down. This is called "competition".
>> No, that is called "arson" and you'd go to jail for it, dummkopf.
> Anything to keep you from openning a pizza across the street from me is called
> 'standard business practices'.
No. Standard business practices are to try to compete with the business
across the street from you, say by offering a better product or a
cheaper one. What you're describing is how the mob operates.
> Go ahead, open a pizza place accross the street from me...see what happens to you.
>
> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
I don't respond well to threats.
Extravagan
Yes.
> I just came in to rec.arts.tv to clean up the place, but I
> didn't know [insult deleted]
And you still don't. That insult is not true. It's a lie. I'm quite
different from what you just claimed.
Extravagan
No, you're the crazy one.
Go to hell.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> succeed, others may well figure out how to make it work and succeed in
>> your stead. Them's the breaks.
> deleted]
You are wrong about me.
As for an "unauthorized copy", I maintain that there is nothing morally
wrong with making copies, "authorized" or not.
Extravagan
>> deleted]
> [insult deleted]
Both of you are, of course, dead wrong about me.
Meanwhile I maintain that there is nothing morally wrong with making
copies, "authorized" or otherwise.
In fact there is something morally wrong with trying to restrict such
and create artificial monopolies.
Extravagan
> <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>>> Now why the fuck did you redirect f'ups to alt.dev.null without
>>> acknowledgement?
>> Because mine is supposed to be the last word on the topic. Why the fuck
>> didn't you respect that followup-to?
Your mother.
Meanwhile, copying STILL is not theft!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
The Starmaker
You don't respond "well" to *anything*, 'anyone' post!
Do you have audio hallucinations?
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
A cartoon to substantiate his moral conviction that stealing is okay.
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps he should post in the group of writers who fuck for cred.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>> I don't respond well to threats.
No, you're the lunatic.
Extravagan
> On Apr 15, 6:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> burbled:
>> Extravagan wrote:
>>> The Starmaker may be going to jail for uttering threats:
>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>> I don't respond well to threats.
No, you're the lunatic.
> A cartoon to substantiate his moral conviction that stealing is okay.
I have no such moral conviction. As I explained before, copying is not
theft.
As others have also explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
Extravagan
> On Apr 15, 8:25 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> vomited forth:
>> On Apr 15, 6:30 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> spewed:
>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker may very well serve jail time for saying:
>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
No, you're the lunatic.
>> A cartoon to substantiate his moral conviction that stealing is okay.
>> [more Google Groups crufties deleted]
I have no such moral conviction. As I explained before, copying is not
theft.
As others have also explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
> Perhaps he [implied insult deleted]
No, you're the whore.
None of your insults are true of me.
The Starmaker
You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results".
Think about this quote for a second and ask yourself,
does this quote apply to the way you use Followup-To: alt.dev.null?
the embed
He obviously has mental issues.
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
He angrily tries to justify stealing and he's oddly offended by
insults to the other group.
Eat shit. Die.
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
And save the youtube video. Because if I ever catch you stealing from
me, you're going to need it. Most impressive.
[Fucktard.]
The Starmaker
What are you going to do, drive him crazy!
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone has already driven him crazy. So I'd just sue him and prove my
case.
the embed
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just thinking about it gives me a migraine.....
The Starmaker
He's plead insanity..
You got a 'legal problem', let me handle it.
Just give me the name, home address and the schools their children go
to.
The Enforcer
the embed
Is there a limit to the amount of times a defendant can enter that
plea?!
The Starmaker
You mean...if he *recovers*...is that possible? It's a forever thing...you didn't
see One Flew Over The
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi7NHoPJm2U
I'll put a pillow over his head if it will make you happy.
The Starmaker
the embed
It's a forever thing, all right.
> I'll put a pillow over his head if it will make you happy.
We've been down this road before. Hamburger Boy has incurable issues.
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>> No, you're the lunatic.
> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
You keep not directing your replies there.
> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatic.
List of RAT's biggest trolls:
The Starmaker
trotsky
cloddreamer
Newport
Thanatos
Patty Winter
Homophobic right wingnut #1
Homophobic right wingnut #2
Homophobic right wingnut #3
I see Starwacko is in distinguished company.
Extravagan
> On Apr 16, 2:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Extravagan wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>>> No, you're the lunatic.
>> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
You keep failing to send your replies there.
>> [insult deleted]
> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatics.
Extravagan
> On Apr 16, 3:49 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 2:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>>>> No, you're the lunatic.
>>> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
You keep failing to direct your replies there.
>>> [insult deleted]
>> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatics.
> He angrily tries to justify stealing
No, I do not. I've explained repeatedly that copying is not theft. That
this keeps failing to penetrate your thick skull says more about you
than it does about me.
Oh, and I've remained calm throughout, while the two of you are in a
foaming frenzy.
> Eat shit. Die.
I refuse.
Extravagan
> On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 3:49 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 2:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>>>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>>>>> No, you're the lunatic.
>>>> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
And you keep failing to direct your replies there as instructed.
>>>> [insult deleted]
>>> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatics.
>> He angrily tries to justify stealing
I do not. I have remained calm throughout and what I have been
explaining is that copying is NOT stealing.
>> Eat shit. Die.
I refuse.
> And save the youtube video. Because if I ever catch you stealing from
> me, you're going to need it. Most impressive.
>
> [insult deleted]
Wrong-o.
Extravagan
> the embed wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 3:49 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 16, 2:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>>>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>>>>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>>>>>> No, you're the lunatic.
>>>>> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
And you keep failing to honor it. Why?
>>>>> [insult deleted]
>>>> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatics.
>>> He angrily tries to justify stealing
I do not. I calmly try to explain that there's a difference between
copying and theft -- theft leaves one less thing left.
>>> Eat shit. Die.
I refuse.
>> [insults and threats deleted]
> [threat deleted]
I don't respond well to threats.
Extravagan
> On Apr 16, 5:00 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> the embed wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 16, 3:49 pm, the embed <gilsharo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Extravagan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> First I burn down your store. Then I burn down your house, with your children in it.
>>>>>>>>> I don't respond well to threats.
>>>>>>>> [vicious insults deleted]
>>>>>>> No, you're the lunatic.
>>>>>> You keep using Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Of course I do, since I know whatever you post in reply is going to be
stupid and undeserving of propagation.
>>>>>> [insult deleted]
>>>>> [insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatics.
>>>> He angrily tries to justify stealing
I do not. I calmly try to explain that copying is not theft.
>>> [insults and threats deleted]
>> [threat deleted]
> [threatens to sue me]
For what, arguing with you on usenet instead of taking your word as
Gospel? Good luck trying that argument on a judge or a jury!
P.S. I don't respond well to threats.
P.P.S. List of RAT's biggest trolls: